tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post1447971272755034659..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Paul Copan’s Moral Relativism: A Response from a Biblical Scholar of the New AtheismUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger79125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-69387914115428696762010-09-12T01:07:41.774-04:002010-09-12T01:07:41.774-04:00May Rachel rot with Richard Swinburne!May Rachel rot with Richard Swinburne!Ignostic Morganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00840974074283188834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-65182584718470907132009-07-16T18:27:52.181-04:002009-07-16T18:27:52.181-04:00Under Copan's rationale, all one has to do to ...Under Copan's rationale, all one has to do to excuse Hitler's genocide is say:<br /><br />"we are not talking about genocide or ethnic cleansing, but a kind of corporate capital punishment that was deliberately limited in scope [european jews] and restricted to a specific period of time [roughly 1941-45].Wadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12986627093456166129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-64408928525937619602008-08-13T00:47:00.000-04:002008-08-13T00:47:00.000-04:00Evan,Unfortunately, that doesn't help at all becau...Evan,<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, that doesn't help at all because it makes no sense.<BR/><BR/>What if I have an opinion about the actions of the God of the universe? Would I be arrogant for presuming to explain God's actions? Or would I be okay because I have an opinion, which you say is not arrogant?<BR/><BR/>Beyond that, this seems to be an impossible situation. The skeptic complains about a part of Scripture, claiming a contradiction or inconsistency within Christian theology. Then when the Christian explains how the alleged contradiction isn't a contradiction, she is called arrogant for thinking she can explain the passage.<BR/><BR/>So let's see... if no one answers and attempts to explain these "difficult" passages, the skeptic claims victory. If someone does attempt to explain them, the skeptic claims the explainer is arrogant for attempting to explain. Has a tendency to stifle discussion.<BR/><BR/>Speaking of which, I think this has been discussed enough. This thread has pretty much died so I'm moving on. See you all around.Rachelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00990773174601680586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-82292524904329305652008-08-12T23:40:00.000-04:002008-08-12T23:40:00.000-04:00Rachel here it is in bold type for you so you can ...Rachel here it is in bold type for you so you can chew it over:<BR/><BR/><B>It is not arrogant to have an opinion.</B><BR/><BR/><B>It <I>is</I> arrogant to believe you personally know the God of the universe and can explain his actions for him.</B><BR/><BR/>Hope that helps.Evanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14299188458940897810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-31190323214367768172008-08-12T16:49:00.000-04:002008-08-12T16:49:00.000-04:00Evan and Toby,The issue is that Toby was complaini...Evan and Toby,<BR/><BR/>The issue is that Toby was complaining that Christians (me by implication) claim that their interpretation of the punishment of the Canaanites is correct, and that we are "arrogant" to do so. Since Toby never answered my question as to the difference between thinking one is correct (confidence) and being dogmatic that one is correct, I can only assume that the reason he bothered to post such a comment on this thread was because he thought that I was indeed being arrogant by thinking that I have the correct interpretation of these passages.<BR/><BR/>My whole point can be summed up with this from my last comment:<BR/><BR/><I>And you might have noticed that Dr. Avalos is at least as confident in his interpretation as I am in mine, maybe more so. Is he narcissistic [and arrogant] too? Why do you complain about the Christian's confidence but not about the skeptic's confidence?</I><BR/><BR/>Unless either of you can give specific reasons why I am arrogant or narcissistic merely for having confidence that I have the correct interpretation of the Canaanite texts (when others who hold a different view with the same level of confidence are NOT considered arrogant), then I will consider myself absolved of the charge of arrogance on this topic.Rachelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00990773174601680586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-58670942907486660852008-08-11T18:18:00.000-04:002008-08-11T18:18:00.000-04:00Rachael,In no way am I meaning to ignore you, rath...Rachael,<BR/><BR/>In no way am I meaning to ignore you, rather I think Evan responded well to your post so I will leave it at that.<BR/><BR/>TobyThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09484481246432964371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-13504754087627492592008-08-11T10:42:00.000-04:002008-08-11T10:42:00.000-04:00And I would agree that I "could" be wrong on parts...