As a fellow Christian who takes the Old Testament as scripture very seriously, I say with all due respect that trying to evade what the text plaily says does us a great disservice and just gives atheists the upper hand against apologists, which get to accuse us of just cherry picking what we like and throwing out what we don't like. The Old Testament as a whole clearly affirms the fact that even children somtimes suffer consequnces because of the sins of the adults, whom are directly judged by God (Levitcus 26:22, Isaiah 13:18 , Hosea 13:16), in addition to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and the Flood of Noah. Even the New Testament affirms this (Luke 23:28). So trying to dodge the inevitable conculsion that even innocent children can die as a result of God's direct judgement is futile. A more Bibically faithful apologetic answer would be that we all carry personal responsibility, and our sins affect not only ourselves but our family and those around us as well. If I take my family out for a car ride while I am drunk and then the car crashes and we all die, I am the one who sinned and who is to blame, however my family still had to suffer the consequence of my irresponsible sin and behavior. I tend to look at God's judgement in the Bible in the same way. The Cannanites were being judged for their morally debauched practices (which is a historical fact, even non-Bibical sources attest to this) but unfortunately in the midst of their destruction children also had to suffer the consequnces. Would that make the Conquest of Cannan as a whole morally unjustifiable? Well, in that case my question would be this: Was the allied invasion of Nazi Germany justified? I believe most people would say yes. But innocent german children died during it as well, didn't they? Unfortunately that's just the sad reality of war, even if a particular war was in fact, morally justifiable. Innocent people will inveitably die in the cross fire, that's just a fact of life. Our own moral choices often carry deep consequences that often stretch beyond ourselves and end up affecting even the innocent, just like it was the case with the innocent Germans who also died because of Hitler. That, I think, would be the best theological takeaway from the Conquest narratives, that makes the most sense philosphically and also stays faithful to scripture.
Dear @legodavid9260, you're essentially exploring the "blunt instrument" consideration I mentioned during the discussion--i.e., that in working with the Israelites, God was dealing with a blunt instrument and tolerated the deaths of innocents the same way warfare in World War II caused the deaths of innocents but this was tolerated by the Allies in order to put an end to Nazi aggression.
@@JimmyAkin That's an interesting view. How would that view deal with passages that depict God commanding the killing of children too? Because I take it that this view wants to say that God didn't *command* such a thing but that the death of the children was a horrible (natural?) consequence of the war and judgment to actual evil people.
@@esauponce9759 It could be understood in different ways. For example, one way would be to say that God wanted the Israelites to deal with the problem of Canaanite wickedness and--given how ancient Israelites thought in blunt terms of total warfare and extermination--the Israelites understood this as a command to wipe out each and every Canaanite. On this view, had God been dealing with people who would think in a less blunt, more discrimination fashion, this would not have been understood as a command for total extermination.
@@jakegreen5081 That objection gets into typical problem of evil territory, so it can be discussed there. But at least part of the problem of violence in the OT, which is the main topic for now, would have been addressed. EDIT: Well, thinking about it twice, I don't think part of the problem of OT violence would have been actually addressed under this view.
The Conquistadors would have taken The New World by force whether or not Aztecs had human sacrifice. Secondly, Spain believed in human sacrifice too, like what do you think the Spanish Inquisition was?
@@andyzar1177 I’m not gonna be over here defending the Spanish Inquisition but the death penalty for crimes (real or imagined) is not the same thing as ritual human sacrifice
@@JNB0723 Why think that? It seems to me that, even though this is not a view I hold to, it very well could be the case that a perfect God wouldn't give equal punishment to each sinner, instead punishing them according to their own misdeeds. If that is the case, then cutting off the life of the guilty only prevents them from accruing worse, or more, punishment. Again, I don't think it's true, but I think that it's more plausible than you are, so uncharitably, making it seem.
@@Real_LiamOBryan but isn't all sin equal? Listen to wage for sin death? There's no explicit part of the entire Bible that claims that there are different categories of how depending on which sins are committed. That man is just pulling s*** out of his ass.
I'm a Protestant, but I'm very fond of Jimmy. I would love to keep seeing lots of stuff with him, including longer content like this. The only Issue I had is that you had on two guests who were both against Craig's view, and expressed that you were against it too, and nobody that could argue in his favor. After all, a guy as smart and as learned as Craig may, possibly, be correct. I think that you should probably do another video on the topic where you run through yours, Akin's, and Rauser's views with Craig, himself.
Craig's position is amoral, since, it entails that ANY action is moral if such is commanded by God. The net effect being that morality is dismissed. I suspect this is a pill that they weren't willing to shallow.
@@magepunk2376 👀 is that an appeal to authority 🤣. It’s ok if you buy into his position, don’t feel guilty to say you agree, but I won’t fall for his gospel. But it’s a free world so go right ahead.
@@magepunk2376 you are assuming myself understanding and should apply that to yourself. The man is literally speaking against God👀🤣. But if you like qualifying eisegesis then be my guest. TBH anyone listening to RR is questionable as I find him very much off the reservation and not particularly biblical at least whenever I have had the misfortune to hear him teach or debate. I’m sure he gets some bits right but he appeals to the modern culture to try and fit in. This channel normally has more biblical speakers but for some reason Cam takes to RR as appear you do also. Would you say are biblical or modern culture moral is more your thing?
@@reevertoun If I were an Athiest I’d have no interest in following a vengeful God. I’d appreciate scholars who don’t belittle, minimize, and assume the worst about me.
Jimmy Akin is an amazing communicator and debater. Reminds me of the quote by Bum Phillips on Don Shula: "He can take his and beat yours, and he could take yours and beat his.”
I'm an hour & a half in... and I have carefully listened to every word spoken thus far... am I an idiot for being confused? I feel like I understand nothing. Why can't people speak in simpler terms to make their own positions known. I can't understand what their position is on the issue of the Cannanite slaughter is. I feel horribly lost & confused on this topic.
Having found the WLC interview without prior knowledge of it, my literal first reaction was that I really wonder how Jimmy Akin would respond to it! So thank you all three of you for organising/participating in this video 🙏🙏
This take is in the literal interpretation camp.👇 An aspect lingering around this whole topic I haven’t heard touched on yet is the “allegiance to God no matter the terms” So with Abraham he was commanded by God himself to sacrifice his own son… Im sure Abraham didn’t consider the command itself to be “good” either, yet his intent was to follow through and obey , no matter what his own intuition might of been telling him. And so what became exemplified was a believers allegiance and obedience to God no matter the terms. And i find it happening here with this very topic. you have Christians who will question Gods motives and character and still “side” with this commandment fully well knowing it contradicts what they believe about God. Although our modern day conception of Gods >love< is definitely different from what the love of God meant to the middle eastern jew at that time, … killing was already a category that had potential to find its way into the expression of that love, if it called for it. and then we have, some of us Christians who will question Gods motives and character and then align against Gods found judgment. ( disobedience towards Gods resolve concerning this matter) If obeying no matter the terms isn’t indicative of the idea of loving God with all you heart soul and mind, then loving God with all tour heart soul and mind becomes what you want of it, no?? To me it seem like this passage about the Canaanites , for us Christians, draws a very clear line in the sand between whos really committed to God and who’s not. Just like im sure we would conclude about Abraham if instead in the story he were to disobey God on the order to sacrifice his own son, we the readers would attribute to Abraham non obedience and we would probably even look at Abraham much differently concerning his Trust/Faith in God.
That IS the definition the bible gives for loving god...obedience without question. What this means, therefore, is that a true believer is forbidden to have ethics or morals of any kind - they must simply obey, no matter what. "God" wants his followers to be the kind of people who would slaughter everyone else on earth if told to do so, including their own children, without hesitation and without question. People who will do literally anything. Absolutely horrific, completely evil...but very, very convenient for those who've cleverly worked themselves into the position of speaking for "god."
@@njhoepner Id say you’d have a point about this particular faith if the actual violence and wrong doing commanded by God was the core doctrine of the faith, but its not and you dont find that either in the Old Testament , these ordered acts of violence themselves never are the principles but are acts that demonstrate other principles to live by. That’s exactly what is exegeted from the text concerning doctrine. So no, ethics and morals are still firmly intact.
@@hanstwilight3218 That is just a dodge. The core doctrine of the faith is absolute obedience...the violence and evil commanded are just symptoms of that core doctrine. The bottom line is, what any human thinks is right or wrong is irrelevant. Only god's command matters. Therefore the humans have no morals or ethics at all...they are in fact forbidden...they merely have obedience to an absolute overlord, and are required to do whatever that overlord says, no matter how horrific, without question. It's extremely useful for those clever enough to get themselves into the position of speaking for said god, of course...which is not a coincidence.
Why do we get hung up on the judgement of the Canaanites, but not Noahs flood or the judgement visited on Israel by Babylon and Assyria? Does God lack authority over creation, including life of all. The iniquity of the Canaanites was through generations. A human centric view misses the point.
For me it is the ordering of men to do the killing. That has always been the hang up for me. I have no problem with God having the authority to take life as he is the giver of life. I am also able to rationalize (though it is harder) God allowing the suffering of innocents as I prefer to believe that there can be a reason/purpose for suffering rather than simply seeing it as purposeless and pointless. However, it is intuitively quite difficult to understand why God would give a command to men to take the lives of innocents when He could simply have done it Himself. It seems completely contrary to the way Jesus has called us to live and how Jesus has called us to treat our enemies. It is our Christian understanding that we are to be about the work of loving others and leaving the judging and punishing to God (because He is the one with the authority to do so) that makes this story seem so inconsistent with God's nature and so hard to swallow.
Similar to the comment above mine, it’s a lot easier for me to deal with the fact that God is God and that He is allowed to give and take life as He sees best. With Sodom and Gomorrah, as well as Noah’s flood, no person is in control of these events - it’s God doing His just judgment. However, as Cameron highlighted in the video, there’s a difference when God actively commands *us* to kill others. It seems so contradictory to how He has revealed Himself in other passages - both throughout the Old and New Testaments. If morality is dependent on God and is a reflection of His nature, why would He seem to contradict Himself in the commands that He gives? He told the Israelites “Thou shalt not murder”. Why? Because people are made in the image of God and they have intrinsic value as humans. Sure, no problem. However, “Go kill everyone, even every single defenceless individual, and leave no survivors so that you can have their land” is a very different situation for me. It forces us to ask WHY God would command this. It is such a difficult passage to wrestle with.
@@WiseLittleOwl I see where you are coming from. My understanding would be that it would have to be considered as God's judgement similar to the flood etc. It's not a general command but a very specific enactment of God's judgement. Otherwise there are issues as you say. Gavin Ortlund did a good video unpacking the Conquest of Canaan that addresses what is presented in the biblical accounts quite well. Jesus mediated a new covenant, so yes we do live in light of that now. I do think we have to recognise apart from God's grace we are dead in our sin and would be subject to judgement though.
@@peterjs007 I have not watched Ortlund’s video. I will definitely give it a look, thanks. I understand when you say that it’s a very specific command and not a general one. However, if God transcends the limitations of time, how then can an act be deemed evil by God, but then also be considered good, just because of a lapse of time? Also, surely the principles behind His moral judgments would be consistent, because the same act cannot be right for one person but then also be wrong for another person. If we would consider certain religious groups desiring the total wipeout of an entire population to be evil today, then it would surely not be morally different back then. We would be treading on very dangerous ground if we assume that God wants us to go around and kill people in His name. And we cannot use Jesus and the new covenant as an excuse to overlook the issue at hand. Jesus said “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father” in John 14. Jesus doubles down that His will and the Father’s is one and the same. We also read that “Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever” in Hebrews 13. I’m struggling to see corroboration.
The thing i love about having these two guests together is that it shows similarities between a catholic apologist an a "progressive" Christian (though I believe Randall is orthodox in his thinking). I emjoyed seeing the points of agreement between the two worldviews.
Every Christian I met was a progressive. You don't come across many who argue for the morality of slavery or to make jews second class citizens. What is orthodox today was heresy yesterday.
As a Christian, it was hard seeing Dr. Craig explain what non believers call "genocide" in the Bible. The atheists were licking their chops in the comments section
You have a very strange view of atheists. Why would most of us care about the horrible views of professing Christians? It’s not like there is any shortage of reasons to conclude that Christian beliefs are rather silly.
I can’t overstate how helpful this video was to me. This issue has always been a tough one for me and that O’Connor Craig conversation felt pretty much like a nail in the coffin, but y'all cleared things up a lot for me.
It's important to remember an apologist, no matter how famous or renowned, does not fully represent a religion. While it's totally reasonable to be disenchanted with WLC and the theological worldview holds, there are many other interpretations outside of what he thinks.
I think Akin's question for Craig of how exactly God's nature (love and justice) are supposed to constrain His commands is a legitimate one, and it's true that Craig doesn't spell out exactly how this can be, but it seems like Akin thereby concludes that for Craig, God can just command anything and everything whenever and however. I don't think Craig would grant that. In fact, Craig could maintain that God's nature does constrain His and simultaneously maintain ignorance about how exactly God's nature does so. That's a coherent position. And Craig can then maintain that the burden is on the atheist who wants to say that God's commanding the Canaanite slaughter is inconsistent with God's nature, not on Craig himself.
A skeptic could then ask, if Craig is ignorant of God’s ways, then how can he say that God’s ways always lead to good? If we can’t divine God’s nature or intentions by looking at his actions, then what do we have to go by? I assume he would try to hide in some form circular ontological argument that defines God into omnibenevolence.
WLC answers these objections from a philosophical perspective but most people aren’t interested in thinking through the positions to understand the defense he provides. His defense is perfectly coherent… it’s not emotionally satisfying but it is intellectually sufficient. To understand him, people must not listen hoping to hear a pastor or a popularizer. His defense is that 1) God is perfectly within his right to command those things the Bible attributes to him 2) The Israelites who carried out the commands are justified on the basis that their conduct was required by God so neither God (who’s conduct is unassailable) nor the Israelites (who were following God’s command) are morally culpable. The objections don’t seem to actually touch his core defense…
"1) God is perfectly within his right to command those things the Bible attributes to him" God is not within his right to command those things, because it's inconsistent with His nature. The idea that slaughtering a two-year-old child's mother in front of his/her eyes and then slaughtering this child is a beneficial character-building experience for the child is outrageously ridiculous. I'd be afraid to be around any person who believes that. That's pure evil. "2) The Israelites who carried out the commands are justified on the basis that their conduct was required by God so neither God (who’s conduct is unassailable) nor the Israelites (who were following God’s command) are morally culpable." They were not justified because their moral compass should tell them it's Satan speaking to them, not God.
All of the objections being raised rely entirely on the moral intuitions of people who've never made a life or death decision in their life. Its like asking a toddler what they think about putting down a sick dog. Their life experience is unsufficient to even have an opinion at all. Imagine thinking your idea of "love" can and should be used to judge gods actions lol
@@brandonrichardson4142 Christian idea of love comes from the Bible. And it's incompatible with God forcing people to slaughter a mother and father of a child in front of his/her eyes, then slaughtering their siblings and finally slaughtering the child.
God is the one who commanded it, the arbiter of judgement, justice and curator of our souls after death. If anyone is righteous in commanding it, it's God. or TLDR: Atheists; "Why doesn't God do anything about evil!?" [God does something about evil] Atheists; "But not like that!"
@@HugoMccreddieWell, you know, as Dostoyevski said through one of his characters: "If Divine Command Theory is true, everything is permissible". Oh, no, wait....
@@HugoMccreddieThe hundreds of children that they were already involving in genocide? I guess one of the counter arguments would be that God could have instructed them to adopt the children and slaughter everyone else but I assume many wouldn’t be satisfied with that scenario either. Slightly off topic, but the Israel-Palestine conflict has shown me that people are a lot more comfortable with genocide then they want to admit (depending on the perpetrators and the victims. That goes for some Zionists and pro-Palestine people that are also pro-Hamas.
There is a continuous insistence in Holy Scripture that the israelites didn't finish the job, and because of that they fell into sins of idolatry. So here is something new to consider: The ancient cananites eventually died off in the region, but a remnant emigrated to Africa. These were the carthaginians. They were the most horrendous type of idolaters, sacrificing babies for whatever small favor their "gods" would grant them in exchange. Now... why do you think Rome became the New Jerusalem? Could it be that God rewarded the city that, even though pagan at the time, finally destroyed those wicked people, razing their city, and salting the earth? I think it is very likely.
I heard a soldier questioning not only the order to exterminate, but also the likely psychological and spiritual consequences for the Israelite executioners. Killing a child is going to normally sit on someone’s mind for the rest of their life. Shameless Popery took this question on and gave a great argument from history and the Church Fathers.
