Question 2:It continues at the link, where you can read on if you like. I'll stop here. Just copying and pasting is making me ill...
I have heard you justify Old Testament violence on the basis that... they were obeying God’s command.... This resembles a bit on how Muslims define morality and justify the violence of Muhammad and other morally questionable actions... Do you see any difference between your justification of OT violence and Islamic justification of Muhammand and violent verses of the Quran?..
Dr. Craig responds:
According to the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament), when God called forth his people out of slavery in Egypt and back to the land of their forefathers, he directed them to kill all the Canaanite clans who were living in the land (Deut. 7.1-2; 20.16-18). The destruction was to be complete: every man, woman, and child was to be killed. The book of Joshua tells the story of Israel’s carrying out God’s command in city after city throughout Canaan...
The question of biblical inerrancy is an important one, but it’s not like the existence of God or the deity of Christ! If we Christians can’t find a good answer to the question before us and are, moreover, persuaded that such a command is inconsistent with God’s nature, then we’ll have to give up biblical inerrancy...
Since God doesn’t issue commands to Himself, He has no moral duties to fulfill. He is certainly not subject to the same moral obligations and prohibitions that we are. For example, I have no right to take an innocent life. For me to do so would be murder. But God has no such prohibition. He can give and take life as He chooses...
So the problem isn’t that God ended the Canaanites’ lives. The problem is that He commanded the Israeli soldiers to end them. Isn’t that like commanding someone to commit murder? No, it’s not. Rather, since our moral duties are determined by God’s commands, it is commanding someone to do something which, in the absence of a divine command, would have been murder. The act was morally obligatory for the Israeli soldiers in virtue of God’s command, even though, had they undertaken it on their on initiative, it would have been wrong...
But why take the lives of innocent children? .. God knew that if these Canaanite children were allowed to live, they would spell the undoing of Israel... Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God’s grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven’s incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives...
29 April 2011
Christian theologian defends genocide and infanticide
Excerpts from an essay by William Lane Craig at his "Reasonable Faith" website:
It's truly remarkable how religion will facilitate the mental gymnastics required to justify the unjustifiable. And then condemn the atheist as "immoral" because he believes in no God and can therefore have no basis for understanding right and wrong.
ReplyDeleteVile. So let's see, the invisible tyrant in the sky sets up absolute moral laws that you must never break to be good and holy, but it's okay to ignore those laws when you listen to the voices in your head.
ReplyDeleteIt's amazing that a bronze age tribal compilation of mythology is defended in this age as "inerrant".
desperate theologians, trying to make excuses for God.
ReplyDeleteI will try to explain this biblically, & as briefly as possible and still get the point across.
You aren't required to believe it, but this is the answer the bible gives.
In Genesis 6:4, some angels rebelled and came to earth and mated with mankind. The offspring were hybrids (abominations).
They were the "mighty men of renown". You see the same stories of hybrids in Greek mythology.
In Numbers 13:32,33 the report came back that the land was full of these hybrids.
They were killed because they were not human.
Same thing with the flood. The world was destroyed because of the chimera.
Genesis 6:9 says Noah was "perfect in his generations", meaning his bloodline had not been defiled.
Thus, Noah and his family were spared.
Again, belief is your own choice; But the answer comes from the source instead of some theologian.
Wow, that is an impressive example of twisting an ancient Hebrew document to try and fit modern Western ideas of logic and morality. I wonder if he can even see how badly he's splitting hairs. I'd rather just admit that the God of the Old Testament could be really bloodthirsty, and it doesn't jive with later parts of the Bible.
ReplyDeleteThe best analogy I've got for it is the programming term 'deprecation'. According to Wiki: "The term deprecation is applied to software features that are superseded and should be avoided. Although deprecated features remain in the current version, their use may raise warning messages recommending alternative practices, and deprecation may indicate that the feature will be removed in the future."
Jesus states explicitly several times that the old law is superseded by his teaching. The Old Testament is deprecated. It's still useful and interesting as a religious text, but the laws and the implied moral code are no longer authoritative. There's even parts of them that very obviously don't work when compared to the New Testament. This would be one of them.
(It goes right along with all the stuff about selling one's daughter into slavery, wearing tassels on the corners of garments, and not eating pork. It always annoys me when people try to throw it in the face of modern day Christians, with the implication that we don't know our own texts. Christians have known that it's not applicable since the first century AD, I guess Christian-bashers still haven't made the connection.)