<I>And I would agree that I "could" be wrong on parts or even much of what I believe.</I><BR/><BR/>Good for you.<BR/><BR/><I>But I find the evidence so strong for what I believe that the possibility is very minute.</I><BR/><BR/>Bad for you. Your evidence is quite weak. We keep trying to show that to you.<BR/><BR/><I>Would you require this of an evolutionist?</I><BR/><BR/>Do you mean a biologist? If so, then yes. Biology is ALL ABOUT evidence and if you need evidence just look at my threads about Intelligent Design, Dr. Egnor, Vitamin C production etc. I notice that I give plenty of evidence on those threads and not one apologetic type has disputed any of the facts.<BR/><BR/><I>Should they constantly be saying, "well, we could be wrong about evolution, maybe the creationists are right, but here's what we think might be true about this information"?</I><BR/><BR/>Not quite. They are constantly saying that they could be wrong about evolution, that's what drives science. They just happen to already know that creationists are wrong. Creationism makes lots of predictions and all of them are proven wrong already. <BR/><BR/>Remember that biologists were originally all creationists. This was the case less than 200 years ago.<BR/><BR/>There are now virtually no biologists publishing articles today who are creationists (with the exception of those who work at religious colleges of an universities and their job depends on accepting creationism). How do you explain this if the evidence is not there for evolution? There is nothing like this level of acceptance of an idea in any other field.<BR/><BR/>Psychology still has plenty of behaviorism. Economics has at least 3 major schools of thought that battle with one another. Physics has many different interpretations of how gravity, relativity and quantum theory can be unified. Only in geology, chemistry and biology is there near-universal agreement about the basic facts and the matrix of understanding for the whole discipline.<BR/><BR/>Creationists generally don't argue much with chemists or geologists but you have to understand that the findings of chemists and geologists are critical to our understanding of this universe, and they all show the universe to be very old and life to have evolved from common ancestors on this planet.<BR/><BR/>Rachel I am glad you want evidence and if you wish to find it, go look for it. Learn biology, geology and chemistry for a few years, you'll be glad you did, and while doing so you will be overwhelmed with the amount of facts you find.<BR/><BR/>I studied chemistry and biology at a college that was creationist in outlook and all my professors were creationists, but the facts they taught me proved to me they were wrong. I later studied geology on my own and found even more overwhelming data.<BR/><BR/>Test it yourself.Evanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14299188458940897810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-88319367844314710272008-08-11T01:34:00.000-04:002008-08-11T01:34:00.000-04:00Toby,So what would you say is the difference betwe...Toby,<BR/><BR/>So what would you say is the difference between thinking you have the correct interpretation and being dogmatic that you have the correct interpretation?<BR/><BR/><I>Only a complete narcissist would say that they are 100% positive that they hold the correct interpretation of every scripture, or even just the genocide/mass cleansing scriptures.</I><BR/><BR/>I agree with you on the "every Scripture" part, but why do you then apply it so specifically to such a relatively few amount of Scriptures? I'm sure I don't have the correct interpretation of every single verse, but why is it so bad to be sure that I'm correct (at least generally) about a certain small category of Scriptures? I may not have every single detail exactly right, but I'm confident that I have the overall interpretation correct. How is that narcissistic?<BR/><BR/>That's like saying that a scientist can't possibly have the right interpretation about every single piece of information he's ever gathered or seen, <I>or even just the information regarding viruses.</I> While the former is certainly impossible, the latter is quite feasible, even expected.<BR/><BR/>And you might have noticed that Dr. Avalos is at least as confident in his interpretation as I am in mine, maybe more so. Is he narcissistic too? Why do you complain about the Christian's confidence but not about the skeptic's confidence?<BR/><BR/><I>A healthy person generally has room to say, I think I have the right interpretation, but I am open to the possibility that I could be wrong on parts or even much of what I believe. </I><BR/><BR/>And I would agree that I "could" be wrong on parts or even much of what I believe. But I find the evidence so strong for what I believe that the possibility is very minute. Would you require this of an evolutionist? Should they constantly be saying, "well, we could be wrong about evolution, maybe the creationists are right, but here's what we think might be true about this information"?Rachelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00990773174601680586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-73638023764760317282008-08-11T01:03:00.000-04:002008-08-11T01:03:00.000-04:00Malcolm,If God defines what is good then how would...Malcolm,<BR/><BR/><I>If God defines what is good then how would it not be a good thing? How are you determining what is good?