What argument excuses the death of babies and psychology trauma of those ending their lives as a good thing? All WLC had was, "God told them to do this and what God commands is good." Also, "The babies went to a better place.".
Meh. I don’t know. Did the actual warriors that inspired characters like Achilles and Hector have issues with killing children and taking sex slaves? I doubt it. The Spartans killed their slave population - the Helots - for basically fun, as a training technique. I don’t think those Israelites had any issues with genocide.
@@malirk go look it up! The language is exaggerative. Not literal. And everyone back then knew it. Even today we have versions of this style of exaggeration: “Did you hear about the basketball game last night? Talk about a total slaughter!” “Yeah, they were killing those guys!” … but just go over to that channel and listen to the full argument for this claim. I can’t possibly do it justice in a post. historical sources are cited.
@@MikePasqqsaPekiM So the actions of the Israelites were exaggerated, could the same be the case for the action of the canaanites, e.g. child sacrifice.
@@CafeteriaCatholic We have archeological evidence of child sacrifice, and there isn't esablished method of this kind of hyperbole like there is in the other case
Well, at least someone brought up the supernatural topic…However, I’m disappointed at how little scholars engage that perspective b/c we shouldn’t dismiss a very real aspect of the Biblical narrative for the sake of philosophy.
Amen. And that narrative equally handles every single problem while being able to completely understand that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Love that you posted this, because I was thinking the exact same thing.
@@humblewatchman1673 That’s why I don’t just listen to one channel for content like this. I tend to look for a mosaic of different arguments (while also trying to stay logically consistent). I think as a Christian we should learn multiple arguments covering a topic bc a single argument is not going to cover all aspects of that topic (maybe a few facets but not all). Take this topic, we should be versed in covering a range of arguments (many of which this video touches on): philosophical, moral/ethical, epistemological, historical context, biblical narrative, and even textual.
@@humblewatchman1673it was addressed. The DNA of canaanites survives to this day, among Lebanese mostly, and is not different than other human. Moreover, there is not a massive pile of giant bones found in a mass grave to suggest Canaanites weren’t human. Also this still doesn’t get to the core of killing children. Children, have not committed actions to be judged for. Those were the objections to this view raised.
Yes we need stop reading our modern interpretation into scripture and see the worldview of ancient Israelites. Look into Dr. Michael Heiser, an OT scholar who explains succinctly about why these “genocidal acts” occurred to eliminate the remnant giant tribes that worshiped other gods. How can you believe in a virgin birth, talking donkey worldwide flood, but reject Genesis 6 being not supernatural???
Of all the people you could have on you choose Randal Rauser? The guy attempting to build his career on bashing other Christians day in and day out on Twitter. Please stop giving your platform to people who hate us. You have more power than you think.
Randal hates us? Randal is one of us. He just has different theology than some Christians and he has strong opinions about it. Pretty normal stuff, honestly.
Would you prefer that every Christian has the same biblical interpretations and inferences? It's normal for people even within religious traditions to criticize and debate each other to better understand different positions within the faith. It's totally okay to not agree on everything. We would never grow as Christians if there were no objections to our perspectives.
1:37:34 to 1:39:01 - Very good pushback question; I had a similar concern. If we would be very skeptical that God ordered someone to e.g., commit genocide due to such an order being against God's nature, then we should also be skeptical that took place in the Old Testament days.
Always good seeing you Maverick. I liked your interview with TJump and actually thought you were the more rational one in that discussion and TJump was not at his best. But my question for you is... "Is it theoretically possible that all the abortions that have happened were at the divine command of God?"
I really appreciate any person who sets aside their ego to really grapple with concepts and principles. Arguing with good faith and charity is rare anywhere. Especially online where click bait affirmation and red meat is the norm. I'll buy a round for every person who speaks and behaves like an adult. Whether they agree with me or not.
2:08:33 what are you talking about atheist dont care about children up to the age of 3? Most atheist dont care about fetuses but I have never heard anyone say they dont care about actual children
As we have never heard of a fetuse turning into anything but a child, then surely a fetuse is at the youngest stage of childhood. No woman seeking an abortion asks to have the 'salmon' she is carrying removed.
Dr. Craig doesn't really go hard enough here. The truth is that God has authority over life and death. It's His to give and take. The prohibition against murder is for the creature, not the creator. Everyone dies. That was an absolute promise from the garden, that violating the command of God would result in death. It is the divine prerogative, how long we live on the earth. There is no promise of "fairness" as we understand it. What is fair is that everyone dies and receives punishment. People trying to get God off the hook here aren't doing Him favors. All throughout the Bible God is satisfied keeping Himself ON the hook for the death or destruction of His creatures. Why people argue about the Canaanite issue is a bit baffling to me considering that the flood of Noah's time is a thing. Is it a serious consideration that drowning every living person in the world was less violent, alarming or terrible than ordering Israel to bring judgement on Canaan? Or than God raising up Persia or Babylon or Rome to bring judgement on Israel? The problem is that we have not done an appropriate job of absorbing the answers given both to Job and in Romans 9 to the accusation against God that "Why does He still find fault, for who resists His will?" The answer given there is all we get. As believers we need to make peace with that answer.
I think I'm in WLC's camp here, because I'm always on God's side..."Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him..." (Job 13:15). I can tell you from my life experiences that it is worth it to doggedly trust God no matter what happens! Who are we to judge the Almighty? We have to start with the knowledge that God not only has the right to give and take life, but also (unlike us) can see all ends. He knew what would happen, for instance, if He didn't send the great flood, or failed to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah (once confirming that not even 10 righteous persons resided there). I would say that if He did, indeed, issues commands that we don't understand, then He had His reasons. He knew what was going to happen if those commands weren't followed. I am not allowed to make these decisions because I'm not omniscient, and neither are any of you. We see from the OT texts that God was supremely concerned that His people, who were set aside to be a holy people, would begin to worship idols and to adopt those evil practices. We know those concerns were well-founded, as the Children of Israel did follow other gods as they began to trade and intermarry with these people groups...even Solomon did that. Plutarch wrote about child sacrifice among the Canaanites in explicit terms...childless people buying infants just so they could slit their throats right in front of their mothers (for instance). One of their gods was represented by a large bronze idol under which a fire was built. The idol had "cradling arms", and once sufficiently hot, an infant was placed there. The screams of the infant were thought to appease the god, who would allegedly send good harvests or other blessings to the Canaanites. As Trent Horne has said, people wonder why God doesn't do anything to stop suffering, but when He has done just that, they are incensed! At the end of the day, He sent His Son to take on all the suffering of the world...God in human form came down and experienced suffering for all of us.
Emotional rhetoric aside, WLC is absolutely right. And I would probably summarize it by just saying that we should analyze a story in its entirety. So if we're granting the existence of the Canaanite story for the sake of argument, we have to also grant the existence of heaven for the same reason. Then it becomes clear that what we're really talking about is a momentary suffering followed by a relocation to an eternally blissful state. Not so obvious that any death (commanded by this "god" at least) would be wrong in that light. And I might add that only god would know who is/isn't *bound* for that eternally blissful state, whose continued presence on Earth is more important in the grand scheme of things, etc., so that it wouldn't be the case that just *anyone* could kill people justifiably. ETA: We also need to recognize that deferring to the existence of our moral intuitions in order to argue that morality is objective does not commit us to the view that our moral senses are *infallible.* In the same way not everyone has perfect vision (many are even blind), not everyone's moral sense is going to perfectly detect moral realities. Nor does that infallibility call into question the existence of the physical/moral realms respectively.
@@Reclaimer77 "You cannot separate morality from emotions." Depends on what you mean. But in any case, how we feel about something is not an infallible way of determining right from wrong. Just as our senses of vision, sound, etc. are not perfect, neither is anyone's moral sense. "I know you guys want to believe you run to the Bible and read it every time you have to make a decision," I'm not a Christian. But I *can* inform you that I don't base my decisions solely on my emotions; to do so would (at least at times) actually be immoral. "I thought Christians say "The Truth is Written on Our Hearts"?" Sure, but that wouldn't mean that we're always in tune with the truth either. "Unless you are a sociopath, there's no way you don't feel some wrongness in what WLC is saying here. It just cannot be justified." Unfortunately, just reasserting your position is not a good argument. And WLC himself admitted that it's *difficult* to grapple with that part of the scenario, emotionally. But that doesn't in any way refute the points he made as to why it could be justified if you stick with the biblical narrative.
The problem is that Craig proposes something we can't test, that the babies had an instant painless death and infinite reward. Which is a response to something we can't test either. The text itself still has the command to kill babies coming from a person claiming god told him. So we can never prove or disprove that, nor the claim on reward from god to those babies. All just to cover that this is accepted in the canon. If this was any other religion Christians and Jews would point to it as proof that this god speaking was a bloodthirsty demon. They do it all the time with Islam and Hindu gods. And it all works to just allow might makes right, again this is the best "argument" for Islam being true. That they conqured so much so fast. They can even say that the true god helped the Cananites, then the Jews, then the Christians, and all lost their favor and were justly punished by God. This is stated by Islmaic terrorists now. That fellow good Muslims, and maybe the few good people of the book killed in 9/11 or 10/7 would be instantly rewarded by Allah. See how evil this is to uphold this precident? Even within the worldview of God, angels and demons, I would have to assume that if I felt God was telling me to kill kids, this is the easiest thing ever to say ah this is an evil being masquerading as a being of light. And just dismiss this, and dismiss this part of the bible as not canon, or like the Satanic verses in Islam.
I wouldn’t think Joshua would be like a guy just sitting there and a voice in his head whispered to him to kill kids. According to scripture, it was clear for decades before that the one true God was with them. Telling them all that time that this would happen. But how can you believe that those scriptures are reliable? Well that’s a different debate.
great points you brought up here. I'd like to also add that I agree that this whole "they go straight to heaven" thing seems like such a scapegoat for immoral behaviour. It's so convenient to just say "they went to heaven and it's much better there" okay, then whats the point of being on this earth? if these little children are already destined to die at an early age and go heaven, why have then be born and suffer so much pain in the first place? just take them to heaven.
Your point are unBiblical , if you're going to be a Christian, you believe everything God said. There's no re-writing/changing biblical narrative just to appease some atheistic narrative. God did command it , and calling the word of God , satanic makes you adding or even feeling ashame of the word of God. You have probably taken human philosophy instead of God's word. It's either you take what the Bible says , bcos it was literally or you leave Christianity. God is just and will destroy EVIL. Just wait until Judgement day. Repent!!!
@@Michael-bk5nz but then they can't agree with orthodox views that YHWH is Jesus, or they do agree and say it was okay because God is the source of good everything he orders is good, but it leaves us with the fact that these orders come to us from people.
I feel like we should get really good at defending the literal interpretation. Because allegorical sounds like a cop out, even though it very would could be the case. And errors in the text undermines inerrancy. I think a general rule of thumb to keep in mind about questioning the creator’s morality is the story of Job. Skeptics would say he had every right to point his finger at God. And when he does, the text describes God basically giving him a virtual tour of what it’s like to be God and it says “Job was humbled”. Bottom line? We can’t comprehend all of who God is and all of his intentions and will. But what we do have is enough reason to trust Him. He’s demonstrated himself over and over.
Havent checked this channel in a while. But last night i had a strange dream about Dr Rauser and I woke up thinking, "hm, maybe he appeared on CC recently." Not claiming it was psi related (although that's possible, and Akin has made a good case for psi elsewhere!), but cool either way. Thank you, Cameron, for this discussion
I think once you start rejecting any part of God‘s word, because it makes you uncomfortable, or you don’t understand it, it becomes a slippery slope, because what’s stopping you from doing the same thing with any Bible verse you don’t like?
I mean what's stopping you from not believing in god? In the face of these objections, Christians won't even *consider* the possibility that there's no god in the first place, and that's a problem.
@@djokampungtz2108 The opposite of Christianity isn't that, For example, even if the Kalam works, it still doesn't lead to a *sentient* creator who *loves human* .
@@johnzhou4877 you said "not believing in God", i understood it as creator. But about the creator being specifically YÆHWÆH, well i dont have sufficient reasons to deny and but do have ample reasons to accept the reliability of the Bible and of the Shroud of Turin.
I’ve read and heard Dr. Craig defend his position regarding the destruction of the Canaanites several times, but there’s an important Biblical aspect that he seems to have overlooked, or at least for whatever reason he’s not mentioned it. Before the Israelite armies approached the land these nation states of Canaanite tribes seem to be normal people groups. They were apparently families, agriculture, commerce, military as well as the debauchery for which they were punished. However, the Bible makes it clear that before the Israelite armies even approached the land, God personally intervened. The Biblical text tells us that prior to the entrance of Israel, that God HIMSELF would drive them out (Exodus 23:27-30; Deut. 7:20-22; Josh. 24:12, etc.). It tells us that He will use wild animals, locusts and plague. It’s not difficult to imagine that civilians, children, women, the elderly and all non- combatants would be forced to leave the cities and areas they inhabit. Perhaps they would cross the Jordan River or maybe they would go north into more area of forest and mountain. In any event they would leave what we know as modern day Israel, the land soon to be inhabited by the 12 tribes. Of course they would see these wild animals, locusts and plague as temporary impediments to living in the land. Therefore, they would be forced to leave behind military presence in order to safeguard what was theirs. Their hope would be that as soon as possible they would be able to return to their homes. Because all that would be left in the land would be military presences, the cities would actually be built up into military fortifications. And as Paul Copan wrote, these militaries would be what Israel would face. We know the text says that children and women are to be part of the destruction. As far as they were left within the fortifications to provide some sort of assistance to the military (e.g. Rahab in Jericho) they would be subject to destruction. However, the vast majority of the civilian population would not even be in the land at the time the armies of Israel invaded. I just feel that a correction of this oversight helps to make things clearer, and I would hope that Dr Craig and others would make it apart of their theodicy from now on. At least I think it is biblically sound and historically accurate.
There is another, historically sound reason why the cities were emptier than usual.. a big gap had just opened up in lower Egypt’s labour force. I can’t remember where I came across it, but there’s evidence that Egypt was conducting slave raids on Canaan around the purported time of Israel’s wandering in the wilderness.
I think Randal is very concerned with people who would be "put off" of Christianity by passages such as these, at the expense of another group of people who would be quite "put off" to learn that the texts actually don't mean what they say or are even errant in some way. Both views have difficulties that people will struggle with. Since we know it is the Holy Spirit who converts hearts why don't we forget what people think and simply aim for truth? There is nothing in the text itself to suggest that the Israelites did not, in fact, kill the Canaanites, including their children and cattle.
I don't think that's what he was saying at all. I think he was saying that he doesn't want unnecessary stumbling blocks of interpretations of Scripture that are contrary to the Character of Christ. I think those are different things in my opinion.
@@jessewinn5563Rarely have I seen RR take a biblical view, I would say his view isn't normally biblical more an apologist athethist which kinda thinks there's a God.
Thank you for this video! I watched a similar one Randall did on the New Evangelicals channel. WLC scares me the more I hear him speak. When someone can smile and brush off genocide it is just indescribably creepy.
I would like to know what this panel thinks of the ideas of "Love your neighbor as yourself" "love your enemies" applying to God in relation to us? How can God possibly be morally accountable to His own creation, that makes no sense, aren't those who hate God ending up in Hell, is that loving His enemies? I feel like these verses are for humans to humans, not God to human.
@@oldbenkenob1 But, why. You're acting like there is no possible way he could've forgiven us except by jesus dying. Remeber, he is god, he makes the rules. So he thought the most moral thing to do is create creations that he knew would be sinful and be destined for hell, so to fix that he created a loophole based on his own made up rule system to redeem us by killing an innocent man. He really could not have thought of a better way. if not then I'd assert that this god seems small and incapable. this is why these ideas seem so small and man made because they have so many contradictions embedded right in the logic of the story.
@@SharedPhilosophy because God desires his followers to worship him freely, he gave people free will. Because he gave people free will, he allowed people to choose to sin. Because God is just, sin must be punished. Because he is holy, he cannot abide with sin, and therefore the punishment must involve eternal separation. Because God is the source of life, the eternal separation must be a kind of death. Because God is merciful, he has provided us a way in Chirst to overcome the sting of death caused by sin. Because he is just and merciful, he alone could pay the debt. Because he is full of grace, he offers the gift of salvation to all. Read the books of John, Romans, and Hebrews.
@@oldbenkenob1 Right, but those that do not repent and put their faith in Christ continue to be enemies of God and end up in Hell, is that loving His enemies? My whole point is that God is not bound to love His enemies like we are bound, God has no bounds beyond His own good desires.