"You aren't required to believe it, but this is the answer the bible gives."
ReplyDeleteI'm not required to believe it?? Thanks!
"It always annoys me when people try to throw it in the face of modern day Christians, with the implication that we don't know our own texts. Christians have known that it's not applicable since the first century AD, I guess Christian-bashers still haven't made the connection"
Not just bashers. Some christian theologians too. Did you read the post and who it quotes?
I would like to point out that the guy in this article is completely wrong, and does not represent a Biblical viewpoint. The real reason for God's telling the Israelites to wipe out the people of Canaan? Because they were sinning against him, because they were refusing to worship him and worshiping idols instead. It's the same reason God sent the flood on the earth, and it's what we all deserve as sinful and rebellious human beings. When we say that what God did was terrible and inhumane, we're judging him based on our own ideas, when really, we're in no position to judge him.
ReplyDeleteAnd I'd also like to say that the God of the OT and NT are one and the same person; those who say that God of the OT isn't a merciful God miss the incredibly numerous passages that talk about God's mercy and love at length.
But I totally agree; this guy is totally wrong.
Jesus states explicitly several times that the old law is superseded by his teaching.
ReplyDeleteActually what he's recorded as having said was:
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 5:17-19).
And:
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier [matters] of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone" (Matt. 23:23; emphasis added).
Sometimes we forget that Jesus was a devout and observant Jew. It was Paul who decided it was time to throw out the Law.
--Swift Loris
Does no one read the Bible? Israel disobeyed God's command to wipe out the Canaanites, and it turned out badly.
ReplyDeleteAll of humanity deserves destruction, but God (in His love) has laid down His own life to save us, and (in His mercy) has given us time to repent. Should we then praise Him for delivering us from our sins, or condemn Him for what we judge to be His sins?
Loris, you quote scripture without seeming to know the meaning.
ReplyDeleteThe Mosaic law would not pass "till all be fulfilled". Most of the law pointed to Jesus (and foreshadowed what he would accomplish with the forgiving of sins) and he was the one that fulfilled and brought that law covenant to completion. The laws were put in place to guide people until the Messiah came with a higher law based on principles that could easily be seen by following his example.
And in Matt 23:23, he was simply saying that the Pharisees were missing the higher principles that guided the specific laws. Until Jesus died, yes, they needed to follow the old law covenant, but not without the mercy and faith.
And about the issue with Paul... Jesus himself said “I have many things yet to say to you, but you are not able to bear them at present" Matt 16:12. Its hard to swallow a centuries old way of life coming to end. They still needed to see the complete fulfillment of prophecy regarding his death and resurrection to begin to move on and accept the new covenant. Paul was chosen to announce the things that the old law covenant pointed to (its fulfillment and completion), but was hard to accept for the Jews of the time.
And the guy in the article is practically Bible illiterate...
ReplyDeleteWithout some understanding, you come up with misguided explanations like this one.
^Bob - "Israel disobeyed God's command to wipe out the Canaanites, and it turned out badly."
ReplyDeleteI don't have a Bible handy, but the theologian's quote is "The destruction was to be complete: every man, woman, and child was to be killed. The book of Joshua tells the story of Israel’s carrying out God’s command in city after city throughout Canaan."
Sounds like they DID kill the Cananites.
I'm not trying to disrespect you, but what you say and what he says sounds like different things.
Ezra
Another possibility: the OT and NT were both written by people.
ReplyDeleteThe iron age goat herds wrote barbaric, unforgiving screeds, in line with their cultural environment; and the more cosmopolitans Hebrews wrote the salvational and transcendent NT under the influence of other religions in the middle east at the time.
Modern christian theologians (attempt to)interpret and justify these ancient texts using the values of the modern world.
Everywhere along the line are the grubby fingerprints of homo sapiens.
It's amazing that so many grown men and women believe in fairy tales.
ReplyDeleteThe laws were put in place to guide people until the Messiah came with a higher law based on principles that could easily be seen by following his example.
ReplyDeleteBut there was the Messiah standing at the bima reading the Torah to the congregation, telling them:
"Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
IOW, he didn't say, "Here I am, the Messiah, you can forget all about that old worn-out Law now."
He didn't specify what he meant by "fulfilled," but he seemed to think fulfillment wouldn't take place "till heaven and earth pass."
Well, we're still here, and he said as long as that's the case, "one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law."
Paul was chosen to announce the things that the old law covenant pointed to (its fulfillment and completion), but was hard to accept for the Jews of the time.