</I><BR/><BR/>Because unjustifiably harming someone else in any way (i.e. harming someone else "just for fun") can never be "good". It's like asking, if God drew a square and said it was round, how could it not be round? Such a thing is simply impossible, because we know that squares cannot be round.<BR/><BR/>It's one thing to be unclear or unsure of something God did, such as, why did God allow a certain hurricane. Well, we might not know for sure, but we can come up with reasons as to how such a thing might be used for good, i.e. it's <I>not</I> illogical. OTOH, there is absolutely NO WAY that harming someone else just for fun could possibly be a good thing. It is completely illogical.<BR/><BR/>So since God is perfectly good, he could never do something bad. And I never said that God defines good, I said that God defines God. Rather than saying that a thing is good because God does it, I would be more inclined to say that God does a thing because it is good. Since he is good, then he only does those things that are good. If it is impossible for a thing to be good, then it is impossible for God to do it.Rachelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00990773174601680586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-77447736607311188492008-08-10T20:34:00.000-04:002008-08-10T20:34:00.000-04:00RachelYou wrote, "And for some reason Toby thinks ...Rachel<BR/><BR/>You wrote, "And for some reason Toby thinks it's arrogant for one to think that one has the correct interpretation about something. (?)"<BR/><BR/>Actually, what I wrote, no surprise that you misinterpreted it, "but to be dogmatic about their interpretation being the correct interpretation is arrogant." Here I was referring to one's interpretation of the genocides in the Bible overall. Only a complete narcissist would say that they are 100% positive that they hold the correct interpretation of every scripture, or even just the genocide/mass cleansing scriptures. A healthy person generally has room to say, I think I have the right interpretation, but I am open to the possibility that I could be wrong on parts or even much of what I believe. <BR/><BR/>TobyThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09484481246432964371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-8777391458928308672008-08-10T09:34:00.000-04:002008-08-10T09:34:00.000-04:00Rachel,Planting fake religions all over the world ...Rachel,<BR/><I><BR/>Planting fake religions all over the world just for fun, to trick people into believing something false, is not a good thing. Deception "just for fun" cannot be an action of a perfect being.<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>If God defines what is good then how would it not be a good thing? How are you determining what is good?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17182087537043690603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-54941477220457597802008-08-10T00:53:00.000-04:002008-08-10T00:53:00.000-04:00Malcolm,If God is God, and God is a jokster, then ...Malcolm,<BR/><BR/><I>If God is God, and God is a jokster, then how is that not a deity-like action? How do you know what actions are deity-like and which are not?</I><BR/><BR/>Simple logic. Whatever God is, he is the ultimate, supreme being, perfect in every way. If he wasn't, then it would be possible for a being to be greater and more perfect than him, and then THAT being would be God. Planting fake religions all over the world just for fun, to trick people into believing something false, is not a good thing. Deception "just for fun" cannot be an action of a perfect being.<BR/><BR/>As for Evan's comment, I haven't posited any of the items in his first premise, so his comment is irrelevant.<BR/><BR/>And for some reason Toby thinks it's arrogant for one to think that one has the correct interpretation about something. (?)Rachelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00990773174601680586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-26860592781029133272008-08-09T18:56:00.000-04:002008-08-09T18:56:00.000-04:00It seems to me that it would be more reasonable fo...It seems to me that it would be more reasonable for the Christian to maintain that they do not know why the stories of genocide against the Canaanites (among others) is in the Bible. The Christian can then state his (or her) interpretation, but to be dogmatic about their interpretation being the correct interpretation is arrogant. In fact, it seems to go beyond arrogant when the Christian holds to a view of God that potentially attributes evil to this deity. <BR/><BR/>I find it ironic how many times Rachel has stated that her God is perfect, yet everything he creates is remarkably imperfect. To me this is highly suggestive that if there is a God, he/she is not perfect.