@@YuGiOhDuelChannel yes, God loves his enemies. He offers them a free gift of salvation, but the point is it has to be free. God is not a tyrant. He does not want robot followers. He will not force anyone to repent, receive salvation, or enter heaven. Those who love their own sin so much that they refuse to repent are making a choice to continue down the road to damnation. God allows them to make that choice. God is by nature just and merciful. He is both righteous and gracious. His righteousness demands perfection, but his grace allows for reconciliation with those who aren't perfect. He has lovingly provided us the means of reconciliation: salvation in Christ Jesus. Those who seek it can find it, but those who refuse it are left to the consequences of their own choices.
How did they misrepresent him? I heard them attempt steel-manning several times. Craig’s position entails denying our basic moral intuitions regarding the mass slaughter of civilians and holding that mass killing can be just if ordered by God… which leaves the door scarily open for religious justification of future genocides. That is why there has been such a negative reaction in the comments on the original video interview. Defending genocide in a post Holocaust, post-Rwanda world is extremely hard even for someone as intelligent and well-spoken as Craig. I like Craig, but cannot ever see myself agreeing with him on this. Especially not when other options are on the table that keep genocide as an unthinkable evil
@@robertbelcher8297why do you think Craig’s position entails denying our basic moral intuition that killing civilians is wrong? I agree with Dr. Craig here, but I can still recognize when genocide occurs in the world and I can still condemn it.
Under the worldview Craig is proposing how can you know that the Hutu leaders in Rwanda were not told to kill the Tutsi? Craig’s position means the mass killing of civilians is not objectively wrong. It would be wrong sometimes - when not commanded - and morally praiseworthy at other times - when commanded.
@@robertbelcher8297 Craig would ask the Hutu why they killed the Tutsi. What he would discover is that it was economic concerns that motivated the Hutu to kill the Tutsi, not a divine command to divest them of their land as judgment for their sins. So on Craig’s view, we most certainly can know that God did not give the Hutu a divine command to kill the Tutsi. Craig’s view doesn’t preclude asking people why they kill others or being able to discern some act of mass killing is not a divine command. Craig’s view entails that it is not necessarily wrong to kill a mass number of people. That’s right. Anyone reading this far in the Bible will already have read how God judged a great number of people through a catastrophic flood. So I’m always a bit confused why skeptics latch on to these isolated, handful of cases where God commands people to enforce judgment upon specific groups of people.
Also, we don't have good documentation on this. Miracles seemed to go away when everyone got cellphones. Now the miracles are reduced to, "God helped me find something" or "I got better!" if they ever happen.
Randal's view might change if, over time, the culture actually became more pagan (which it is by the way). To see paganism, to live in it, with it and under it, may alter one's perspective on the use of violence against it. Until we have real-life encounters with radical evil, with rampant pedophilia, with human blood sacrifice (the Aztecs skinned people alive, then wore the skins and danced around), with demonic yoking of souls to pagan gods, with bestiality, etc., it is hard to make a sound judgment about what is ultimately only words about something pagan.
Human blood sacrifice? Like Jesus on the cross? Since Herem means to turn over to the lord all canaanites killed in Herem warfare are human sacrifices to Yahweh as well, not to mention the virgins of numbers 31.
2 issues with divine command theory WRT to this issue. 1. It suggests a fickle God who is willing to order acts that are by all other commandments are morally reprehensible. 2. How we know these are God's commands? And if his commands are so clear that that it is indisputably from the one and only God, could he not convict the Canaanites to change their behavior.
The problem with allegorizing the slaughter of the canaanites is that it leaves you with the problem of having to explain how the Israelites came to control Canaan in the first place. Surely, they didn't just ask nicely for the residents to leave.
Read judges. The Bible itself never shows the results of genocide. Their control was tenuous at best, and took hundreds of years where the results often included counterattacks and reverse subjugation. Heck, Dan never even took the city they were supposed to so they settled somewhere else.
I'm no expert, but I've read that the Israelites appear to have been just a branch of Canaanites. Their architecture, pottery, and other artifacts are very similar. Conversely, there appears to be little to no Egyptian influence on early Israelite artifacts. This would be extremely surprising if they had been enslaved in Egypt for hundreds of years and, presumably, making such things for the Egyptians.
1:00:00 What kills me about all this is the thought that God's got to do all these workarounds to achieve his goals. Israel needs land? Make it rise out of the sea! He's GOD! He can do anything! No need to run spears through babies! No need to dash their heads upon the rocks! It strikes me that this debate is what you get when you are committed to the supernatural. Come out of all this nonsense!
29:32 Tom Holland is not an actual historian, and I'm honestly shocked to see that Cameron is apparently unaware of the fact that the greeks were doing ethics literally hundreds of years before christianity. One of the main reasons we see so much moral progress in the NT compared to the OT to begin with, is precisely because of the tremendous influence of hellenism and greek philosophy.
I think you might miss the point. Even if Plato et al were ”doing ethics”, Platonism never became a movement with billions of followers that transformed the ethical landscape of the world. I think this point stands no matter how big of an influence you believe greek philosophy have had on Christianity.
@@rootbergChristianity didn't aquire billions of followers or "transform the world" until the modern era. I was addressing the specific point Cameron made when he said that before Christianity, - which began in the 1st century - ethics was basically "all over the place". Your point is about what eventually happened over a millennia later after the beginning of christianity, and thus a red herring.
I really enjoyed hearing Jimmy Akin's thoughts during this discussion. I think he argued for WLC's position better than WLC did and was very fair minded. Regarding Rauser, I typically find him long on complaints and short on answers.
Samuel 1 15-20 helps understand this command. Notice in 18 God commanded that “sinners among the amelkites be killed”. A child could be fighting against the Israelites like the Hitler youth and in this case would be killed. Anyone who denounced the ways of the amalekite culture and followed the laws in the covenant with Noah would be spared and kept under protection as per the law as a foreigner. There are examples of this like the sojourner who was an amalekite who killed Saul. Notice David had him killed not solely because he was an amalekite but because he helped kill the Lords anointed.
There is a perspective on this issue that is being over looked. My channel has a ten video playlist explaining why the warfare tactics of Israel was justified, how it complies with Just War Theory, and how it is still a tactic employed by even western powers in modern warfare, and how even atheists and skeptics do not disagree with it in principle.
“Moral intuition is important in interpreting scripture “. Right. Thats why eternal conscious torment is infinitely worse than any Israeli genoice/murder. No one sees their inconsistency eh? Believing eternal torment and at the same time saying Dr. Craig is wrong in his theory of defending God for genocide of those evil people.
Divine command is a scary thing to live by. As many have pointed out, WLC would agree with terrorists who do harm in the name of their religion (Because their God commands them) if WLC only believed in their religion. Many non-believers see the actions in this verse as terrorism.
WLC would say the same to the terrorist that any atheist would say - God did not command you to do that. The error of the terrorist is in the area of moral epistemology not in their divine command ethic. Divine commands from an all good God is not scary. But living without any divine commands at all is a scary world indeed.
@@DrScottMSullivan How could you ever tell if a command was from an all good god? How do you determine that the command you receive, in whatever fashion you receive it, is actually from a god, much less an all good god? Even if it is a scary proposition to live in a world without divine commands, does that make the proposition untrue?
I wrote this as a super chat but 😂 Is it actually intrinsic to humans that killing is always immoral when some studies have shown humans’ sense of morality can be altered under certain authority? Certain experiments like the prisoner-guard, electrocution, and just examples of real world phenomena like the Holocaust. (I don’t have an opinion, I’m just posing a hypothetical objection to the idea that it is intrinsic to humans that killing is always immoral.)
Killing is not intrinsically immoral and can be done, e.g., when needed to stop an aggressor and protect innocent life. Unless Craig's position is correct and God can/does sometimes make exceptions, killing *innocent* (non-aggressor) humans is intrinsically immoral, meaning that it can never be done in a morally legitimate way. The fact killing innocents was done in the Holocaust only reveals that humans can do things that are morally illegitimate. (Incidentally, the Standford Prison Experiment was actually cooked and was not a legitimate scientific experiment. Even if it had been, it would only show that people can do things that they shouldn't). Hope this helps!
@@JimmyAkin I understand that. I’m referring to Alex’s objection that theists cannot use an intrinsic moral argument when the sense of morality we use can be superceded by divine command. I’m questioning Alex’s intuition that killing of innocents is always intrinsic to humans as immoral when studies have shown humans can be seen changing their instinct under certain authoritarian regimes. He says it’s contradictory to say morality proves God when God commands something immoral but I’m questioning if it is truly intrinsic to humans that such an act is ALWAYS immoral. (Nothing to say about whether it actually is or not objectively).
@@famiahamid People can certainly lack the intuition that killing innocents is always immoral, which would challenge certain forms of Alex's argument. I suppose that Alex's response would be to dissociate himself from those who lack this intuition and say that they do not have properly formed moral intuititions.
@@JimmyAkin if he were to say that, it would be extremely unrealistic since the premise of Christianity is that mankind is imperfect and born in sin. Alex's assumption here is that morality is perfect but how would that apply to imperfect beings in imperfect situations. Of course this is within the standards of theology (Gods existence supposed), so to apply politically correct secular standards to theology would be a category mistake fallacy. Also the background of the canaanites/amorites was ignored, who partook in pagan rituals including child sacrifices. God would be morally justified in this case to stop the cycle begetting further. The same way it was necessary to stop Hitler in WW2. Do we have evidence or reference to children slaughter during the canaanite conquest? I'm not a Christian, but I'm just playing Gods advocate for the sake of this dialogue lol
For those of you quibbling over the term "genocide," apart from listing out the plethora of monstrous atrocities described in the Conquest each and every time, what simple catch-all term would you propose?
@@AluminiumT6 I guess that kind of perspective would explain, in part, why churches are bleeding parishioners. Despite Christians having about 75% higher birth rate than atheists and agnostics in the US, Christian numbers are, nonetheless, plummeting and "nones" are increasing. People are just better educated these days. Even childhood indoctrination can’t prevent them from recognizing the grotesquely anachronistic foundations that the Abrahamic religions are built upon.
@AluminiumT6 sp the stabbing to death of infants and toddlers is perfect justice? At least that explains why it was common for christians to steal, torture and slaughter children as a method of spreading the Good Word of their christian gods. Normal, rational people call that genocide. Which means, in christian parlance, genocide is perfect justice. True moral depravity on display. There really is no hate like christian love.
I would love to see Brian Zahnd, Brad Jersak, Robin Parry, or David Gushee on this channel. Just finished “Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God” by Zahnd, and it was one of my favorite theological books I’ve yet to read. It talks a lot about human violent attributes and how we have tried to pin them on God.
Why do we have to guess how corrupt the Canaanites were, or compare them to modern cultures? The Bible tells us in Leviticus 18 exactly how corrupt they were and why God destroyed them: Leviticus 18:3-30 NIV [3] You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices. [4] You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the Lord your God. [5] Keep my decrees and laws, for the person who obeys them will live by them. I am the Lord. [6] “ ‘No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the Lord. [7] “ ‘Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her. [8] “ ‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that would dishonor your father. [9] “ ‘Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere. [10] “ ‘Do not have sexual relations with your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter; that would dishonor you. [11] “ ‘Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father’s wife, born to your father; she is your sister. [12] “ ‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s sister; she is your father’s close relative. [13] “ ‘Do not have sexual relations with your mother’s sister, because she is your mother’s close relative. [14] “ ‘Do not dishonor your father’s brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt. [15] “ ‘Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son’s wife; do not have relations with her. [16] “ ‘Do not have sexual relations with your brother’s wife; that would dishonor your brother. [17] “ ‘Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness. [18] “ ‘Do not take your wife’s sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living. [19] “ ‘Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period. [20] “ ‘Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor’s wife and defile yourself with her. [21] “ ‘Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord. [22] “ ‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable. [23] “ ‘Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion. [24] “ ‘Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. [25] Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. [26] But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the foreigners residing among you must not do any of these detestable things, [27] for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. [28] And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you. [29] “ ‘Everyone who does any of these detestable things-such persons must be cut off from their people. [30] Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the Lord your God.’ ” God can end the life of whoever he wants to. He has good reasons for what he chooses to do. The wages of sin is death. Sin affects everyone and everything!
Excellent podcast! Thoroughly enjoyed J Atkins. That being said, I believe a question that still remains is the extent of one's sinfulness and the consequences thereof. The author of Hebrews 9:23 tells us that "even the heavenly things had to be purified" by the sacrifice of Christ. Now, sure the first rebellion against God was conducted by "a cherubim" that had direct access into God's dwelling place (the heaven). But then, Satan somehow gained access into the animalic world ("the serpent"). So, when man himself decided to sin, we can say that the entire creation was corrupted. In light of this, I believe it would be erroneous to restrict sin's effect strictly to a particular person and place. The Bible makes it quite clear that personal and collective sin affects the entire cosmos in various ways: suffering, death, cataclysms, changes in the weather patterns, an increase of aggressive behavior of wildlife towards man, being some of them.
I don't know if it's funny (because of the the mental gymnastics) or if it's just sad (because we keep trying to come up with excuses for ancient near east morals).
I like pipe tobacco too, but honestly it looks so freaking pretentious to be smoking during a theological discussion. It comes off like a kid trying to seem sophisticated by wearing a monocle or a politician trying to seem like a blue collar rural guy by giving a speech with a stalk of wheat in his mouth. Imagine if Randall had lit up a cigarette during this…it would seem weird right?
“Morality is objective, without God you can’t have any sense of right and wrong.” *God commands the slaughter of children* “Well since God commanded it since he’s the author of morality, it’s somehow justified.” You just proved morality is subjective under divine command theory. If taking life away from infants and children is bad, but somehow justifiable when God does it, then it’s ultimately relative according to God whenever he wishes. You’re defending genocide.
It is an objective moral fact that God has dominion over the earth and that we all deserve eternal separation from Him due to sin. We are not in the same position as God, as the book of Job clearly demonstrates.
So according to WLC there really is no way for us to objectively know if murdering is morally right or wrong if we don't know who is doing the murdering or commanding it. And he calls this objective morality.
"The killing of another person without justification or excuse, especially the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought or with recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.", is the definition of murder. It is not murder if God commands the killing of people. We know its unjust killing if there is not a moral reason to do so. The moral reason is God has commanded it due to the reasons Craig lays out. God does not give commands to kill large groups of people today. That was a specific time in the Bible for a specific reason.
In the interview Graig explicitly says that had the slaughter of the Canaanites and their innocent infants been undertaken by humans only, it would have been immoral. But because God has no moral obligations it is not immoral when the killing is done following Gods command. So the morality of the killing cannot be objective because it is dependent of the person who is responsible. This was my point. And if this is the case, God can also commit morally good murders. I cannot see why Graig appeals to the justifications or excuses he gives to the killings at all, because on the other hand says, that God needs no external justifications because he is God. Whatever god does, according to Graig, is necessarily justified. You wrote that "God does not give commands to kill large groups of people today. That was a specific time in the Bible for a specific reason." Graig disagrees with you: ruclips.net/video/wvaBnGdyKKE/видео.html
@@veli-mattisuhonen4177 The objective morality of killing would be when someone kills another person because of God's commands. It would not be murder because murder is a unjust killing, God commanding it makes it just. Also the video is about how God could make decrees, not that He has made decrees.
@@joe7380 There cannot be an "objective morality of killing" when killing can become both moral and immoral depending on God's commands. More importantly, your imaginary God isn't actually issuing any commands in the real world.
Dawkin's argument isn't against an interpretation of the Bible. It's against the morality of those who hold to that interpretation. And against the morality of the God if that interpretation is correct. Not against God's existence, but against what kind of character he has if that interpretation is correct. And that's a good reason not to talk to that person. Some theists do the same to those in favour of abortion. They don't even stand being near that person.
People evolved morality through evolution, it’s pretty easy to understand once you hear it even animals are born with it but what I’ll never understand are the people saying we have morality yet can absolutely never question what “God” does. Religion will lead the blind to commit evil acts, India literally has a law that if you commit a crime for religious purposes you get off Scott free. Is that a world you want to justify?
I think this conversation could be more interesting if you had someone who agree with Craigs view of literacy in these passages, since I think is the most common interpretation between christian denominations
Personally, if any of this actually happened in history, I feel bad for the Israelites being forced to constantly brutally slaughter people. The trauma of that had to have been immense.
I get the logic of what WLC is saying, but I can't feel it. I just consider this a difficulty of the faith, I have a hard time fully saying this is just fine because God can kill whoever he wants. Hoping this video sheds some light. Thanks for having this discussion.
