Posted on 10/31/2019 7:38:50 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Christian apologist William Craig has offered a response to atheist intellectual Richard Dawkins who called him "a deplorable apologist for genocide" in his column last week.
In a speech at the Sheldonian Theater at Oxford University on Tuesday, Craig responded to Dawkins' allegations during the question and answer session.
“There was no racial war here, no command to kill them all,” he said, alluding to extermination of the Canaanites in the Old Testament, “the command was to drive them out.”
He then said: “I would say that God has the right to give and take life as He sees fit. Children die all the time! If you believe in the salvation, as I do, of children, who die, what that meant is that the death of these children meant their salvation. People look at this [genocide] and think life ends at the grave but in fact this was the salvation of these children, who were far better dead … than being raised in this Canaanite culture."
Organizers of the event left an empty chair on stage for Dawkins who has continuously refused to debate Craig, saying Craig does not have the worthy credentials.
“I always said when invited to do debates that I would be happy to debate a bishop, a cardinal, a pope, an archbishop, indeed I have done those, but I don’t take on creationists and I don’t take on people whose only claim to fame is that they are professional debaters; they’ve got to have something more than that. I’m busy," said Dawkins.
Dawkins was replaced by a panel of three Oxford Academics. Among them were Dr. Daniel Came and Philosophy Senior Research Fellow Stephen Priest.
Oxford Inter-collegiate Christian Union President Robbie Strachan praised Craig's speech, saying it contained convincing philosophical arguments.
“The next step after establishing that the existence of God is a possibility is obviously to find out what that God might be like. Christians believe in a good and loving God, which is why the ‘problem of evil’ question came up last night," he said.
Interesting, but things reproduce after their own kind, no?
Now, perverted men/women and all, I get it, but copulation and genetic reproduction by fallen angels ( demons- spirit beings who can assume a temporal form) and womankind? Violates the laws of God and God’s nature. See Gen. 1, law of first mention.
Gen 6: 1-4 indicates they did reproduce with humans.
“But you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the LORD your God has commanded you”
What about the Atheistite?
Not to get this far off topic, but the “Sons of God” and the “daughters of men”- show me anywhere else in the scripture that the “sons of God” are defined as demons?
“Sons of God” - God did not “beget” any other son than the LORD Jesus Christ, to so state is blasphemy against the Christ. And that was via the power of the Holy Spirit, not sexual reproduction. So you are saying that “sons of God are demons, and that they had the same power to overshadow or sexually mate womankind to produce offspring. Hmm. So, God and therefore Christ is behind the power curve in this mystery?
From word study it seems that the difficulty in understanding the “sons of God” and “daughters of men” stems from the account of Cain leaving the community of his family and moving away in banishment, creating a godless culture, and then those outcasts dealing with godly men later in the account.
Craig responds to Dawkins calling him an "apologist for genocide" by making an apologetic argument for the extermination of the Canaanites.
Indeed, it states the “sons of God” knew the “daughters of men”.
I have no problem with that at all. it is the leap to assume that the sons of god in this text actually means outcast fallen angels/demons who were created, not begotten and therefore not sons at all.
The old testament is filled with genocide after genocide after genocide. But what people seem to forget, is that this is the way conquest was done.
As a military, you simply cannot leave anyone behind you who may be trouble. The best way to deal with that, was to leave no one behind you. This was not new at the time, history is full of such things.
But to say that God did not order the absolute killing of everyone, i.e. every man, woman, child, and beast, is simply not true. It is spelled out very clearly, and was carried out per very specific orders, for very good military reasons.
Is there a difference between JUSTIFIABLE (Commanded by God) and UNJUSTIFIABLE genocide?
Or is the moral argument this -— no genocide is justifiable and what the Israelites did was evil?
RE: But to say that God did not order the absolute killing of everyone, i.e. every man, woman, child, and beast, is simply not true. It is spelled out very clearly, and was carried out per very specific orders, for very good military reasons.
Is there a difference between JUSTIFIABLE (Commanded by God based on His omniscience and wisdom) and UNJUSTIFIABLE genocide? (Killing for no good reason ).
Or is the moral argument this -— no genocide is justifiable and what the Israelites did was evil?
RE: Chrstians (or “anti-chrstians”) acting as if the “old testament” were their book to defend
Regardless of whether you are a Christian or Jew, the slaughter of men, women and children by the Israelites *IS* something that has to be explained by those who believe in the G_D of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob *IF* people are to believe in a G_d who tells us that murder is a grave sin in His commandments.
RE: The old testament is filled with genocide after genocide after genocide. But what people seem to forget, is that this is the way conquest was done.
But aren’t the people of God supposed to be different from the nations around them?
Things were very different before the flood. In the New Testament, Jesus is referred to as His “only begotten son”. That might be construed as He considered His other created beings sons, of a sort. There was a different covenant in force then. I am far from an expert, and not adequately equipped for a deep discussion on this, but I do enjoy the discussion, just the same.
Apart from salvation, God “exterminates” everyone. Everybody dies.
Certainly in the eyes of the believer there is.
And certainly saying the genocide was justifiable because it was ordained by God is an apologetic argument.
Craig takes issue with Dawkins’ definition of “genocide.”
Were there any atheists ever mentioned in the Old Testament?
I don't see that.
He says God's command wasn't to kill them all, but then goes on to justify killing them all.
“I would say that God has the right to give and take life as He sees fit. Children die all the time! If you believe in the salvation, as I do, of children, who die, what that meant is that the death of these children meant their salvation. People look at this [genocide] and think life ends at the grave but in fact this was the salvation of these children, who were far better dead … than being raised in this Canaanite culture."
Is the argument that it wasn't genocide because it wasn't racial?
I would have just pointed out the fundamental dishonesty of Dawkins. He rejects the Bible as a complete work of fiction, except for when he wants to twist some part of it to make an argument about how bad God is.
Well, I don’t think that word had been invented yet, but there were phrases like “scoffer” and “unbeliever”.
Then sometimes they were just called “fools”:
‘The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”’ - Psalm 14:1
Justified or not? Guess it depends on what side you are on, kind of like every other conquest in mankind’s history.
My point is this, the Israelites were invading, conquest for land. No different than many before and after them. Use God’s commands as your reason? Ghengis Khan rampaged around for the same reason.
All of this does not change the fact, that in order to conquer land, you need to deal with those that would oppose you. Much of the time, this includes killing everyone and everything. Some may call that genocide, others will call it sound military strategy.
Myself? I am in the latter camp. No good military leader has ever left the enemy, unguarded and unopposed, to their rear. Well no successful military leader anyway.
The books covering the Israelite conquest of the holy land, and the books preparing them for it, read like a military conquest, because that is what it was. No different than any other in history imho.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.