<BR/><BR/>Toby <BR/><BR/>TobyThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09484481246432964371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-18669138577228245652008-08-09T14:42:00.000-04:002008-08-09T14:42:00.000-04:00Malcolm Rachel has adopted the final defense of th...Malcolm Rachel has adopted the final defense of the apologist. She's echoing William Craig's self-refuting argument that goes like this.<BR/><BR/>People who imagine they can know the mind of God are presumptuous because God can do anything he pleases.<BR/><BR/>The God who exists is the God of the Bible and I know the mind of this God from reading the Bible.<BR/><BR/>Yet I am not presumptuous.Evanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14299188458940897810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-30844139389766951562008-08-09T10:28:00.000-04:002008-08-09T10:28:00.000-04:00Rachel,Actually, no, that wouldn't be fine, becaus...Rachel,<BR/><I><BR/>Actually, no, that wouldn't be fine, because such would not be a deity-like action.<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>Says who? You? Then you are defining God. If God is God, and God is a jokster, then how is that not a deity-like action? How do you know what actions are deity-like and which are not?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17182087537043690603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-83383149571753981722008-08-09T00:49:00.000-04:002008-08-09T00:49:00.000-04:00Malcolm,Is it not possible a few good Canaanites e...Malcolm,<BR/><BR/><I>Is it not possible a few good Canaanites existed? If the argument for killing Canaanites is their behavior then by the simple fact of being a Canaanite one is now wicked?</I><BR/><BR/>Of course it's possible some good Canaanites existed. As I said earlier, the Canaanites were given many, many years to change their ways. Israel had laws that allowed foreigners to convert, or they could have simply left Canaan. As I noted in my comments to Dr. Avalos, Israel was not commanded to hunt down and destroy every single Canaanite throughout the earth. So if the rare "good" Canaanite wanted out of the culture of decadence, he/she would very likely have been long gone by the time Israel got there. Nevertheless, the Canaanites were known as a culture/society of wickedness. It was not a government ruling an unwilling people with an iron fist. The culture was evil because the people who made up that culture were evil.<BR/><BR/><I>If one knows that they will have to kill a child due to killing their parent, how is this different from simply killing the child outright?</I><BR/><BR/>Because the parent is directly responsible for the child, not the one who enacts justice. The point in the Deut. verse was to not kill children <I>as the penalty</I> that the adult paid for what they did. This is different from enacting proper judgment upon adults, which affects their children secondarily.<BR/><BR/><I>If God cannot be imperfect then he cannot be perfect. If God cannot be evil then he cannot be good. For to argue God is any of these we need something else to describe him against, but if God defines all of these things he is outside such a definition.</I><BR/><BR/>This is untrue. God can be whatever he is w/o us needing something to describe him with. While it is true that we understand good and perfection better when we see evil and imperfection, good and perfection do not depend on evil and imperfection for their existence. This is like saying that light requires darkness in order to exist. Certainly we understand and appreciate light much more since we are familiar with darkness, but light can exist apart from darkness. Similarly, good and perfection can exist and be part of God's nature w/o any evil and imperfection.<BR/><BR/><I>Or perhaps God's nature is a jokster and he has been planting fake religions all over the world simply to have fun? This, by your definition, would be fine, as God is simply God.</I><BR/><BR/>Actually, no, that wouldn't be fine, because such would not be a deity-like action.<BR/><BR/><I>But perhaps God's true nature is to not care about a small planet in the suburbs of a rather ordinary looking galaxy and all the Gods of literature are simply man made, how would you discern that?</I><BR/><BR/>With this and Dave's latest comment, we've now come full circle and are back to the classic question of whether or not God exists, and if he does, how to know which one is the true God. In this thread I have been answering alleged internal inconsistencies that have been raised about the Christian belief system. The question of the existence of God or the reliability of the Bible is outside the scope of the issues being discussed here. Please see my answer to Dr. Avalos' summary question #4 to me in my last comment to him.Rachelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00990773174601680586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-55817728298402563002008-08-08T20:14:00.000-04:002008-08-08T20:14:00.000-04:00Rachel wrote:-"God defines himself, in the sense t...Rachel wrote:<BR/>-"God defines himself, in the sense that whatever God is is what God is. But it would not make sense to say then that God chooses for himself which qualities he will possess...So God defines his own nature, as in, God = God. Whatever God is is what he is."