The atheistic argument “If I cannot conceive of a good reason God would allow x evil to take place, then God can have no good reason” sounds very sketchy. I doubt if your average athiest would apply that argument even to another human being. If the proposition was “Bob Jones is claimed to be a good person. Bob Jones did thing X . .,” would the average athiest conclude “I cannot imagine a good reason for dong thing X, therefore Bob Jones did not have a good reason”? The assumptions behind that line of reasoning seem to include, a. the reasoner is capable of imagining every possible morally good reason, b. that the reasoner’s judgments about what is morally good are infallible.
There are a couple of problems with your representation of that argument. First, i dont believe that is the one Alex was making. Second, comparing this argument against God's goodness and another person being good is not the same logic. God is claimed to be perfectly good, which means anything commanded by God which is evil negates that claim. Whether some random person is "good" is a lot less direct due to the varying definitions of a good person. Third, there are specific things condemned by God in the Bible and declared by prophets of God to be evil or abominations. In these cases, there isn't "a way" for these actions to be good because that contradicts the commands of God. You don't need a perfect understanding of all moral perspectives in order to call it evil because God already has. If God commands anything that He has declared evil, then He is not perfectly good. If He is not perfectly good, that has heavy implications for His reality as gar as the version of God taught by most religion. Of course, that last point heavily relies on whether you believe God commands things because they are good or whether things are good because God commands them. You can still argue against the argument as a whole, but i think your particular reasoning is flawed.
Why cant you accept Jesus in the "next world"? : because deep down the writers of bible dont know whether there is a next world. If they want to build a community, it has to be in this world. If you could accept Jesus in your next infinite world, no one would bother much about making a decision. And there is no good reason to not accept repentance in next world if you think about it. It just that writers didnt really believe there is a next world.
William Lane Craig did a poor job in that interview because he either doesn't understand the history of the Nephilim in Genesis, the REAL REASON for the flood, or he understands it and rejects it, unlike the late Chuck Missler, Michael Heiser et al. It basically started in early Genesis when fallen angels (the watchers) saw the daughters of men, found them attractive, so they devised a scheme to leave their first estate (spirit realm), as explained in Genesis, Jude etc., entered the material world with material bodies, impregnated mortal women with a hybrid race of beings called the Nephilim among other names in the Bible, but called gods and demigods by the pagans. The story is close to identical in the Bible and pagan cultures (Examples: Iliad, Odyssey, Gilgamesh etc.) , only the Bible portrays them as evil and the pagans worshipped them as the gods (fallen watchers/angels) and demigods (their superhuman hybrid offspring). This corrupted the DNA of mankind, and ALL OF MANKIND over time, unless the hybrid DNA was eradicated. The first attempt to eradicate it was the great flood (Noah's Ark), but somehow the Nephilim returned in different places, like Canaan and had to be eradicated again. As for the watchers who pulled this stunt, the Bible says God has them chained in Hades where they will remain until the end times, then be Judged eternally at the second coming of Jesus.
@@MrFireman164 Thank You. I highly recommend you watch a RUclips video. Just search for: "Michael Heiser - Reversing Hermon, the sin of the watchers." Sadly Dr. Heiser recently died of cancer, bow he's home with the Lord, but we have his videos.
I find all 3 views presented here plausible, but Craig’s view is still the most persuasive to me. It seems to be the objections from Randal and most people to Craig’s view are emotional and not intellectual. Yes, unfortunately Craig’s view can be abused by maniacs and can slightly make it more difficult to recognise evil. But while that is unfortunate, it doesn’t have a bearing on whether Craig’s view is actually true or not. Although I would argue that Craig’s view doesn’t actually make it more difficult to recognise evil in a practical sense anyway. Even apart from Craig’s theodicy, we already have uncertainty on whether certain acts are actually evil. Even with murders today there can be uncertainty from whether the act was self defence, whether it was intentional etc. Whether God commanded it or not doesn’t add much uncertainty to what was already there. Especially since, at least outside the events of the Bible, we can be 99.99999999999999% sure that God would not command something like this. And even in a world where he did, the claim that God commanded it should be disregarded both legally and in peoples informal judgements of the event - because if God really did command such an act I think He would still expect and be okay with the person being punished for it.
When dealing with this issue, it is critically important to establish "Did God in fact command the slaughter of the Canaanites?". -If the skeptic's answer is "no", then there is no problem for the Christian because then of course it would be just another gruesome war (one of many in fact) that occurred in that part of the world, and would be of no theological significance. -If the skeptic's answer is "yes", then there again is no problem for the Christian because God would know all of the results of following through with the command (and all of the results of not following through with it). God is able to do what we cannot do; namely to see the results of issuing the command (and of not issuing the command) in advance, and thus command the better outcome. God issuing such a command offends our sensibilities because we cannot possibly see the totality of both outcomes. I suspect that if we did, we would agree with God.
The content of your last parragraph could easily and consistently be used, under the relevant circumstances and with appropriate modifications, by anyone to justify virtually any atrocity. That's a *big* red flag.
@@esauponce9759 People justify all sorts of things, but if you read carefully, you will notice I am not justifying anything. I am simply pointing out that to discuss this particular issue, you must establish in advance whether or not you believe that God in fact commanded the Israelites to slaughter the Canaanites. If God did not issue the command, then it is just another ancient near east total war situation (among many). If yes, God would have seen the totality of the results of issuing such a command and chosen the best option given human freedom. So I put the question to you; did God issue the command to slaughter the Canaanites or not?
@@ActuarialNinja I'm clear on what you said. My point is that once you accept the view you shared in the last parragraph of your original comment, anyone in the relevant circumstances could use it to justify consistently any atrocity. The implication of this is that there's no way we could distinguish between a psychopath who, though externally manifesting signs of lament which he acts very well, uses cleverly such a justification to explain why he killed some kids at a school (for example) and a person who actually received a command from God to kill kids at a school because some actual horrible and worse outcome for the kids and other people was going to emerge later (which only God could predict perfectly and for some specific reasons couldn't prevent through other means) and such person actually trusted God and did the act, though of course not without genuinely lamenting the immense difficulty of the situation.
@@esauponce9759 It sounds like you are dealing with the case where someone (perhaps someone mentally deranged) committed acts of atrocity by thinking that they were given commands from God when in fact no such command was given. In that event, the answer is simple, the person is deranged and ought to be tried and locked up. You mention justification for atrocities; and while that forms no part of my argument, it is interesting, so why not explore this further. Here are my thoughts on it, for whatever that is worth. When committing an atrocity, one can use a great many things to try and justify the action. If someone is mentally unstable, they may actually just have intrusive thoughts and not have sufficient inhibition to resist carrying them out. Or they may have been abused earlier on in life and think that by harming others that will somehow release them from their own inner suffering. Or they may (as you say) think they are doing the Lord's work. Or they may use thousand different other things as justification. Hitler, for example, used economic depression (among other things) as a justification for the holocaust. Stalin used the prospect of economic expansion as justification for the gulags, etc. I think you get the point. There is certainly no shortage of justification for atrocities. All you have to do is either i) point to some harm done, and say that some person or group "X" is responsible and that going after "X" is therefore justified. Or else, ii) there is some good that "X" is impeding, and by going after "X", you will attain said good and are therefore justified. You can use this formula to justify pretty much anything you want. It is difficult to see how hearing voices in one's head and thinking it is a divine command (when no such command was given) to commit murder has any theological significance. In fact, that kind of reasoning violates the sixth commandment. Apologies for being long winded, I just wanted to explore the topic in a bit more depth than can be done in sound bites.
I tend to lean towards Joshua being quite exaggerated more than anything... we know the canaanite bloodline did not get completely wiped out whatsoever.
A few other things that might be relevant to this discussion: 1) our moral senses toward the seemingly harsh commands as found in the Old Testament may be different if we had witnessed first-hand the atrocities of the Canaanites, to include how they raised their children; first-hand experience of evil can often have an effect on our senses that mere words do not. I believe this is what Clay Jones was at least hinting at in his article. I know Clay personally, and he has spent most of his academic life reading about Genocide. A lot of us armchair apologists/theologians have never seen radical evil up close and personal. An experience of radical evil can adjust our moral senses to be more in line with what is true about good and evil, 2) we tend to think in modernity that death is the worst thing, or the greatest evil. But why think that? Also, 3) does anyone bring up Kierkegaard's teleological suspension of the moral? and finally 4) I don't like using genocide, because of the prefix "genos" which relates to an ethnicity, but the destruction of Canaan is not an ethnic war, it is a war against human agents committing abominable practices. When Israel starts to commit the same kinds of sins as the Canaanites, they receive the same exact types of punishments (through the Babylonians, for example).
Not giving your child his favorite ice cream for dessert is "harsh". Sticking a sword though an infant because his parents were bad people isn't harsh, it's psychopathic.
@@betsalprince First, not giving your child ice cream is "harsh?" Wow, someone has been living in the therapeutic society a while, haven't they? Second, the killing of the children is certainly violent, but when you call it psychopathic you are assuming a certain kind of psychological or emotional disposition by the ones doing the killing, e.g., that they enjoy it or that they are doing it for pleasure, that we have no evidence for. We have no evidence to suggest the Israelites were commanded to kill the children for the sake of pleasure or enjoyment, or some other narcissistic purpose, or even that they were desensitized to the killing of the children. That said, there is ambiguity here as regard to what constitutes a "child" in the text. It is one thing if it was literal infants. It is an another thing if it referred to child combatants. Not sure if you have ever been to war, especially wars in places like Africa or Afghanistan where you have child combatants. But if you haven't I can tell you from experience that children are not only often more dangerous than their adult solider counterparts, but often more malevolent; there consciences having been seared at a very young age. Still, I am also not denying the difficult nature of the killing of children.
The bigger issue [ especially for William Lane Craig’s position ] is God’s choice of what World to actualise and / or create. On Craig’s position, God knew prior to Creation what every Person would do in any given situation that He could place them. God knew prior to Creation exactly what the Canaanites would do and what the Israelites would do. So what does God do ? God chooses or elects exactly what People will exist. And then He decrees and actualises or creates the World where the Canaanites will do what He knew they would do and where the Israelites will do what He knew they would do. That means, that God is ultimately responsible and morally culpable for every action that happens in this World. Furthermore, God wanted every action that takes place in this World to happen. Why ? Because on Craig’s position, it brings about a greater good. It is impossible on Craig position, that God is Maximally Great. It is impossible that God is Morally Perfect. A Morally Perfect God would not create the Canaanites to do evil - resulting in them being put to death for doing exactly what God wanted them to do.
I can't recall where I read it, but one idea about the command to slaughter the Canaanites comes from a context of a test for Israel on mercy in face of judgment. Consider how God was ready to destroy the nation of Israel after committing idolatry with the golden calf, and Moses pleaded that God not destroy them, a plea for mercy, and this stays God's wrath. The 12 scouts were rejected, the people considered replacing Moses as their leader and returning to Egypt, God threatens to wipe them out, and Moses again begs pardon; there was still punishment but God didn't wipe them out. So looking at the command to wipe out the Canaanites, perhaps we can see a justice involved that they deserve for unrepentant wickedness, and yet we also see an opportunity for Israel to show mercy (which in some ways they fail).
And if the people of Israel were prideful in their conquest and destruction of Canaan, they paid for it with the Assyrian and Babylonian exiles about a millenia later........
From the atheist perspective, if there is no God, then the genocide was meaningless anyway. So, it sounds like atheists are assuming God exists and that he is immoral and evil. Well, that's a perspective. The actions with regard to the Cannanites is impossible for us to understand or justify because of our limited perspective. If we are human and our perspective is that we live for a few decades and that's it, then we can say from our limited point of view that what was done was wrong. God has a different perspective. He is not only concerned with our mortal life here, but with our immortal soul. And, He takes into account all of creation, including all human beings, and all of time. Since putting ourselves in that perspective is truly impossible, it comes down to whether you have faith in an all good, all loving God or not. If you either don't think God exists or do not believe that He is the source of objective morality, and therefore always acts in everyone's ultimate best interest, then without that faith and trust in God, you will continue to believe that all death, and life, is ultimately meaningless. It is also a bit silly to think God should have done something different. None of us, including the guest who mentioned that several times, can claim that kind of insight.
You are probably the 47,000,000th person to make this ill considered and categorical error containing an objection to an atheist saying that something is bad. So boring, so unoriginal, so pointless.
This really ticked me off . Randall rauser talked briefly about Paul cop and just war theory but he failed to mention that Paul Copan also proposed that the so called extermination of the Canaanites (my ancestors ) was hyperbolic talk and not literal talk . Kind of like a football coach tells it his team to destroy the other team but we all know that he didn’t mean to literally destroy them .
As a fellow Christian who takes the Old Testament as scripture very seriously, I say with all due respect that trying to evade what the text plaily says does us a great disservice and just gives atheists the upper hand against apologists, which get to accuse us of just cherry picking what we like and throwing out what we don't like. The Old Testament as a whole clearly affirms the fact that even children somtimes suffer consequnces because of the sins of the adults, whom are directly judged by God (Levitcus 26:22, Isaiah 13:18 , Hosea 13:16), in addition to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and the Flood of Noah. Even the New Testament affirms this (Luke 23:28). So trying to dodge the inevitable conculsion that even innocent children can die as a result of God's direct judgement is futile.
A more Bibically faithful apologetic answer would be that we all carry personal responsibility, and our sins affect not only ourselves but our family and those around us as well. If I take my family out for a car ride while I am drunk and then the car crashes and we all die, I am the one who sinned and who is to blame, however my family still had to suffer the consequence of my irresponsible sin and behavior. I tend to look at God's judgement in the Bible in the same way. The Cannanites were being judged for their morally debauched practices (which is a historical fact, even non-Bibical sources attest to this) but unfortunately in the midst of their destruction children also had to suffer the consequnces.
Would that make the Conquest of Cannan as a whole morally unjustifiable? Well, in that case my question would be this: Was the allied invasion of Nazi Germany justified? I believe most people would say yes. But innocent german children died during it as well, didn't they? Unfortunately that's just the sad reality of war, even if a particular war was in fact, morally justifiable. Innocent people will inveitably die in the cross fire, that's just a fact of life. Our own moral choices often carry deep consequences that often stretch beyond ourselves and end up affecting even the innocent, just like it was the case with the innocent Germans who also died because of Hitler. That, I think, would be the best theological takeaway from the Conquest narratives, that makes the most sense philosphically and also stays faithful to scripture.
Dear @legodavid9260, you're essentially exploring the "blunt instrument" consideration I mentioned during the discussion--i.e., that in working with the Israelites, God was dealing with a blunt instrument and tolerated the deaths of innocents the same way warfare in World War II caused the deaths of innocents but this was tolerated by the Allies in order to put an end to Nazi aggression.
@@JimmyAkin That's an interesting view. How would that view deal with passages that depict God commanding the killing of children too? Because I take it that this view wants to say that God didn't *command* such a thing but that the death of the children was a horrible (natural?) consequence of the war and judgment to actual evil people.
@@esauponce9759 It could be understood in different ways. For example, one way would be to say that God wanted the Israelites to deal with the problem of Canaanite wickedness and--given how ancient Israelites thought in blunt terms of total warfare and extermination--the Israelites understood this as a command to wipe out each and every Canaanite. On this view, had God been dealing with people who would think in a less blunt, more discrimination fashion, this would not have been understood as a command for total extermination.
@@JimmyAkin Nice, thanks!
@@jakegreen5081 That objection gets into typical problem of evil territory, so it can be discussed there. But at least part of the problem of violence in the OT, which is the main topic for now, would have been addressed.
EDIT: Well, thinking about it twice, I don't think part of the problem of OT violence would have been actually addressed under this view.
I love seeing how much Cameron seems to enjoy and appreciate Jimmy’s company.
I’m actually happy that this is coming through!
My first time hearing Jimmy Akin… it was nice. I hope to hear him again!
The Conquistadors would have taken The New World by force whether or not Aztecs had human sacrifice. Secondly, Spain believed in human sacrifice too, like what do you think the Spanish Inquisition was?
@@andyzar1177
I’m not gonna be over here defending the Spanish Inquisition but the death penalty for crimes (real or imagined) is not the same thing as ritual human sacrifice
1:06:53 really, that statement alone should deserve "stupid moment of the year" award.
@@JNB0723 Why think that? It seems to me that, even though this is not a view I hold to, it very well could be the case that a perfect God wouldn't give equal punishment to each sinner, instead punishing them according to their own misdeeds. If that is the case, then cutting off the life of the guilty only prevents them from accruing worse, or more, punishment. Again, I don't think it's true, but I think that it's more plausible than you are, so uncharitably, making it seem.
@@Real_LiamOBryan but isn't all sin equal? Listen to wage for sin death? There's no explicit part of the entire Bible that claims that there are different categories of how depending on which sins are committed. That man is just pulling s*** out of his ass.