News flash: It's hard to accept for Jews of this time.
In case it wasn't obvious, I'm not commenting on the vile pastor quoted in the post but on MelV., and now your, insistence that the Hebrew Scriptures have been "superceded" by Jesus's teaching. You're welcome to believe that, but you need to realize that when you state it as if it were an established fact in mixed company, it's going to be offensive to some (including some who aren't Jewish, as I am not).
A little humility is in order on your part, IMHO.
--Swift Loris
Loris, DubyaD and I were discussing Christian doctrine and pointing out how this theologian is way out of sync with the religion he claims to be part of. From our point of view, yes, it is pretty well established what role the Old Testament plays in our religion. Jesus spent time on it, Paul spent a lot of time on it, and so did the early church fathers. I'm not sure how that's offended you, that certainly wasn't the intent.
ReplyDeletePete: "Not just bashers. Some christian theologians too. Did you read the post and who it quotes?"
Yes, I usually read posts that I comment on, thanks. My last paragraph was a side comment about Christian-bashers, not about the blog post itself. Was that not clear?
Sorry, if I do not come across as humble. There are limitations to text, and I will admit its irritating to hear various “pastors” or whatnot spew things that only loosely or don’t follow what the Bible says at all (since they claim to be religious people that follow the Bible). I do apologize, my intent is civilized discussion.
ReplyDelete*He didn't specify what he meant by "fulfilled"
This seems to be a hinge upon which our apparent disagreement stems from. I offer this quick look at the word (some other translations use ‘completed’):
Fulfill
1. to carry out, or bring to realization, as a prophecy or promise.
This fits what Jesus did with the law, hundreds of prophecies pointed to him, and he carried them out.
2. to perform or do, as duty; obey or follow, as commands.
This does not really fit, because completely following the law is something they were required to do. They weren’t waiting for someone special so the law could ‘all be followed (or obeyed)’.
3. to satisfy (requirements, obligations, etc.): a book that fulfills a long-felt need.
Also works, because he satisfied the requirement of an even exchange for Adam’s sin.
4. to bring to an end; finish or complete, as a period of time.
And it fits this time period definition because he came on time as prophesied, the Jews were looking for the Messiah at the time, and that’s how Herod knew to send out the order to kill children under a certain age.
5. to develop the full potential of (usually used reflexively).
This is what I referred to before, no need for any more repeated animal sacrifices once he made his sacrifice.
So, in this context, he was saying it would be impossible for the old law covenant to not be fulfilled. He was not bringing a entirely new teaching. He was fulfilling the old, completing it, and bringing in the next phase which was based on the same guiding principles. So anyone that said the Mosaic law covenant wasn’t necessary to follow (at that time) was wrong.
But after his death: “For Christ is the end of the Law”. Romans 10:4
Jesus told this directly to the Jewish chief priests: ”This is why I say to you, The kingdom of God will be taken from you and be given to a nation producing its fruits” Matthew 21:43. Yeah, you’re right, they really didn’t get it, even though it wasn’t really given as a hint or riddle.
With selective quoting, it's fairly easy to misrepresent the tenor of any article. This is not the balanced commentating that I usually enjoy at TYWKIWDBI. :-(
ReplyDeleteQuote: "Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God’s grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven’s incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives."
Like Craig's article, the source texts should be read in context. If we don't believe in God, then of course the underlying morality of salvation will pass us by. But if we don't believe in God, then why pay attention to anything the bible, let alone Craig has to say?
Context is everything.
The Bible is so full of contradictions, I am astounded that people believe that it originated from one entity. It is so obviously a collection of various PEOPLES writing. Heaven and hell are in you, right here, right now. All you do is choose.
ReplyDeleteOh, I know I shouldn't bite, but... This "the bible is full of contradictions" thing often gets trotted out and very rarely with any supporting citations. :-/
ReplyDeleteThe bible is clearly an ancient document/compilation of several ancient documents and thus subject to difficulties in translation and interpretation. But for every alleged contradiction/hole/error/defect there is a corresponding answer. See e.g. http://is.gd/xPQqLO and http://is.gd/YQ8wbG and so on and so on.
I imagine the same is true of other religious texts too. There are scores of people lining up to attack and equal numbers lined up to defend and generally within both sets of people there are those with considerable academic credentials. The assumed knock-down allegation "the bible is full of contradictions" should be tossed into the same intellectual dustbin as "religious people are all idiots".