<BR/><BR/>No Rachel. This is where you've got the whole thing completely arse about backwards.<BR/><BR/>'God' doesn't define what his nature is, or what his qualities will be, the human authors who wrote the Bible chose those things for him.<BR/><BR/>When it comes to writing fiction, an author can choose whatever characteristics he likes for the characters in his story.<BR/><BR/>Do you think that Ret Butler, or Scarlet O'hara chose their own natures and qualities in the book 'Gone With the Wind', or do you think that the author did?<BR/><BR/>The Bible is a cobbled-together collection of the works of numerous different authors. That's why the picture we get of God's qualities and nature, are so conflicting and confusing within the pages of the Bible. <BR/>He's a patchwork of the opinions and theologies of the numerous authors who wrote them. <BR/><BR/>Yahweh is merely a fictional character, who has been made up out of the imaginations of the various authors who wrote the Bible, just the same as every other god which has ever been invented is.<BR/><BR/>Without understanding this, you will never be able to understand the Bible. Which would be a shame really, because it's actually quite an interesting book when read for what it truly is. Fiction.DingoDavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18386229762871857788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-30583902452847814422008-08-08T16:30:00.000-04:002008-08-08T16:30:00.000-04:00Rachel said:Deut. 24:16 refers to individual punis...Rachel said:<BR/><I><BR/><BR/>Deut. 24:16 refers to individual punishments meted out for individual crimes. This does not apply to an entire nation being judged for their cumulative wickedness. The children were not killed "because of" their parents' wickedness in a judicial sense (i.e. "you did this bad thing, therefore your sentence is that your child be killed"), which is what this verse is prohibiting.<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>How do the actions of the individual not matter here? Is it not possible a few good Canaanites existed? If the argument for killing Canaanites is their behavior then by the simple fact of being a Canaanite one is now wicked? If we are deciding an individual is wicked based on being a Canaanite, how is this different from any other genocide based on a persons ethnicity or race?<BR/><BR/>There is a strong causal link between the murder of the children and the actions of their parents. If their parents were wicked and God chose to have them killed, how did he not also decide the fate of their children as a result of their parents? If one knows that they will have to kill a child due to killing their parent, how is this different from simply killing the child outright?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17182087537043690603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-53639647253100979812008-08-08T16:10:00.000-04:002008-08-08T16:10:00.000-04:00If God cannot be imperfect then he cannot be perfe...If God cannot be imperfect then he cannot be perfect. If God cannot be evil then he cannot be good. For to argue God is any of these we need something else to describe him against, but if God defines all of these things he is outside such a definition.<BR/><BR/>But perhaps God's true nature is to not care about a small planet in the suburbs of a rather ordinary looking galaxy and all the Gods of literature are simply man made, how would you discern that? Or perhaps God's nature is a jokster and he has been planting fake religions all over the world simply to have fun? This, by your definition, would be fine, as God is simply God.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17182087537043690603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-39958924113929938122008-08-08T15:26:00.000-04:002008-08-08T15:26:00.000-04:00Malcolm,Who, or what, defines what God's nature is...Malcolm,<BR/><BR/><I>Who, or what, defines what God's nature is?</I><BR/><BR/>God defines himself, in the sense that whatever God is is what God is. But it would not make sense to say then that God chooses for himself which qualities he will possess. Because even if he did, he would be forced to choose only God-like qualities and to reject all non-deity qualities (otherwise he wouldn't be God), which means he would be exactly the same as he was. For example, what kind of God is imperfect? What kind of God is unjust?<BR/><BR/>So God defines his own nature, as in, God = God. Whatever God is is what he is. It is not as if I can ascribe some sort of quality to God's nature that he doesn't already possess. If it's a "God" quality, then he possesses it since he's God. If it's NOT a "God" quality, then he does NOT possess it, otherwise he wouldn't be God.Rachelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00990773174601680586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-10982298103114723012008-08-08T09:29:00.000-04:002008-08-08T09:29:00.000-04:00Omnipotence does NOT mean that God can do anything...