I'm a Protestant, but I'm very fond of Jimmy. I would love to keep seeing lots of stuff with him, including longer content like this. The only Issue I had is that you had on two guests who were both against Craig's view, and expressed that you were against it too, and nobody that could argue in his favor. After all, a guy as smart and as learned as Craig may, possibly, be correct. I think that you should probably do another video on the topic where you run through yours, Akin's, and Rauser's views with Craig, himself.
Personally I could never become a fan of Craig. His logic and reasoning seems a little off.
@@TaxEvasi0n Hey, to each their own. I respect it. I just haven't found much I disagree with him on, and I'm super into fairness and charitability.
Catholics will disagree with a Protestant by default. Shouldn't come as a surprise.@@Real_LiamOBryan
Craig's position is amoral, since, it entails that ANY action is moral if such is commanded by God. The net effect being that morality is dismissed. I suspect this is a pill that they weren't willing to shallow.
@@MyContext
Any action commanded by God would necessarily be morally justified
I will watch just about anything with Jimmy, just so you know
Neat--you're a sycophant. That's impressive.
Yeah; you can have him........ sheesh!!!
Thanks for having Randal as well, always love to hear his thoughts
@@magepunk2376especally when he claims a great morality than God.
@@magepunk2376 👀 is that an appeal to authority 🤣. It’s ok if you buy into his position, don’t feel guilty to say you agree, but I won’t fall for his gospel. But it’s a free world so go right ahead.
@@magepunk2376 you are assuming myself understanding and should apply that to yourself. The man is literally speaking against God👀🤣. But if you like qualifying eisegesis then be my guest. TBH anyone listening to RR is questionable as I find him very much off the reservation and not particularly biblical at least whenever I have had the misfortune to hear him teach or debate. I’m sure he gets some bits right but he appeals to the modern culture to try and fit in. This channel normally has more biblical speakers but for some reason Cam takes to RR as appear you do also. Would you say are biblical or modern culture moral is more your thing?
@@magepunk2376 Randal is very popular with atheists. No doubt about it.
@@reevertoun If I were an Athiest I’d have no interest in following a vengeful God. I’d appreciate scholars who don’t belittle, minimize, and assume the worst about me.
Love seeing Jimmy. He has a wide variety of knowledge on so many topics! And he is good at steel-manning others arguments. Definitely bring him back.
Jimmy Akin is an amazing communicator and debater. Reminds me of the quote by Bum Phillips on Don Shula: "He can take his and beat yours, and he could take yours and beat his.”
He’s a joke
@@kennethogorman5436- if he was a “joke”, he wouldn’t have handed your boy Bart Ehrman’s ass to him. 😂
I'm an hour & a half in... and I have carefully listened to every word spoken thus far... am I an idiot for being confused? I feel like I understand nothing. Why can't people speak in simpler terms to make their own positions known. I can't understand what their position is on the issue of the Cannanite slaughter is. I feel horribly lost & confused on this topic.
Same. It’s not that it’s that difficult, they just don’t say that much.
Having found the WLC interview without prior knowledge of it, my literal first reaction was that I really wonder how Jimmy Akin would respond to it! So thank you all three of you for organising/participating in this video 🙏🙏
Have these guests together often. Loved the combo.
Always good to have on Jimmy Akin!
Love Jimmy Akin, WE WANT MORE JIMMY!!
He is the Jimmiest of Akins
Yeah, I’m an atheist but I like his style, he seems fair minded
The interview was epic, I look forward to hearing this.
This take is in the literal interpretation camp.👇
An aspect lingering around this whole topic I haven’t heard touched on yet is the “allegiance to God no matter the terms”
So with Abraham he was commanded by God himself to sacrifice his own son…
Im sure Abraham didn’t consider the command itself to be “good” either, yet his intent was to follow through and obey , no matter what his own intuition might of been telling him.
And so what became exemplified was a believers allegiance and obedience to God no matter the terms.
And i find it happening here with this very topic.
you have Christians who will question Gods motives and character and still “side” with this commandment fully well knowing it contradicts what they believe about God.
Although our modern day conception of Gods >love< is definitely different from what the love of God meant to the middle eastern jew at that time, … killing was already a category that had potential to find its way into the expression of that love, if it called for it.
and then we have, some of us Christians who will question Gods motives and character and then align against Gods found judgment. ( disobedience towards Gods resolve concerning this matter)
If obeying no matter the terms isn’t indicative of the idea of loving God with all you heart soul and mind, then loving God with all tour heart soul and mind becomes what you want of it, no??
To me it seem like this passage about the Canaanites , for us Christians, draws a very clear line in the sand between whos really committed to God and who’s not.
Just like im sure we would conclude about Abraham if instead in the story he were to disobey God on the order to sacrifice his own son, we the readers would attribute to Abraham non obedience and we would probably even look at Abraham much differently concerning his Trust/Faith in God.
I can see this.
That IS the definition the bible gives for loving god...obedience without question. What this means, therefore, is that a true believer is forbidden to have ethics or morals of any kind - they must simply obey, no matter what. "God" wants his followers to be the kind of people who would slaughter everyone else on earth if told to do so, including their own children, without hesitation and without question. People who will do literally anything.
Absolutely horrific, completely evil...but very, very convenient for those who've cleverly worked themselves into the position of speaking for "god."
@@njhoepner
Id say you’d have a point about this particular faith if the actual violence and wrong doing commanded by God was the core doctrine of the faith, but its not and you dont find that either in the Old Testament , these ordered acts of violence themselves never are the principles but are acts that demonstrate other principles to live by.
That’s exactly what is exegeted from the text concerning doctrine.
So no, ethics and morals are still firmly intact.
So if someone started murdering children of a certain people group, and claimed that God commanded it, would you question it?
@@hanstwilight3218 That is just a dodge. The core doctrine of the faith is absolute obedience...the violence and evil commanded are just symptoms of that core doctrine.
The bottom line is, what any human thinks is right or wrong is irrelevant. Only god's command matters. Therefore the humans have no morals or ethics at all...they are in fact forbidden...they merely have obedience to an absolute overlord, and are required to do whatever that overlord says, no matter how horrific, without question.
It's extremely useful for those clever enough to get themselves into the position of speaking for said god, of course...which is not a coincidence.
Great conversation! I always find this topic difficult to wrap my head around. Jimmy, I really like the way you are able to articulate your points.
Why do we get hung up on the judgement of the Canaanites, but not Noahs flood or the judgement visited on Israel by Babylon and Assyria?
Does God lack authority over creation, including life of all.
The iniquity of the Canaanites was through generations.
A human centric view misses the point.
Yeah those are also good examples of why we should not worship this made-up diety!
For me it is the ordering of men to do the killing. That has always been the hang up for me. I have no problem with God having the authority to take life as he is the giver of life. I am also able to rationalize (though it is harder) God allowing the suffering of innocents as I prefer to believe that there can be a reason/purpose for suffering rather than simply seeing it as purposeless and pointless. However, it is intuitively quite difficult to understand why God would give a command to men to take the lives of innocents when He could simply have done it Himself. It seems completely contrary to the way Jesus has called us to live and how Jesus has called us to treat our enemies. It is our Christian understanding that we are to be about the work of loving others and leaving the judging and punishing to God (because He is the one with the authority to do so) that makes this story seem so inconsistent with God's nature and so hard to swallow.
Similar to the comment above mine, it’s a lot easier for me to deal with the fact that God is God and that He is allowed to give and take life as He sees best. With Sodom and Gomorrah, as well as Noah’s flood, no person is in control of these events - it’s God doing His just judgment.
However, as Cameron highlighted in the video, there’s a difference when God actively commands *us* to kill others. It seems so contradictory to how He has revealed Himself in other passages - both throughout the Old and New Testaments. If morality is dependent on God and is a reflection of His nature, why would He seem to contradict Himself in the commands that He gives? He told the Israelites “Thou shalt not murder”. Why? Because people are made in the image of God and they have intrinsic value as humans. Sure, no problem.
However, “Go kill everyone, even every single defenceless individual, and leave no survivors so that you can have their land” is a very different situation for me.
It forces us to ask WHY God would command this. It is such a difficult passage to wrestle with.
@@WiseLittleOwl I see where you are coming from. My understanding would be that it would have to be considered as God's judgement similar to the flood etc. It's not a general command but a very specific enactment of God's judgement. Otherwise there are issues as you say.
Gavin Ortlund did a good video unpacking the Conquest of Canaan that addresses what is presented in the biblical accounts quite well.
Jesus mediated a new covenant, so yes we do live in light of that now. I do think we have to recognise apart from God's grace we are dead in our sin and would be subject to judgement though.
@@peterjs007 I have not watched Ortlund’s video. I will definitely give it a look, thanks.
I understand when you say that it’s a very specific command and not a general one. However, if God transcends the limitations of time, how then can an act be deemed evil by God, but then also be considered good, just because of a lapse of time? Also, surely the principles behind His moral judgments would be consistent, because the same act cannot be right for one person but then also be wrong for another person. If we would consider certain religious groups desiring the total wipeout of an entire population to be evil today, then it would surely not be morally different back then. We would be treading on very dangerous ground if we assume that God wants us to go around and kill people in His name.
And we cannot use Jesus and the new covenant as an excuse to overlook the issue at hand. Jesus said “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father” in John 14. Jesus doubles down that His will and the Father’s is one and the same. We also read that “Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever” in Hebrews 13.
I’m struggling to see corroboration.
Hi Cameron, Thanks for such awesome content. Lots to mull over. Appreciate all your work.
The thing i love about having these two guests together is that it shows similarities between a catholic apologist an a "progressive" Christian (though I believe Randall is orthodox in his thinking). I emjoyed seeing the points of agreement between the two worldviews.
Every Christian I met was a progressive. You don't come across many who argue for the morality of slavery or to make jews second class citizens. What is orthodox today was heresy yesterday.
As a Christian, it was hard seeing Dr. Craig explain what non believers call "genocide" in the Bible. The atheists were licking their chops in the comments section
You have a very strange view of atheists. Why would most of us care about the horrible views of professing Christians? It’s not like there is any shortage of reasons to conclude that Christian beliefs are rather silly.
@@davethebrahman9870 you haven't read the comments in the Alex O Connor video? The comments expressed are closer towards vitriol than apathy
@@fernandoformeloza4107 Indeed. People don’t like defences of genocide. But that in no way justifies your characterisation.
They ended the life of the whole civilization.
Isn't that genocide by definition?
Why put it in quotes?
Yeah this community really doesn't like atheists I've found, and usually assume the worst about us. Unlike other religious channels I might add
I can’t overstate how helpful this video was to me. This issue has always been a tough one for me and that O’Connor Craig conversation felt pretty much like a nail in the coffin, but y'all cleared things up a lot for me.
A nail in the coffin to what?
I 100% understand what you mean and had a similar reaction to the video having just lost a baby.
It's important to remember an apologist, no matter how famous or renowned, does not fully represent a religion. While it's totally reasonable to be disenchanted with WLC and the theological worldview holds, there are many other interpretations outside of what he thinks.
I love Jimmy. I love you too, Cameron. Have him on regularly!
I think Akin's question for Craig of how exactly God's nature (love and justice) are supposed to constrain His commands is a legitimate one, and it's true that Craig doesn't spell out exactly how this can be, but it seems like Akin thereby concludes that for Craig, God can just command anything and everything whenever and however. I don't think Craig would grant that. In fact, Craig could maintain that God's nature does constrain His and simultaneously maintain ignorance about how exactly God's nature does so. That's a coherent position. And Craig can then maintain that the burden is on the atheist who wants to say that God's commanding the Canaanite slaughter is inconsistent with God's nature, not on Craig himself.
A skeptic could then ask, if Craig is ignorant of God’s ways, then how can he say that God’s ways always lead to good? If we can’t divine God’s nature or intentions by looking at his actions, then what do we have to go by? I assume he would try to hide in some form circular ontological argument that defines God into omnibenevolence.
WLC answers these objections from a philosophical perspective but most people aren’t interested in thinking through the positions to understand the defense he provides. His defense is perfectly coherent… it’s not emotionally satisfying but it is intellectually sufficient. To understand him, people must not listen hoping to hear a pastor or a popularizer.
His defense is that 1) God is perfectly within his right to command those things the Bible attributes to him 2) The Israelites who carried out the commands are justified on the basis that their conduct was required by God so neither God (who’s conduct is unassailable) nor the Israelites (who were following God’s command) are morally culpable.
The objections don’t seem to actually touch his core defense…
It seems you need to give another hearing to Randall's arguments.
Isn't this defence "works" for any gods? Any theist can say, that those actions are justified, because God commanded it.
"1) God is perfectly within his right to command those things the Bible attributes to him"
God is not within his right to command those things, because it's inconsistent with His nature. The idea that slaughtering a two-year-old child's mother in front of his/her eyes and then slaughtering this child is a beneficial character-building experience for the child is outrageously ridiculous. I'd be afraid to be around any person who believes that. That's pure evil.
"2) The Israelites who carried out the commands are justified on the basis that their conduct was required by God so neither God (who’s conduct is unassailable) nor the Israelites (who were following God’s command) are morally culpable."
They were not justified because their moral compass should tell them it's Satan speaking to them, not God.
All of the objections being raised rely entirely on the moral intuitions of people who've never made a life or death decision in their life. Its like asking a toddler what they think about putting down a sick dog. Their life experience is unsufficient to even have an opinion at all.
Imagine thinking your idea of "love" can and should be used to judge gods actions lol
@@brandonrichardson4142 Christian idea of love comes from the Bible. And it's incompatible with God forcing people to slaughter a mother and father of a child in front of his/her eyes, then slaughtering their siblings and finally slaughtering the child.
God is the one who commanded it, the arbiter of judgement, justice and curator of our souls after death. If anyone is righteous in commanding it, it's God.
or TLDR:
Atheists; "Why doesn't God do anything about evil!?"
[God does something about evil]
Atheists; "But not like that!"
Facts!!
Does something about evil by demanding that the Israelites sacrifice all the Canaanites to him? Thankfully archaeology has shown it's all fiction.
what would warrant “but not like that” if not the slaughter of hundreds of children? Your comment has to be a joke
@@HugoMccreddieWell, you know, as Dostoyevski said through one of his characters: "If Divine Command Theory is true, everything is permissible". Oh, no, wait....
@@HugoMccreddieThe hundreds of children that they were already involving in genocide? I guess one of the counter arguments would be that God could have instructed them to adopt the children and slaughter everyone else but I assume many wouldn’t be satisfied with that scenario either.
Slightly off topic, but the Israel-Palestine conflict has shown me that people are a lot more comfortable with genocide then they want to admit (depending on the perpetrators and the victims. That goes for some Zionists and pro-Palestine people that are also pro-Hamas.
Great interview!!!
There is a continuous insistence in Holy Scripture that the israelites didn't finish the job, and because of that they fell into sins of idolatry.
So here is something new to consider:
The ancient cananites eventually died off in the region, but a remnant emigrated to Africa. These were the carthaginians. They were the most horrendous type of idolaters, sacrificing babies for whatever small favor their "gods" would grant them in exchange.
Now... why do you think Rome became the New Jerusalem?
Could it be that God rewarded the city that, even though pagan at the time, finally destroyed those wicked people, razing their city, and salting the earth?
I think it is very likely.
Rome despised human sacrifice as well. Carthago delenda est indeed.
I heard a soldier questioning not only the order to exterminate, but also the likely psychological and spiritual consequences for the Israelite executioners. Killing a child is going to normally sit on someone’s mind for the rest of their life.
Shameless Popery took this question on and gave a great argument from history and the Church Fathers.
What argument excuses the death of babies and psychology trauma of those ending their lives as a good thing? All WLC had was, "God told them to do this and what God commands is good." Also, "The babies went to a better place.".
Meh. I don’t know. Did the actual warriors that inspired characters like Achilles and Hector have issues with killing children and taking sex slaves? I doubt it. The Spartans killed their slave population - the Helots - for basically fun, as a training technique. I don’t think those Israelites had any issues with genocide.
@@malirk go look it up! The language is exaggerative. Not literal. And everyone back then knew it.
Even today we have versions of this style of exaggeration:
“Did you hear about the basketball game last night? Talk about a total slaughter!”
“Yeah, they were killing those guys!”
… but just go over to that channel and listen to the full argument for this claim. I can’t possibly do it justice in a post. historical sources are cited.
@@MikePasqqsaPekiM So the actions of the Israelites were exaggerated, could the same be the case for the action of the canaanites, e.g. child sacrifice.
