Defending genocide

[Theofrak]

Every Christian must confront the issue of genocide in the Bible, from Noah's flood, to the destruction of the Canaanites by Israel, to the impending Apocalypse. Virtually every Christian with whom I have discussed the issue has echoed the same conclusion: God willed the genocide, therefore, it was justified.

This is precisely the stance taken by William Lane Craig. I previously reported on Craig's debate with Sam Harris. Few people want to debate Craig. He is a professional philosopher and debater and has a gift for masking his logical fallacies with rhetoric.

Last year, Craig openly challenged Richard Dawkins to a debate, but Dawkins demurred. Some criticized Dawkins for this, so he wrote a letter to the Guardian explaining his reasons for not debating Craig. Among those reasons is Craig's impassioned defense of genocide.

I agree with Dawkins. At some point, one has to say: "I can't argue with crazy." The Christian belief that genocide is justified or even good whenever some prophet or group of people believe it is the will of God is both ludicrous and dangerous. I love Dawkins' closing paragraph on the best way to debate with Craig and his ilk.

Rather than paraphrase Dawkins, I thought I would include his part of his letter, which quotes some of the more idiotic statements by Craig in defense of genocide in the name of Yahweh.

Quote:

But Craig is not just a figure of fun. He has a dark side, and that is putting it kindly. Most churchmen these days wisely disown the horrific genocides ordered by the God of the Old Testament. Anyone who criticises the divine bloodlust is loudly accused of unfairly ignoring the historical context, and of naive literalism towards what was never more than metaphor or myth. You would search far to find a modern preacher willing to defend God's commandment, in Deuteronomy 20: 13-15, to kill all the men in a conquered city and to seize the women, children and livestock as plunder. And verses 16 and 17 are even worse:

"But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them"

You might say that such a call to genocide could never have come from a good and loving God. Any decent bishop, priest, vicar or rabbi would agree. But listen to Craig. He begins by arguing that the Canaanites were debauched and sinful and therefore deserved to be slaughtered. He then notices the plight of the Canaanite children.

"But why take the lives of innocent children? The terrible totality of the destruction was undoubtedly related to the prohibition of assimilation to pagan nations on Israel's part. In commanding complete destruction of the Canaanites, the Lord says, 'You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons, or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods' (Deut 7.3-4). […] God knew that if these Canaanite children were allowed to live, they would spell the undoing of Israel. […] Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God's grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven's incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives."

Do not plead that I have taken these revolting words out of context. What context could possibly justify them?

"So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgment. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli [sic] soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalising effect on these Israeli [sic] soldiers is disturbing."

Oh, the poor soldiers. Let's hope they received counselling after their traumatic experience. A later post by Craig is – if possible – even more shocking. Referring to his earlier article (above) he says:

"I have come to appreciate as a result of a closer reading of the biblical text that God's command to Israel was not primarily to exterminate the Canaanites but to drive them out of the land.[…] Canaan was being given over to Israel, whom God had now brought out of Egypt. If the Canaanite tribes, seeing the armies of Israel, had simply chosen to flee, no one would have been killed at all. There was no command to pursue and hunt down the Canaanite peoples.
It is therefore completely misleading to characterise God's command to Israel as a command to commit genocide. Rather it was first and foremost a command to drive the tribes out of the land and to occupy it. Only those who remained behind were to be utterly exterminated. No one had to die in this whole affair."

So, apparently it was the Canaanites' own fault for not running away. Right.
Would you shake hands with a man who could write stuff like that? Would you share a platform with him? I wouldn't, and I won't. Even if I were not engaged to be in London on the day in question, I would be proud to leave that chair in Oxford eloquently empty.

And if any of my colleagues find themselves browbeaten or inveigled into a debate with this deplorable apologist for genocide, my advice to them would be to stand up, read aloud Craig's words as quoted above, then walk out and leave him talking not just to an empty chair but, one would hope, to a rapidly emptying hall as well.

http://www.theofrak.com/2012/07/geno...ane-craig.html

[geni]

Originally Posted by Theofrak

Every Christian must confront the issue of genocide in the Bible, from Noah's flood, to the destruction of the Canaanites by Israel, to the impending Apocalypse.

Well since none of that actually happened or hasn't happened yet it isn't really a problem. Particularly if you are going to lob in the Book of Revelation which has a known literary style which you appear to be ignoring.

[Mark6]

Originally Posted by geni

Well since none of that actually happened or hasn't happened yet it isn't really a problem. Particularly if you are going to lob in the Book of Revelation which has a known literary style which you appear to be ignoring.

Don't be dense. As far as biblical literalists are concerned, these things did happen -- and thus should be confronted.

[Bikewer]

Yes, it's a deeply intellectual argument. "Well, yeah. He did that. But...God, right? I mean.. God. If he does it it's OK"

How about all those first-born kids of the Egyptians? What did they do to deserve their fate? And how come the minions of God couldnt' figure out which houses belonged to the Jews without magical signs?

[JJM 777]

Originally Posted by Bikewer

How about all those first-born kids of the Egyptians? What did they do to deserve their fate?

The LORD hardened the heart of the Pharaoh, to get an excuse to punish Egypt and show His might. Praise, praise, glory glory.

[geni]

Originally Posted by Bikewer

Yes, it's a deeply intellectual argument. "Well, yeah. He did that. But...God, right? I mean.. God. If he does it it's OK"

How about all those first-born kids of the Egyptians? What did they do to deserve their fate?

Picking on a group who's god was bigger than their god. Nature has a way of dealing with stupidity.

[geni]

Originally Posted by Mark6

Don't be dense. As far as biblical literalists are concerned, these things did happen -- and thus should be confronted.