<I><BR/>Omnipotence does NOT mean that God can do anything at all. It DOES mean that God can do anything that doesn't contradict his nature. If God were to contradict his nature, he would cease to be God, which would be impossible.<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>Who, or what, defines what God's nature is?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17182087537043690603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-41119905707789891922008-08-08T03:38:00.000-04:002008-08-08T03:38:00.000-04:00sconnor,I gave a brief explanation of my view of h...sconnor,<BR/><BR/>I gave a brief explanation of my view of hell to provide a resolution to the alleged internal inconsistency that Malcolm raised regarding hell and God's love. Whether or not the Bible can even be relied upon to be accurate about such things is a separate discussion. Your question is essentially the same as Dr. Avalos' summary question #4 in his last comment to me, so I refer you to my answer to that in my last comment to him (it's at the very end).Rachelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00990773174601680586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-34017559790590435772008-08-08T03:23:00.000-04:002008-08-08T03:23:00.000-04:00Dr. Avalos,Arguments from authority are inadmissib...Dr. Avalos,<BR/><BR/><I>Arguments from authority are inadmissible. Your argument can be reduced to this rationale: “Modern author X thinks Ugarit is Canaan, therefore, Ugarit is Canaan.” You do not address critically the evidence presented by those modern authors.</I><BR/><BR/>I had previously acknowledged having no real knowledge of any of the primary sources about Ugarit and Canaan. I was actually truly wondering if Ugarit could indeed be considered part of Canaan or not - I was undecided before this discussion. So I was not "arguing" any particular side. I was asking because everything I found seemed to assume or outright state that Ugarit was part of Canaan, so I questioned you for your source(s) that would explain how or why it is NOT part of Canaan. My citing authorities then was merely to give examples of people who do think Ugarit was part of Canaan. This particular aspect of the discussion was really more information-gathering then argument-presenting.<BR/><BR/>Nevertheless, you have offered very little to disprove Miller's point that a text from Ugarit can be said to be reflective of Canaanite practices. And as I said in my last comment to you, that is the whole point. So it matters not whether anyone, including biblical authors or the Ugaritians themselves, considered Ugarit to be physically a part of Canaan or not. The question is, can the Ugaritic practices be relied upon to accurately reflect Canaanite practices for the most part? I have found many sources who say "yes", and you have provided none that say "no". Your quote from John Gibson only refers to the <I>language</I> of Ugarit being different from that of Canaan, and then only in a "technical sense". Most of the sources I've read have said something similar to the wiki article: "Much of the modern knowledge about the Canaanites stems from excavation in this area [of Ugarit]."<BR/><BR/>So it would seem that the overwhelming consensus among scholars, archaelogists, etc. is that whatever we find in Ugarit can be accurately assumed to be reflective of Canaan, which validates Miller's use of a Ugaritic text to prove that bestiality was practiced in Canaan. If you have specific evidence showing that Ugaritic practices differed substantially from that of the Canaanites, then please bring it forward. Otherwise, I will consider the matter closed.<BR/><BR/><I>You keep assuming that the Canaanites are “wicked” simply on the authority of biblical authors. Why? What evidence is there that the Canaanites were wicked or did anything the Bible says they did?</I><BR/><BR/>Are you suggesting that the Canaanites were NOT wicked? If so, what evidence do you have for the complete opposite of what is described in the Bible? I have never seen or heard anyone deny the wickedness of the Canaanites, so if this is the view you hold, I look forward to seeing your evidence.<BR/><BR/>Beyond that though, you continue to use the bait-and-switch tactic of trying to find an internal inconsistency in my belief system, then when I show that there is no inconsistency, you say that we can't know the Bible is true anyway. If one believes the Bible to be true, it is internally perfectly consistent to hold the view that the killing of the Canaanites was justified due to their extreme wickedness. So which are you arguing here... that the Bible can't be true because of internal inconsistencies (the "unjustified" killing of supposedly peaceful Canaanites who were merely minding their own business as one example), or that we can't know the Bible is true because of lack of external evidence? I was answering the former because I thought that was the original topic of the thread; if the latter, I'll pass as I don't have the time right now.