@@CafeteriaCatholic We have archeological evidence of child sacrifice, and there isn't esablished method of this kind of hyperbole like there is in the other case
Well, at least someone brought up the supernatural topic…However, I’m disappointed at how little scholars engage that perspective b/c we shouldn’t dismiss a very real aspect of the Biblical narrative for the sake of philosophy.
Amen. And that narrative equally handles every single problem while being able to completely understand that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Love that you posted this, because I was thinking the exact same thing.
@@humblewatchman1673
That’s why I don’t just listen to one channel for content like this. I tend to look for a mosaic of different arguments (while also trying to stay logically consistent). I think as a Christian we should learn multiple arguments covering a topic bc a single argument is not going to cover all aspects of that topic (maybe a few facets but not all). Take this topic, we should be versed in covering a range of arguments (many of which this video touches on): philosophical, moral/ethical, epistemological, historical context, biblical narrative, and even textual.
@@humblewatchman1673it was addressed. The DNA of canaanites survives to this day, among Lebanese mostly, and is not different than other human. Moreover, there is not a massive pile of giant bones found in a mass grave to suggest Canaanites weren’t human.
Also this still doesn’t get to the core of killing children. Children, have not committed actions to be judged for.
Those were the objections to this view raised.
Yes we need stop reading our modern interpretation into scripture and see the worldview of ancient Israelites. Look into Dr. Michael Heiser, an OT scholar who explains succinctly about why these “genocidal acts” occurred to eliminate the remnant giant tribes that worshiped other gods. How can you believe in a virgin birth, talking donkey worldwide flood, but reject Genesis 6 being not supernatural???
@@johnsey2625 you addressed nothing, but have a good day
Great dialogue, Jimmy is fantastic!
Of all the people you could have on you choose Randal Rauser? The guy attempting to build his career on bashing other Christians day in and day out on Twitter. Please stop giving your platform to people who hate us. You have more power than you think.
Randal hates us? Randal is one of us. He just has different theology than some Christians and he has strong opinions about it. Pretty normal stuff, honestly.
Would you prefer that every Christian has the same biblical interpretations and inferences? It's normal for people even within religious traditions to criticize and debate each other to better understand different positions within the faith. It's totally okay to not agree on everything. We would never grow as Christians if there were no objections to our perspectives.
i like how every live chat on every channel has the guy spamming the chat saying you are afraid to debate/talk to their guy
1:37:34 to 1:39:01 - Very good pushback question; I had a similar concern. If we would be very skeptical that God ordered someone to e.g., commit genocide due to such an order being against God's nature, then we should also be skeptical that took place in the Old Testament days.
Always good seeing you Maverick. I liked your interview with TJump and actually thought you were the more rational one in that discussion and TJump was not at his best. But my question for you is...
"Is it theoretically possible that all the abortions that have happened were at the divine command of God?"
I really appreciate any person who sets aside their ego to really grapple with concepts and principles. Arguing with good faith and charity is rare anywhere. Especially online where click bait affirmation and red meat is the norm. I'll buy a round for every person who speaks and behaves like an adult. Whether they agree with me or not.
2:08:33 what are you talking about atheist dont care about children up to the age of 3? Most atheist dont care about fetuses but I have never heard anyone say they dont care about actual children
Indeed, that felt as an outright strawman argument to me as well.
As we have never heard of a fetuse turning into anything but a child, then surely a fetuse is at the youngest stage of childhood. No woman seeking an abortion asks to have the 'salmon' she is carrying removed.
@@georgekavanagh8220 Very true. But he claimed atheist dont care about children up to the age of 3 and i have never heard anything like that ever
@@tandloseconsidering the t**ns thing happening now, I’d say atheists don’t care about children at all
Dr. Craig doesn't really go hard enough here. The truth is that God has authority over life and death. It's His to give and take. The prohibition against murder is for the creature, not the creator. Everyone dies. That was an absolute promise from the garden, that violating the command of God would result in death. It is the divine prerogative, how long we live on the earth. There is no promise of "fairness" as we understand it. What is fair is that everyone dies and receives punishment. People trying to get God off the hook here aren't doing Him favors. All throughout the Bible God is satisfied keeping Himself ON the hook for the death or destruction of His creatures. Why people argue about the Canaanite issue is a bit baffling to me considering that the flood of Noah's time is a thing. Is it a serious consideration that drowning every living person in the world was less violent, alarming or terrible than ordering Israel to bring judgement on Canaan? Or than God raising up Persia or Babylon or Rome to bring judgement on Israel? The problem is that we have not done an appropriate job of absorbing the answers given both to Job and in Romans 9 to the accusation against God that "Why does He still find fault, for who resists His will?" The answer given there is all we get. As believers we need to make peace with that answer.
I think I'm in WLC's camp here, because I'm always on God's side..."Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him..." (Job 13:15). I can tell you from my life experiences that it is worth it to doggedly trust God no matter what happens! Who are we to judge the Almighty? We have to start with the knowledge that God not only has the right to give and take life, but also (unlike us) can see all ends. He knew what would happen, for instance, if He didn't send the great flood, or failed to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah (once confirming that not even 10 righteous persons resided there). I would say that if He did, indeed, issues commands that we don't understand, then He had His reasons. He knew what was going to happen if those commands weren't followed. I am not allowed to make these decisions because I'm not omniscient, and neither are any of you. We see from the OT texts that God was supremely concerned that His people, who were set aside to be a holy people, would begin to worship idols and to adopt those evil practices. We know those concerns were well-founded, as the Children of Israel did follow other gods as they began to trade and intermarry with these people groups...even Solomon did that. Plutarch wrote about child sacrifice among the Canaanites in explicit terms...childless people buying infants just so they could slit their throats right in front of their mothers (for instance). One of their gods was represented by a large bronze idol under which a fire was built. The idol had "cradling arms", and once sufficiently hot, an infant was placed there. The screams of the infant were thought to appease the god, who would allegedly send good harvests or other blessings to the Canaanites. As Trent Horne has said, people wonder why God doesn't do anything to stop suffering, but when He has done just that, they are incensed! At the end of the day, He sent His Son to take on all the suffering of the world...God in human form came down and experienced suffering for all of us.
I wish with all my heart that you could laugh at yourself one day. "Worth being a doggie" lady
Emotional rhetoric aside, WLC is absolutely right. And I would probably summarize it by just saying that we should analyze a story in its entirety. So if we're granting the existence of the Canaanite story for the sake of argument, we have to also grant the existence of heaven for the same reason. Then it becomes clear that what we're really talking about is a momentary suffering followed by a relocation to an eternally blissful state. Not so obvious that any death (commanded by this "god" at least) would be wrong in that light.
And I might add that only god would know who is/isn't *bound* for that eternally blissful state, whose continued presence on Earth is more important in the grand scheme of things, etc., so that it wouldn't be the case that just *anyone* could kill people justifiably.
ETA: We also need to recognize that deferring to the existence of our moral intuitions in order to argue that morality is objective does not commit us to the view that our moral senses are *infallible.* In the same way not everyone has perfect vision (many are even blind), not everyone's moral sense is going to perfectly detect moral realities. Nor does that infallibility call into question the existence of the physical/moral realms respectively.
@@Reclaimer77 "You cannot separate morality from emotions."
Depends on what you mean. But in any case, how we feel about something is not an infallible way of determining right from wrong. Just as our senses of vision, sound, etc. are not perfect, neither is anyone's moral sense.
"I know you guys want to believe you run to the Bible and read it every time you have to make a decision,"
I'm not a Christian. But I *can* inform you that I don't base my decisions solely on my emotions; to do so would (at least at times) actually be immoral.
"I thought Christians say "The Truth is Written on Our Hearts"?"
Sure, but that wouldn't mean that we're always in tune with the truth either.
"Unless you are a sociopath, there's no way you don't feel some wrongness in what WLC is saying here. It just cannot be justified."
Unfortunately, just reasserting your position is not a good argument. And WLC himself admitted that it's *difficult* to grapple with that part of the scenario, emotionally. But that doesn't in any way refute the points he made as to why it could be justified if you stick with the biblical narrative.
The problem is that Craig proposes something we can't test, that the babies had an instant painless death and infinite reward. Which is a response to something we can't test either. The text itself still has the command to kill babies coming from a person claiming god told him. So we can never prove or disprove that, nor the claim on reward from god to those babies. All just to cover that this is accepted in the canon.
If this was any other religion Christians and Jews would point to it as proof that this god speaking was a bloodthirsty demon. They do it all the time with Islam and Hindu gods.
And it all works to just allow might makes right, again this is the best "argument" for Islam being true. That they conqured so much so fast. They can even say that the true god helped the Cananites, then the Jews, then the Christians, and all lost their favor and were justly punished by God. This is stated by Islmaic terrorists now. That fellow good Muslims, and maybe the few good people of the book killed in 9/11 or 10/7 would be instantly rewarded by Allah.
See how evil this is to uphold this precident? Even within the worldview of God, angels and demons, I would have to assume that if I felt God was telling me to kill kids, this is the easiest thing ever to say ah this is an evil being masquerading as a being of light. And just dismiss this, and dismiss this part of the bible as not canon, or like the Satanic verses in Islam.
I wouldn’t think Joshua would be like a guy just sitting there and a voice in his head whispered to him to kill kids. According to scripture, it was clear for decades before that the one true God was with them. Telling them all that time that this would happen. But how can you believe that those scriptures are reliable? Well that’s a different debate.
great points you brought up here. I'd like to also add that I agree that this whole "they go straight to heaven" thing seems like such a scapegoat for immoral behaviour. It's so convenient to just say "they went to heaven and it's much better there" okay, then whats the point of being on this earth? if these little children are already destined to die at an early age and go heaven, why have then be born and suffer so much pain in the first place? just take them to heaven.
Your point are unBiblical , if you're going to be a Christian, you believe everything God said. There's no re-writing/changing biblical narrative just to appease some atheistic narrative. God did command it , and calling the word of God , satanic makes you adding or even feeling ashame of the word of God. You have probably taken human philosophy instead of God's word. It's either you take what the Bible says , bcos it was literally or you leave Christianity.
God is just and will destroy EVIL. Just wait until Judgement day. Repent!!!
The idea that babies go straight to heaven is highly questionable and few Christians would agree with it
@@Michael-bk5nz but then they can't agree with orthodox views that YHWH is Jesus, or they do agree and say it was okay because God is the source of good everything he orders is good, but it leaves us with the fact that these orders come to us from people.
I feel like we should get really good at defending the literal interpretation. Because allegorical sounds like a cop out, even though it very would could be the case. And errors in the text undermines inerrancy.
I think a general rule of thumb to keep in mind about questioning the creator’s morality is the story of Job. Skeptics would say he had every right to point his finger at God. And when he does, the text describes God basically giving him a virtual tour of what it’s like to be God and it says “Job was humbled”.
Bottom line? We can’t comprehend all of who God is and all of his intentions and will. But what we do have is enough reason to trust Him. He’s demonstrated himself over and over.
Cult of yhvh dashing infants intto rocks doesnt sound holy in ANY WAY
😂😂
Havent checked this channel in a while. But last night i had a strange dream about Dr Rauser and I woke up thinking, "hm, maybe he appeared on CC recently."
Not claiming it was psi related (although that's possible, and Akin has made a good case for psi elsewhere!), but cool either way.
Thank you, Cameron, for this discussion
I think once you start rejecting any part of God‘s word, because it makes you uncomfortable, or you don’t understand it, it becomes a slippery slope, because what’s stopping you from doing the same thing with any Bible verse you don’t like?
You wouldn’t stone your neighbor for working on a Sunday?
I mean what's stopping you from not believing in god? In the face of these objections, Christians won't even *consider* the possibility that there's no god in the first place, and that's a problem.
@@johnzhou4877considering the impossibility of the contrary, no creator, no creation, no beginner, no beginning,
@@djokampungtz2108 The opposite of Christianity isn't that, For example, even if the Kalam works, it still doesn't lead to a *sentient* creator who *loves human* .
@@johnzhou4877 you said "not believing in God", i understood it as creator. But about the creator being specifically YÆHWÆH, well i dont have sufficient reasons to deny and but do have ample reasons to accept the reliability of the Bible and of the Shroud of Turin.
I’ve read and heard Dr. Craig defend his position regarding the destruction of the Canaanites several times, but there’s an important Biblical aspect that he seems to have overlooked, or at least for whatever reason he’s not mentioned it.
Before the Israelite armies approached the land these nation states of Canaanite tribes seem to be normal people groups. They were apparently families, agriculture, commerce, military as well as the debauchery for which they were punished. However, the Bible makes it clear that before the Israelite armies even approached the land, God personally intervened.
The Biblical text tells us that prior to the entrance of Israel, that God HIMSELF would drive them out (Exodus 23:27-30; Deut. 7:20-22; Josh. 24:12, etc.). It tells us that He will use wild animals, locusts and plague. It’s not difficult to imagine that civilians, children, women, the elderly and all non- combatants would be forced to leave the cities and areas they inhabit. Perhaps they would cross the Jordan River or maybe they would go north into more area of forest and mountain. In any event they would leave what we know as modern day Israel, the land soon to be inhabited by the 12 tribes.
Of course they would see these wild animals, locusts and plague as temporary impediments to living in the land. Therefore, they would be forced to leave behind military presence in order to safeguard what was theirs. Their hope would be that as soon as possible they would be able to return to their homes.
Because all that would be left in the land would be military presences, the cities would actually be built up into military fortifications. And as Paul Copan wrote, these militaries would be what Israel would face. We know the text says that children and women are to be part of the destruction. As far as they were left within the fortifications to provide some sort of assistance to the military (e.g. Rahab in Jericho) they would be subject to destruction. However, the vast majority of the civilian population would not even be in the land at the time the armies of Israel invaded.
I just feel that a correction of this oversight helps to make things clearer, and I would hope that Dr Craig and others would make it apart of their theodicy from now on. At least I think it is biblically sound and historically accurate.
The passages you quote are pretty clear in targeting all folks. So God committing genocide in advance isn't much of an argument is it.
There is another, historically sound reason why the cities were emptier than usual.. a big gap had just opened up in lower Egypt’s labour force. I can’t remember where I came across it, but there’s evidence that Egypt was conducting slave raids on Canaan around the purported time of Israel’s wandering in the wilderness.
I think Randal is very concerned with people who would be "put off" of Christianity by passages such as these, at the expense of another group of people who would be quite "put off" to learn that the texts actually don't mean what they say or are even errant in some way. Both views have difficulties that people will struggle with. Since we know it is the Holy Spirit who converts hearts why don't we forget what people think and simply aim for truth? There is nothing in the text itself to suggest that the Israelites did not, in fact, kill the Canaanites, including their children and cattle.
I don't think that's what he was saying at all. I think he was saying that he doesn't want unnecessary stumbling blocks of interpretations of Scripture that are contrary to the Character of Christ. I think those are different things in my opinion.
@@jessewinn5563Rarely have I seen RR take a biblical view, I would say his view isn't normally biblical more an apologist athethist which kinda thinks there's a God.
I'd say the death of babies is very off-putting to most sane people.
So no one on the left who supports abortion is sane? Well you may have a point there.@@malirk
@@CollinBoSmith I agree! I'm pro-life.
Anti-Bible
Anti-Abortion
Be consistent.
Thank you for this video! I watched a similar one Randall did on the New Evangelicals channel. WLC scares me the more I hear him speak. When someone can smile and brush off genocide it is just indescribably creepy.
Why?
I would like to know what this panel thinks of the ideas of "Love your neighbor as yourself" "love your enemies" applying to God in relation to us? How can God possibly be morally accountable to His own creation, that makes no sense, aren't those who hate God ending up in Hell, is that loving His enemies? I feel like these verses are for humans to humans, not God to human.
We are all God's enemies. And he loves us so much that he sent his son to die for us and save us from the hell we deserve.
@@oldbenkenob1 But, why. You're acting like there is no possible way he could've forgiven us except by jesus dying. Remeber, he is god, he makes the rules. So he thought the most moral thing to do is create creations that he knew would be sinful and be destined for hell, so to fix that he created a loophole based on his own made up rule system to redeem us by killing an innocent man. He really could not have thought of a better way. if not then I'd assert that this god seems small and incapable. this is why these ideas seem so small and man made because they have so many contradictions embedded right in the logic of the story.
@@SharedPhilosophy because God desires his followers to worship him freely, he gave people free will. Because he gave people free will, he allowed people to choose to sin. Because God is just, sin must be punished. Because he is holy, he cannot abide with sin, and therefore the punishment must involve eternal separation. Because God is the source of life, the eternal separation must be a kind of death. Because God is merciful, he has provided us a way in Chirst to overcome the sting of death caused by sin. Because he is just and merciful, he alone could pay the debt. Because he is full of grace, he offers the gift of salvation to all.