<BR/><BR/><I>Your characterization of these children as “innocent” seems to contradict God’s promise in Exodus 23:7:<BR/><BR/>"Keep far from a false charge, and do not slay the innocent and righteous, for I will not acquit the wicked."</I><BR/><BR/>God's "promise" in this verse is merely that he will certainly judge the wicked. His command though is to the people not to falsely charge and then kill someone who is innocent. This has nothing to do with appropriate judgment upon a wicked group of people which also includes some children who have yet to make an independent choice in the matter. I previously addressed the issue of children being connected to their parents, for better or worse, in my last comment to you.<BR/><BR/><I>You also leave unexplained what is so impossible about assimilating Canaanite infants?</I><BR/><BR/>Actually I did explain this, but I'll review again briefly:<BR/><BR/>1. The resources were simply not available for Israel to care for all the innocents, including the babies. There was no social welfare program.<BR/><BR/>2. God was not obligated to spare the babies of these wicked people. Indeed, knowing that our actions can and often do affect innocent people is a significant deterrent to bad behavior. God is not obligated to rescue us from problems of our own making, especially when we refuse his help the first (and second and third and fourth... ) time.<BR/><BR/><I>I explained that Hitler also saw the Jews as:<BR/><BR/>A. wicked;<BR/>B. Inassimilable<BR/><BR/>These are the reasons you gave for justifying Canaanite genocide, and so your reasons are precisely analogous to those of Hitler.</I><BR/><BR/>This is frankly ridiculous. This is not about some psychotic person's perception of wickedness. Among many other atrocities, the Canaanites were burning their children in the fires of sacrifice to their gods! This is a far cry from Hitler's twisting of some verse to say that all the Jews were "wicked" and deserved to die because they were a mixed race. Even in the quote of Hitler's that you provided, he is clearly just making things up to suit his crazed views. Where he gets the idea that "blood sin and desecration of the race are the original sin of the world" is anybody's guess. Additionally, Hitler hunted down the Jews everywhere he could find them. This is not what God commanded Israel to do, as I noted earlier.<BR/><BR/>And regarding assimilation, you still don't seem to understand what I'm saying. Hitler may have thought the Jews were unassimilable, but clearly the Jews were already living just fine wherever they were. This is vastly different than what I mean. When I say that the Canaanite children could not have been assimilated into Israel, this is not just a perception. From the standpoint of amount of resources available, the Canaanite children simply could not have just "moved in" to different families and lived just fine. There wasn't enough food/shelter/basic living necessities to care for all these children. That's what I mean by unassimilable. With their parents dead and no one left to care for them, they would have died from starvation/exposure/animals/enemies. However, bringing them "on board" to live and be cared for in Israel was impossible because Israel lacked the proper amount of basic living necessities. Therefore, they could not be adequately assimilated into Israel. This is not anywhere near the same thing as Hitler viewing the Jews as unassimilable merely because they weren't of a "pure" race.<BR/><BR/><I>There were a number of reasons given for killing the Canaanites, and Deut. 7:1 indicates that “clearing” the land was one of them:<BR/><BR/>"When the LORD your God brings you into the land which you are entering to take possession of it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites, the Gir'gashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Per'izzites, the Hivites, and the Jeb'usites, seven nations greater and mightier than yourselves"</I><BR/><BR/>This verse does not say that Israel should kill the Canaanites in order to clear the land. It simply states that God will clear the nations "from before you", which doesn't really say anything about killing, and in fact pictures more of a dispossession, i.e. a "kicking out". In any event, Deut. 7:1 gives no reasons for killing Canaanites.<BR/><BR/><I>Moreover, Deut. 24:16 acknowledges that children should not be killed for any wickedness committed by parents.</I><BR/><BR/>Deut. 24:16 refers to individual punishments meted out for individual crimes. This does not apply to an entire nation being judged for their cumulative wickedness. The children were not killed "because of" their parents' wickedness in a judicial sense (i.e. "you did this bad thing, therefore your sentence is that your child be killed"), which is what this verse is prohibiting.<BR/><BR/><I>There is a more peaceful alternative. Since you admit there was plenty of room for everyone on earth, then why not move the Hebrews to a portion that was not inhabited and where there would be no need to kill the women and children already there?