Read the books of John, Romans, and Hebrews.
@@oldbenkenob1 Right, but those that do not repent and put their faith in Christ continue to be enemies of God and end up in Hell, is that loving His enemies? My whole point is that God is not bound to love His enemies like we are bound, God has no bounds beyond His own good desires.
@@YuGiOhDuelChannel yes, God loves his enemies. He offers them a free gift of salvation, but the point is it has to be free. God is not a tyrant. He does not want robot followers. He will not force anyone to repent, receive salvation, or enter heaven. Those who love their own sin so much that they refuse to repent are making a choice to continue down the road to damnation. God allows them to make that choice.
God is by nature just and merciful. He is both righteous and gracious. His righteousness demands perfection, but his grace allows for reconciliation with those who aren't perfect. He has lovingly provided us the means of reconciliation: salvation in Christ Jesus. Those who seek it can find it, but those who refuse it are left to the consequences of their own choices.
I see Jimmy... I watch
I’m a fan of CC but these guys completely misrepresented WLC! It’s really shameful. They should allow WLC to defend himself
He made his position quite clear….
How did they misrepresent him? I heard them attempt steel-manning several times. Craig’s position entails denying our basic moral intuitions regarding the mass slaughter of civilians and holding that mass killing can be just if ordered by God… which leaves the door scarily open for religious justification of future genocides. That is why there has been such a negative reaction in the comments on the original video interview. Defending genocide in a post Holocaust, post-Rwanda world is extremely hard even for someone as intelligent and well-spoken as Craig. I like Craig, but cannot ever see myself agreeing with him on this. Especially not when other options are on the table that keep genocide as an unthinkable evil
@@robertbelcher8297why do you think Craig’s position entails denying our basic moral intuition that killing civilians is wrong? I agree with Dr. Craig here, but I can still recognize when genocide occurs in the world and I can still condemn it.
Under the worldview Craig is proposing how can you know that the Hutu leaders in Rwanda were not told to kill the Tutsi? Craig’s position means the mass killing of civilians is not objectively wrong. It would be wrong sometimes - when not commanded - and morally praiseworthy at other times - when commanded.
@@robertbelcher8297 Craig would ask the Hutu why they killed the Tutsi. What he would discover is that it was economic concerns that motivated the Hutu to kill the Tutsi, not a divine command to divest them of their land as judgment for their sins.
So on Craig’s view, we most certainly can know that God did not give the Hutu a divine command to kill the Tutsi. Craig’s view doesn’t preclude asking people why they kill others or being able to discern some act of mass killing is not a divine command.
Craig’s view entails that it is not necessarily wrong to kill a mass number of people. That’s right.
Anyone reading this far in the Bible will already have read how God judged a great number of people through a catastrophic flood. So I’m always a bit confused why skeptics latch on to these isolated, handful of cases where God commands people to enforce judgment upon specific groups of people.
thank goodness you are addressing this
"Miracles happen right now. Like the Miracle of Zaytoun". Well, 1968 is not what I would call “right now”...
Also, we don't have good documentation on this. Miracles seemed to go away when everyone got cellphones. Now the miracles are reduced to, "God helped me find something" or "I got better!" if they ever happen.
@@malirkhave you seen Testify's recent videos on miracles?
Totally off topic. I like the shelf of little Jimmy Aikens behind Jimmy. 😁
Randal's view might change if, over time, the culture actually became more pagan (which it is by the way). To see paganism, to live in it, with it and under it, may alter one's perspective on the use of violence against it. Until we have real-life encounters with radical evil, with rampant pedophilia, with human blood sacrifice (the Aztecs skinned people alive, then wore the skins and danced around), with demonic yoking of souls to pagan gods, with bestiality, etc., it is hard to make a sound judgment about what is ultimately only words about something pagan.
Human blood sacrifice? Like Jesus on the cross? Since Herem means to turn over to the lord all canaanites killed in Herem warfare are human sacrifices to Yahweh as well, not to mention the virgins of numbers 31.
2 issues with divine command theory WRT to this issue.
1. It suggests a fickle God who is willing to order acts that are by all other commandments are morally reprehensible.
2. How we know these are God's commands? And if his commands are so clear that that it is indisputably from the one and only God, could he not convict the Canaanites to change their behavior.
The problem with allegorizing the slaughter of the canaanites is that it leaves you with the problem of having to explain how the Israelites came to control Canaan in the first place. Surely, they didn't just ask nicely for the residents to leave.
The Canaanites are still alive and kicking in Judges, the book of Joshua is of hardly any historical value
Read judges. The Bible itself never shows the results of genocide. Their control was tenuous at best, and took hundreds of years where the results often included counterattacks and reverse subjugation.
Heck, Dan never even took the city they were supposed to so they settled somewhere else.
Another option is that they just always lived there
@@berdeaux Don't you think that causes more problems than it fixes. What's with the story from Abraham to Moses
I'm no expert, but I've read that the Israelites appear to have been just a branch of Canaanites. Their architecture, pottery, and other artifacts are very similar. Conversely, there appears to be little to no Egyptian influence on early Israelite artifacts. This would be extremely surprising if they had been enslaved in Egypt for hundreds of years and, presumably, making such things for the Egyptians.
1:00:00
What kills me about all this is the thought that God's got to do all these workarounds to achieve his goals. Israel needs land? Make it rise out of the sea! He's GOD! He can do anything! No need to run spears through babies! No need to dash their heads upon the rocks! It strikes me that this debate is what you get when you are committed to the supernatural. Come out of all this nonsense!
Adopt the babies even! So many solutions that never occured to this "all knowing" diety 😂
@@sbnwnc didnt think I would find ANY sentient comments under this video but alas, ty
29:32 Tom Holland is not an actual historian, and I'm honestly shocked to see that Cameron is apparently unaware of the fact that the greeks were doing ethics literally hundreds of years before christianity. One of the main reasons we see so much moral progress in the NT compared to the OT to begin with, is precisely because of the tremendous influence of hellenism and greek philosophy.
I think you might miss the point. Even if Plato et al were ”doing ethics”, Platonism never became a movement with billions of followers that transformed the ethical landscape of the world. I think this point stands no matter how big of an influence you believe greek philosophy have had on Christianity.
@@rootbergChristianity didn't aquire billions of followers or "transform the world" until the modern era. I was addressing the specific point Cameron made when he said that before Christianity, - which began in the 1st century - ethics was basically "all over the place". Your point is about what eventually happened over a millennia later after the beginning of christianity, and thus a red herring.
a millennium. @@belialord
I really enjoyed hearing Jimmy Akin's thoughts during this discussion. I think he argued for WLC's position better than WLC did and was very fair minded. Regarding Rauser, I typically find him long on complaints and short on answers.
Samuel 1 15-20 helps understand this command. Notice in 18 God commanded that “sinners among the amelkites be killed”. A child could be fighting against the Israelites like the Hitler youth and in this case would be killed. Anyone who denounced the ways of the amalekite culture and followed the laws in the covenant with Noah would be spared and kept under protection as per the law as a foreigner. There are examples of this like the sojourner who was an amalekite who killed Saul. Notice David had him killed not solely because he was an amalekite but because he helped kill the Lords anointed.
Do you think the Hitler Youth were active combatants in WW2? They were Nazi Boy Scouts. Not appropriate military targets.
There is a perspective on this issue that is being over looked. My channel has a ten video playlist explaining why the warfare tactics of Israel was justified, how it complies with Just War Theory, and how it is still a tactic employed by even western powers in modern warfare, and how even atheists and skeptics do not disagree with it in principle.
“Moral intuition is important in interpreting scripture “. Right. Thats why eternal conscious torment is infinitely worse than any Israeli genoice/murder.
No one sees their inconsistency eh? Believing eternal torment and at the same time saying Dr. Craig is wrong in his theory of defending God for genocide of those evil people.
Robin Parry, Thomas Talbott, Andrew Hronrich, Eric Reitan, etc FTW
Hell is an eternal separation
@@stls800 right. Eternal conscious torment. Or others say eternal torture.
@@drbkjv We don't believe that God tortures people, what causes suffering is their overwhelming hate and anger towards him and his presence.
@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns that the understanding of many orthodox theologians
Duns Scotus agrees with Craig too. The entire second tablet is up for grabs given the divine command.
Divine command is a scary thing to live by. As many have pointed out, WLC would agree with terrorists who do harm in the name of their religion (Because their God commands them) if WLC only believed in their religion. Many non-believers see the actions in this verse as terrorism.
WLC would say the same to the terrorist that any atheist would say - God did not command you to do that. The error of the terrorist is in the area of moral epistemology not in their divine command ethic.
Divine commands from an all good God is not scary. But living without any divine commands at all is a scary world indeed.
@@DrScottMSullivan How could you ever tell if a command was from an all good god? How do you determine that the command you receive, in whatever fashion you receive it, is actually from a god, much less an all good god?
Even if it is a scary proposition to live in a world without divine commands, does that make the proposition untrue?
Bro, decide if you are an interviewer or an interviewee. Are you an expert or are you interviewing an expert?
Was thinking the same thing. He really didn't let his guests talk much at all.
I’m not Roman Catholic but Jimmy is tempting me 😂
I wrote this as a super chat but 😂 Is it actually intrinsic to humans that killing is always immoral when some studies have shown humans’ sense of morality can be altered under certain authority? Certain experiments like the prisoner-guard, electrocution, and just examples of real world phenomena like the Holocaust. (I don’t have an opinion, I’m just posing a hypothetical objection to the idea that it is intrinsic to humans that killing is always immoral.)
Killing is not intrinsically immoral and can be done, e.g., when needed to stop an aggressor and protect innocent life. Unless Craig's position is correct and God can/does sometimes make exceptions, killing *innocent* (non-aggressor) humans is intrinsically immoral, meaning that it can never be done in a morally legitimate way. The fact killing innocents was done in the Holocaust only reveals that humans can do things that are morally illegitimate. (Incidentally, the Standford Prison Experiment was actually cooked and was not a legitimate scientific experiment. Even if it had been, it would only show that people can do things that they shouldn't). Hope this helps!
@@JimmyAkin I understand that. I’m referring to Alex’s objection that theists cannot use an intrinsic moral argument when the sense of morality we use can be superceded by divine command. I’m questioning Alex’s intuition that killing of innocents is always intrinsic to humans as immoral when studies have shown humans can be seen changing their instinct under certain authoritarian regimes. He says it’s contradictory to say morality proves God when God commands something immoral but I’m questioning if it is truly intrinsic to humans that such an act is ALWAYS immoral. (Nothing to say about whether it actually is or not objectively).
@@famiahamid People can certainly lack the intuition that killing innocents is always immoral, which would challenge certain forms of Alex's argument. I suppose that Alex's response would be to dissociate himself from those who lack this intuition and say that they do not have properly formed moral intuititions.
@@JimmyAkin if he were to say that, it would be extremely unrealistic since the premise of Christianity is that mankind is imperfect and born in sin. Alex's assumption here is that morality is perfect but how would that apply to imperfect beings in imperfect situations. Of course this is within the standards of theology (Gods existence supposed), so to apply politically correct secular standards to theology would be a category mistake fallacy. Also the background of the canaanites/amorites was ignored, who partook in pagan rituals including child sacrifices. God would be morally justified in this case to stop the cycle begetting further. The same way it was necessary to stop Hitler in WW2. Do we have evidence or reference to children slaughter during the canaanite conquest?
I'm not a Christian, but I'm just playing Gods advocate for the sake of this dialogue lol
@@edwardnygma5549 yeah same, I’m not christian either but I don’t see the skeptic’s argument as strong
For those of you quibbling over the term "genocide," apart from listing out the plethora of monstrous atrocities described in the Conquest each and every time, what simple catch-all term would you propose?
Perfect justice.
@@AluminiumT6 I guess that kind of perspective would explain, in part, why churches are bleeding parishioners. Despite Christians having about 75% higher birth rate than atheists and agnostics in the US, Christian numbers are, nonetheless, plummeting and "nones" are increasing. People are just better educated these days. Even childhood indoctrination can’t prevent them from recognizing the grotesquely anachronistic foundations that the Abrahamic religions are built upon.
@AluminiumT6 sp the stabbing to death of infants and toddlers is perfect justice?
At least that explains why it was common for christians to steal, torture and slaughter children as a method of spreading the Good Word of their christian gods. Normal, rational people call that genocide. Which means, in christian parlance, genocide is perfect justice.
True moral depravity on display. There really is no hate like christian love.
I would love to see Brian Zahnd, Brad Jersak, Robin Parry, or David Gushee on this channel. Just finished “Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God” by Zahnd, and it was one of my favorite theological books I’ve yet to read. It talks a lot about human violent attributes and how we have tried to pin them on God.
Why do we have to guess how corrupt the Canaanites were, or compare them to modern cultures? The Bible tells us in Leviticus 18 exactly how corrupt they were and why God destroyed them:
Leviticus 18:3-30 NIV
[3] You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices. [4] You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the Lord your God. [5] Keep my decrees and laws, for the person who obeys them will live by them. I am the Lord. [6] “ ‘No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the Lord. [7] “ ‘Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her. [8] “ ‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that would dishonor your father. [9] “ ‘Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere. [10] “ ‘Do not have sexual relations with your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter; that would dishonor you. [11] “ ‘Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father’s wife, born to your father; she is your sister. [12] “ ‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s sister; she is your father’s close relative. [13] “ ‘Do not have sexual relations with your mother’s sister, because she is your mother’s close relative. [14] “ ‘Do not dishonor your father’s brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt. [15] “ ‘Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son’s wife; do not have relations with her. [16] “ ‘Do not have sexual relations with your brother’s wife; that would dishonor your brother. [17] “ ‘Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness. [18] “ ‘Do not take your wife’s sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living. [19] “ ‘Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period. [20] “ ‘Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor’s wife and defile yourself with her. [21] “ ‘Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord. [22] “ ‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable. [23] “ ‘Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion. [24] “ ‘Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. [25] Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. [26] But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the foreigners residing among you must not do any of these detestable things, [27] for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. [28] And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you. [29] “ ‘Everyone who does any of these detestable things-such persons must be cut off from their people. [30] Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the Lord your God.’ ”
God can end the life of whoever he wants to. He has good reasons for what he chooses to do. The wages of sin is death. Sin affects everyone and everything!
Excellent podcast! Thoroughly enjoyed J Atkins. That being said, I believe a question that still remains is the extent of one's sinfulness and the consequences thereof. The author of Hebrews 9:23 tells us that "even the heavenly things had to be purified" by the sacrifice of Christ. Now, sure the first rebellion against God was conducted by "a cherubim" that had direct access into God's dwelling place (the heaven). But then, Satan somehow gained access into the animalic world ("the serpent"). So, when man himself decided to sin, we can say that the entire creation was corrupted. In light of this, I believe it would be erroneous to restrict sin's effect strictly to a particular person and place. The Bible makes it quite clear that personal and collective sin affects the entire cosmos in various ways: suffering, death, cataclysms, changes in the weather patterns, an increase of aggressive behavior of wildlife towards man, being some of them.
Have you considered the possibility that all (or at least a majority) of the stories in the bible are made up?
I don't know if it's funny (because of the the mental gymnastics) or if it's just sad (because we keep trying to come up with excuses for ancient near east morals).
Yeah it's pretty sad when people try to come up with excuses. God owes no excuses, and needs none. 👍
Good discussion. Thanks. 🙏🏻
I like pipe tobacco too, but honestly it looks so freaking pretentious to be smoking during a theological discussion. It comes off like a kid trying to seem sophisticated by wearing a monocle or a politician trying to seem like a blue collar rural guy by giving a speech with a stalk of wheat in his mouth. Imagine if Randall had lit up a cigarette during this…it would seem weird right?
Great stuff!
“Morality is objective, without God you can’t have any sense of right and wrong.”
*God commands the slaughter of children*
“Well since God commanded it since he’s the author of morality, it’s somehow justified.”
You just proved morality is subjective under divine command theory. If taking life away from infants and children is bad, but somehow justifiable when God does it, then it’s ultimately relative according to God whenever he wishes. You’re defending genocide.
It is an objective moral fact that God has dominion over the earth and that we all deserve eternal separation from Him due to sin. We are not in the same position as God, as the book of Job clearly demonstrates.
It's not genocide, You are a disgusting liar. God Created Everything. His Creation His Choice.
@@red.4712Exactly. His Creation His Choice.
@@red.4712 still doesn’t take away from the fact that he breaks his own rules when he wants. It still makes it subjective.
More Jimmy Akin, please 😊
So according to WLC there really is no way for us to objectively know if murdering is morally right or wrong if we don't know who is doing the murdering or commanding it. And he calls this objective morality.
"The killing of another person without justification or excuse, especially the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought or with recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.", is the definition of murder. It is not murder if God commands the killing of people. We know its unjust killing if there is not a moral reason to do so. The moral reason is God has commanded it due to the reasons Craig lays out. God does not give commands to kill large groups of people today. That was a specific time in the Bible for a specific reason.
In the interview Graig explicitly says that had the slaughter of the Canaanites and their innocent infants been undertaken by humans only, it would have been immoral. But because God has no moral obligations it is not immoral when the killing is done following Gods command. So the morality of the killing cannot be objective because it is dependent of the person who is responsible. This was my point. And if this is the case, God can also commit morally good murders.
I cannot see why Graig appeals to the justifications or excuses he gives to the killings at all, because on the other hand says, that God needs no external justifications because he is God.
Whatever god does, according to Graig, is necessarily justified.
You wrote that "God does not give commands to kill large groups of people today. That was a specific time in the Bible for a specific reason." Graig disagrees with you:
ruclips.net/video/wvaBnGdyKKE/видео.html
@@veli-mattisuhonen4177 The objective morality of killing would be when someone kills another person because of God's commands. It would not be murder because murder is a unjust killing, God commanding it makes it just. Also the video is about how God could make decrees, not that He has made decrees.
@@joe7380 There cannot be an "objective morality of killing" when killing can become both moral and immoral depending on God's commands. More importantly, your imaginary God isn't actually issuing any commands in the real world.
@@betsalprince Thats what is objective its whether God has commanded it or not.
Please Cameron, stop bloating these videos with your interjections
Dawkin's argument isn't against an interpretation of the Bible. It's against the morality of those who hold to that interpretation. And against the morality of the God if that interpretation is correct. Not against God's existence, but against what kind of character he has if that interpretation is correct. And that's a good reason not to talk to that person.
Some theists do the same to those in favour of abortion. They don't even stand being near that person.
People evolved morality through evolution, it’s pretty easy to understand once you hear it even animals are born with it but what I’ll never understand are the people saying we have morality yet can absolutely never question what “God” does. Religion will lead the blind to commit evil acts, India literally has a law that if you commit a crime for religious purposes you get off Scott free. Is that a world you want to justify?
Ugh communism are ran by atheists it’s men that are bad
@Dawg476
It's not difficult to understand so long as you also use their view of morality.
Religion isn't at fault for that outcome, people are.
@@MineStrongth The entire Bible is pretty immoral.
@@Dawg476 If you have no desire to understand something, why complain about it?
I think this conversation could be more interesting if you had someone who agree with Craigs view of literacy in these passages, since I think is the most common interpretation between christian denominations
Personally, if any of this actually happened in history, I feel bad for the Israelites being forced to constantly brutally slaughter people. The trauma of that had to have been immense.
Ya makes you think about it all right? Pretty messed up
I get the logic of what WLC is saying, but I can't feel it. I just consider this a difficulty of the faith, I have a hard time fully saying this is just fine because God can kill whoever he wants. Hoping this video sheds some light. Thanks for having this discussion.
The atheistic argument “If I cannot conceive of a good reason God would allow x evil to take place, then God can have no good reason” sounds very sketchy. I doubt if your average athiest would apply that argument even to another human being. If the proposition was “Bob Jones is claimed to be a good person. Bob Jones did thing X . .,” would the average athiest conclude “I cannot imagine a good reason for dong thing X, therefore Bob Jones did not have a good reason”? The assumptions behind that line of reasoning seem to include, a. the reasoner is capable of imagining every possible morally good reason, b. that the reasoner’s judgments about what is morally good are infallible.
That's not the "atheistic" argument and certainly not the objection that was raised by Alex.
There are a couple of problems with your representation of that argument.
First, i dont believe that is the one Alex was making.
Second, comparing this argument against God's goodness and another person being good is not the same logic. God is claimed to be perfectly good, which means anything commanded by God which is evil negates that claim. Whether some random person is "good" is a lot less direct due to the varying definitions of a good person.
Third, there are specific things condemned by God in the Bible and declared by prophets of God to be evil or abominations. In these cases, there isn't "a way" for these actions to be good because that contradicts the commands of God. You don't need a perfect understanding of all moral perspectives in order to call it evil because God already has. If God commands anything that He has declared evil, then He is not perfectly good. If He is not perfectly good, that has heavy implications for His reality as gar as the version of God taught by most religion.
Of course, that last point heavily relies on whether you believe God commands things because they are good or whether things are good because God commands them.
You can still argue against the argument as a whole, but i think your particular reasoning is flawed.
Why cant you accept Jesus in the "next world"?
: because deep down the writers of bible dont know whether there is a next world. If they want to build a community, it has to be in this world. If you could accept Jesus in your next infinite world, no one would bother much about making a decision. And there is no good reason to not accept repentance in next world if you think about it.
It just that writers didnt really believe there is a next world.
William Lane Craig did a poor job in that interview because he either doesn't understand the history of the Nephilim in Genesis, the REAL REASON for the flood, or he understands it and rejects it, unlike the late Chuck Missler, Michael Heiser et al. It basically started in early Genesis when fallen angels (the watchers) saw the daughters of men, found them attractive, so they devised a scheme to leave their first estate (spirit realm), as explained in Genesis, Jude etc., entered the material world with material bodies, impregnated mortal women with a hybrid race of beings called the Nephilim among other names in the Bible, but called gods and demigods by the pagans. The story is close to identical in the Bible and pagan cultures (Examples: Iliad, Odyssey, Gilgamesh etc.) , only the Bible portrays them as evil and the pagans worshipped them as the gods (fallen watchers/angels) and demigods (their superhuman hybrid offspring). This corrupted the DNA of mankind, and ALL OF MANKIND over time, unless the hybrid DNA was eradicated. The first attempt to eradicate it was the great flood (Noah's Ark), but somehow the Nephilim returned in different places, like Canaan and had to be eradicated again. As for the watchers who pulled this stunt, the Bible says God has them chained in Hades where they will remain until the end times, then be Judged eternally at the second coming of Jesus.
Best explanation I have heard so far.
@@MrFireman164 Thank You. I highly recommend you watch a RUclips video.
Just search for: "Michael Heiser - Reversing Hermon, the sin of the watchers."
Sadly Dr. Heiser recently died of cancer, bow he's home with the Lord, but we have his videos.
I find all 3 views presented here plausible, but Craig’s view is still the most persuasive to me.
It seems to be the objections from Randal and most people to Craig’s view are emotional and not intellectual. Yes, unfortunately Craig’s view can be abused by maniacs and can slightly make it more difficult to recognise evil. But while that is unfortunate, it doesn’t have a bearing on whether Craig’s view is actually true or not.
Although I would argue that Craig’s view doesn’t actually make it more difficult to recognise evil in a practical sense anyway. Even apart from Craig’s theodicy, we already have uncertainty on whether certain acts are actually evil. Even with murders today there can be uncertainty from whether the act was self defence, whether it was intentional etc. Whether God commanded it or not doesn’t add much uncertainty to what was already there. Especially since, at least outside the events of the Bible, we can be 99.99999999999999% sure that God would not command something like this. And even in a world where he did, the claim that God commanded it should be disregarded both legally and in peoples informal judgements of the event - because if God really did command such an act I think He would still expect and be okay with the person being punished for it.
Is there an atrocity that cannot be justified in your mind?
@@MyContext You're all a bunch of effeminate, pearl clutching losers lol 😂
When dealing with this issue, it is critically important to establish "Did God in fact command the slaughter of the Canaanites?".
-If the skeptic's answer is "no", then there is no problem for the Christian because then of course it would be just another gruesome war (one of many in fact) that occurred in that part of the world, and would be of no theological significance.
-If the skeptic's answer is "yes", then there again is no problem for the Christian because God would know all of the results of following through with the command (and all of the results of not following through with it). God is able to do what we cannot do; namely to see the results of issuing the command (and of not issuing the command) in advance, and thus command the better outcome. God issuing such a command offends our sensibilities because we cannot possibly see the totality of both outcomes. I suspect that if we did, we would agree with God.
All skeptics are going to answer no, but if that's the bar for theological significance, then nothing is theologically significant.
The content of your last parragraph could easily and consistently be used, under the relevant circumstances and with appropriate modifications, by anyone to justify virtually any atrocity. That's a *big* red flag.
@@esauponce9759 People justify all sorts of things, but if you read carefully, you will notice I am not justifying anything. I am simply pointing out that to discuss this particular issue, you must establish in advance whether or not you believe that God in fact commanded the Israelites to slaughter the Canaanites. If God did not issue the command, then it is just another ancient near east total war situation (among many). If yes, God would have seen the totality of the results of issuing such a command and chosen the best option given human freedom. So I put the question to you; did God issue the command to slaughter the Canaanites or not?
@@ActuarialNinja I'm clear on what you said. My point is that once you accept the view you shared in the last parragraph of your original comment, anyone in the relevant circumstances could use it to justify consistently any atrocity. The implication of this is that there's no way we could distinguish between a psychopath who, though externally manifesting signs of lament which he acts very well, uses cleverly such a justification to explain why he killed some kids at a school (for example) and a person who actually received a command from God to kill kids at a school because some actual horrible and worse outcome for the kids and other people was going to emerge later (which only God could predict perfectly and for some specific reasons couldn't prevent through other means) and such person actually trusted God and did the act, though of course not without genuinely lamenting the immense difficulty of the situation.
@@esauponce9759 It sounds like you are dealing with the case where someone (perhaps someone mentally deranged) committed acts of atrocity by thinking that they were given commands from God when in fact no such command was given. In that event, the answer is simple, the person is deranged and ought to be tried and locked up.
You mention justification for atrocities; and while that forms no part of my argument, it is interesting, so why not explore this further. Here are my thoughts on it, for whatever that is worth. When committing an atrocity, one can use a great many things to try and justify the action. If someone is mentally unstable, they may actually just have intrusive thoughts and not have sufficient inhibition to resist carrying them out. Or they may have been abused earlier on in life and think that by harming others that will somehow release them from their own inner suffering. Or they may (as you say) think they are doing the Lord's work. Or they may use thousand different other things as justification. Hitler, for example, used economic depression (among other things) as a justification for the holocaust. Stalin used the prospect of economic expansion as justification for the gulags, etc.
I think you get the point. There is certainly no shortage of justification for atrocities. All you have to do is either i) point to some harm done, and say that some person or group "X" is responsible and that going after "X" is therefore justified. Or else, ii) there is some good that "X" is impeding, and by going after "X", you will attain said good and are therefore justified. You can use this formula to justify pretty much anything you want. It is difficult to see how hearing voices in one's head and thinking it is a divine command (when no such command was given) to commit murder has any theological significance. In fact, that kind of reasoning violates the sixth commandment.
Apologies for being long winded, I just wanted to explore the topic in a bit more depth than can be done in sound bites.
I tend to lean towards Joshua being quite exaggerated more than anything... we know the canaanite bloodline did not get completely wiped out whatsoever.
A few other things that might be relevant to this discussion: 1) our moral senses toward the seemingly harsh commands as found in the Old Testament may be different if we had witnessed first-hand the atrocities of the Canaanites, to include how they raised their children; first-hand experience of evil can often have an effect on our senses that mere words do not. I believe this is what Clay Jones was at least hinting at in his article. I know Clay personally, and he has spent most of his academic life reading about Genocide. A lot of us armchair apologists/theologians have never seen radical evil up close and personal. An experience of radical evil can adjust our moral senses to be more in line with what is true about good and evil, 2) we tend to think in modernity that death is the worst thing, or the greatest evil. But why think that? Also, 3) does anyone bring up Kierkegaard's teleological suspension of the moral? and finally 4) I don't like using genocide, because of the prefix "genos" which relates to an ethnicity, but the destruction of Canaan is not an ethnic war, it is a war against human agents committing abominable practices. When Israel starts to commit the same kinds of sins as the Canaanites, they receive the same exact types of punishments (through the Babylonians, for example).
Well said.
Not giving your child his favorite ice cream for dessert is "harsh". Sticking a sword though an infant because his parents were bad people isn't harsh, it's psychopathic.
@@betsalprince First, not giving your child ice cream is "harsh?" Wow, someone has been living in the therapeutic society a while, haven't they?
Second, the killing of the children is certainly violent, but when you call it psychopathic you are assuming a certain kind of psychological or emotional disposition by the ones doing the killing, e.g., that they enjoy it or that they are doing it for pleasure, that we have no evidence for. We have no evidence to suggest the Israelites were commanded to kill the children for the sake of pleasure or enjoyment, or some other narcissistic purpose, or even that they were desensitized to the killing of the children. That said, there is ambiguity here as regard to what constitutes a "child" in the text. It is one thing if it was literal infants. It is an another thing if it referred to child combatants. Not sure if you have ever been to war, especially wars in places like Africa or Afghanistan where you have child combatants. But if you haven't I can tell you from experience that children are not only often more dangerous than their adult solider counterparts, but often more malevolent; there consciences having been seared at a very young age. Still, I am also not denying the difficult nature of the killing of children.
'A BETTER HELL'!!! ........ WTF!!!! ?!??!! Is this Jimmy Akin guy for real??!?!!
The bigger issue [ especially for William Lane Craig’s position ] is God’s choice of what World to actualise and / or create. On Craig’s position, God knew prior to Creation what every Person would do in any given situation that He could place them. God knew prior to Creation exactly what the Canaanites would do and what the Israelites would do. So what does God do ?
God chooses or elects exactly what People will exist. And then He decrees and actualises or creates the World where the Canaanites will do what He knew they would do and where the Israelites will do what He knew they would do. That means, that God is ultimately responsible and morally culpable for every action that happens in this World. Furthermore, God wanted every action that takes place in this World to happen. Why ? Because on Craig’s position, it brings about a greater good.
It is impossible on Craig position, that God is Maximally Great. It is impossible that God is Morally Perfect. A Morally Perfect God would not create the Canaanites to do evil - resulting in them being put to death for doing exactly what God wanted them to do.
Can someone please tell me what Jimmy Akin’s view is?
I was just looking for this video but damn. 3 hours? Can you edit this to be shorter?
1.5x 😂
@@jessebb1932x
2x 🌝
Are our moral intuitions the same as a people’s immediately descended from an extremely intimate and miracle laden relationship with agod?
Yay its Randall!! ❤
Jimmy does a great job of describing the problem
WLC is right!
His logic is consistent and sound on this, but is he right?
I can't recall where I read it, but one idea about the command to slaughter the Canaanites comes from a context of a test for Israel on mercy in face of judgment. Consider how God was ready to destroy the nation of Israel after committing idolatry with the golden calf, and Moses pleaded that God not destroy them, a plea for mercy, and this stays God's wrath. The 12 scouts were rejected, the people considered replacing Moses as their leader and returning to Egypt, God threatens to wipe them out, and Moses again begs pardon; there was still punishment but God didn't wipe them out. So looking at the command to wipe out the Canaanites, perhaps we can see a justice involved that they deserve for unrepentant wickedness, and yet we also see an opportunity for Israel to show mercy (which in some ways they fail).
And if the people of Israel were prideful in their conquest and destruction of Canaan, they paid for it with the Assyrian and Babylonian exiles about a millenia later........
From the atheist perspective, if there is no God, then the genocide was meaningless anyway. So, it sounds like atheists are assuming God exists and that he is immoral and evil. Well, that's a perspective. The actions with regard to the Cannanites is impossible for us to understand or justify because of our limited perspective. If we are human and our perspective is that we live for a few decades and that's it, then we can say from our limited point of view that what was done was wrong. God has a different perspective. He is not only concerned with our mortal life here, but with our immortal soul. And, He takes into account all of creation, including all human beings, and all of time. Since putting ourselves in that perspective is truly impossible, it comes down to whether you have faith in an all good, all loving God or not. If you either don't think God exists or do not believe that He is the source of objective morality, and therefore always acts in everyone's ultimate best interest, then without that faith and trust in God, you will continue to believe that all death, and life, is ultimately meaningless.
It is also a bit silly to think God should have done something different. None of us, including the guest who mentioned that several times, can claim that kind of insight.
You are probably the 47,000,000th person to make this ill considered and categorical error containing an objection to an atheist saying that something is bad. So boring, so unoriginal, so pointless.
This really ticked me off . Randall rauser talked briefly about Paul cop and just war theory but he failed to mention that Paul Copan also proposed that the so called extermination of the Canaanites (my ancestors ) was hyperbolic talk and not literal talk . Kind of like a football coach tells it his team to destroy the other team but we all know that he didn’t mean to literally destroy them .