</I><BR/><BR/>Because this wasn't about simply a place to live. These people were extremely wicked, and this was part of God's judgment and declaration to the world - "I will not tolerate evil, but will bless good". My point was that there was plenty of room for the Canaanites to move to when they heard of Israel's conquests years before Israel ever got to their door. The fact that some were still there is an indicator of how stubbornly they held to their wickedness.<BR/><BR/><I>What makes you think that God “must” do anything?</I><BR/><BR/>I answered this in my last comment to Shygetz on this thread, but since it keeps getting asked I'll repeat it here. Omnipotence does NOT mean that God can do anything at all. It DOES mean that God can do anything that doesn't contradict his nature. If God were to contradict his nature, he would cease to be God, which would be impossible. Thus, God "must" always stay true to his own nature. This includes judging sin, because perfection and justice (part of God's nature) require it.<BR/><BR/><I>Nor do you explain why the sins of the Canaanites are punished with the slaughter of women and children but the sins of the Hebrews are accorded mercy and patience.</I><BR/><BR/>This is a very broad statement. However, we can see that the Canaanites were actually accorded much mercy and patience in that they were given many, many years to "get right" and/or get out of the land. Israelite laws allowed for foreigners to convert (e.g. Rahab). Interestingly, Jer. 38:2 has God issuing the same injunction to the Israelites just prior to the Babylonian invasion - "get out or die". I don't see much practical difference.<BR/><BR/>Finally, to answer your summary questions:<BR/><BR/><I>1. Is genocide always wrong?</I><BR/>Yes. (Of course, this answer depends on the answer to the next question.)<BR/><BR/><I>2. How do you define genocide?</I><BR/>I accept your definition, but noting the implication that genocide is the extermination of a people group <I>because of an arbitrary or neutral characteristic of that group</I>. I like Britannica's definition: "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a group of people because of their ethnicity, nationality, religion, or race." God ordered the destruction of the Canaanites because of their severe, systematic, and thorough wickedness. This has nothing to do with "ethnicity, nationality, religion, or race". And again, God did not command Israel to go find the Canaanites wherever they were throughout the world and kill them forever and ever. This was a one-time event restricted by time and physical location. There is just no logical way to call this "genocide".<BR/><BR/><I>3. Would it be fair to say that you believe killing masses of people, including women and children, can be justified when you believe those people are wicked or inassimilable?</I><BR/><BR/>No. I would say that such killing can be justified when the people <I>have been proven</I> to be wicked. And I would say that the killing of innocent children can be justified when the only alternative is worse than a quick death.<BR/><BR/><I>5. Do you want to live in a world where people can kill you and your children if they regard you as wicked and inassimilable on the basis of religious beliefs you cannot verify to be true?</I><BR/><BR/>No. See above.<BR/><BR/><I>4. How did you determine that anything you state about God is true (e.g., what he regards as a “sin”)?</I><BR/><BR/>I purposefully answered this question last because I do not think it is part of the issue at hand. Whether or not I'm right about what God thinks is irrelevant to determining whether or not the destruction of the Canaanites is an internal inconsistency in the Christian belief system. This question requires an answer comprised of epistemology, historicity, reliability of ancient documents, etc. That is beyond my scope and purpose in this thread.Rachelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00990773174601680586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-88995291163848696272008-08-08T01:45:00.000-04:002008-08-08T01:45:00.000-04:00I'm sorry, who is this Rachel person, and what sor...I'm sorry, who is this Rachel person, and what sort of authority is she on history and theology, that she comes in here and, like every other Christian, thinks she's got all the answers we're all looking for? The one who's finally come to "set the record straight"?Philip R Kreychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13079037983351521346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-40782561951665082102008-08-08T01:34:00.000-04:002008-08-08T01:34:00.000-04:00Rachel,And of course you weighed all the available...Rachel,<BR/><BR/>And of course you weighed all the available evidence, with thorough research, of all the religious texts and their definitions and explanations of hell -- right? Or are your conclusions based solely on the bible, that you assume is the word of god? <BR/><BR/>--S,sconnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17473671062467783406noreply@blogger.com