Every Christian=biblical literalists? Thats err very wrong to put it mildly.

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by geni

Every Christian=biblical literalists? Thats err very wrong to put it mildly.

Think what you said there, why do they self identify as Christians, what book are they taking literally to call themselves that

[geni]

Originally Posted by Marduk

Think what you said there, why do they self identify as Christians, what book are they taking literally to call themselves that

Well based on orthodox christian theology for the last 1700 years none. The biblical literalists are a rather odd group with a fairly recent history.

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by geni

Well based on orthodox christian theology for the last 1700 years none. The biblical literalists are a rather odd group with a fairly recent history.

the point that the aptly named Mark6 was making is that the bible is regarded as the word of God to all christians in the same manner that they believe Jesus was the son of God, or else why call themselves Christian, just self identifying after the name of a literary character means that to some extent, by definition they are taking something biblical literally, wether they believe every word of it is irrelevant as long as they defend its content, when they do that, and they all do at some point, then they have to explain why they are defending genocide. The only alternative this leaves them is to deny that the bible is anywhere near accurate, when they do that they lose their credibility as Christians and effectively lose the discussion

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by geni

Well based on orthodox christian theology for the last 1700 years none. The biblical literalists are a rather odd group with a fairly recent history.

Are you saying that until recently most Christians did not believe that the Israelites slaughtered the Canaanites? The biblical literalists are an "odd group" because until recently almost all Christians were literalists. It's the others others who have changed. Literalist arguments about Joshua stopping the Sun, and the Earth being established so that it couldn't be moved, were urged against Copernicus and later Galileo by both Catholic and Protestant critics.

[Mark6]

deleted

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Bikewer

Yes, it's a deeply intellectual argument. "Well, yeah. He did that. But...God, right? I mean.. God. If he does it it's OK"

How about all those first-born kids of the Egyptians? What did they do to deserve their fate? And how come the minions of God couldnt' figure out which houses belonged to the Jews without magical signs?

You don't count the dead when god's on your side.


The OT god was a bit nearsighted so you had to make big marks in a primary color for him to see.


Seems that the non-Jews would have noticed the signs and when their first born died and the Jews first born didn't the Jews would have been massacred.

[geni]

Originally Posted by Craig B

Are you saying that until recently most Christians did not believe that the Israelites slaughtered the Canaanites? The biblical literalists are an "odd group" because until recently almost all Christians were literalists.

No. Even at the time it was written the Book of Revelation wasn't meant to be taken literally and catholic theology has never been literalist. That covers you up to the reformation.

[aggle-rithm]

Originally Posted by geni

No. Even at the time it was written the Book of Revelation wasn't meant to be taken literally and catholic theology has never been literalist. That covers you up to the reformation.

It very nearly didn't make it into the Bible, since it was just one of many similar "end-of-the-world" stories that were popular at the time. It would be like trying to decide whether to put "Twilight" or "Harry Potter" in a sacred text being assembled today.

[aggle-rithm]

The good news: I don't think the genocide actually happened. I think there were a bunch of skirmishes among primitive tribes, like there always were in the ancient world, and at some point the survivors decided they must have survived because they were the "chosen" ones.

The bad news: People today not only believe the genocide did occur, they also approve of it.

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by geni

No. Even at the time it was written the Book of Revelation wasn't meant to be taken literally and catholic theology has never been literalist. That covers you up to the reformation.

The slaughter of he Canaanites is not recounted in the Book of Revelation. I repeat my question.

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by geni

No. Even at the time it was written the Book of Revelation wasn't meant to be taken literally and catholic theology has never been literalist. That covers you up to the reformation.

Utterly irrelevant. Where a statement is presented in scripture as a statement of fact, and where it is not ruled out as impossible, Catholics have traditionally been taught to believe it to be factually true, and still are so taught. See
http://www.catholicbasictraining.com...setexts/1k.htm

Quote:

The Four Senses of Scripture. The words of Sacred Scripture can be read in a number of different ways, but there are four main ways of reading and understanding them. We call these ways senses.

Scripture can (and should be) read in a literal sense. Although the word can mean without figures of speech, idiom or metaphor, it is used in this context to refer to what the author intends. For example, the phrase “I was frightened to death” does not mean that the writer literally died, but rather that he was very scared. It is very important to first read Scripture in the literal sense of what is being said, taking into account the metaphor and idiom of the time and place when Scripture was written, before proceeding to any other understanding. As the Catechism says, “All other senses of Scripture are based on the literal” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 116).

An allegorical reading of Scripture is the second sense. This is a form of typology. In an allegory, one event represents another through certain important similarities. As an example, the crossing of the Red Sea is an allegory of Christian baptism (in both events the believers are saved by water). It is important to understand that allegorical readings rely on the literal sense – both events are to be read as literally happening; an allegory is not the same as a parable[b] ...

So the crossing of the Red Sea - which is based on a mistranslation - is to be taken literally, even if the event is also allegorical. ("Christian baptism", by the way. How absurd!) All the more so, then, may we suppose that traditional Catholicism would accept the factual truth of the slaughter of the Canaanites. Genesis and Revelation are neither here nor there. The early Church didn't universally accept Revelation, and the Greeks finally admitted it to their canon only in the seventeenth century. It is presented as a vision, not a fact, anyway.

[geni]

Originally Posted by Craig B

The slaughter of he Canaanites is not recounted in the Book of Revelation. I repeat my question.

You question is based on the premis that historicaly most christians have been biblical literalists (laugable of course historicaly most chiristans couldn't read latin) which would require them to take the book of revelations literally.

[geni]

Originally Posted by Craig B

Utterly irrelevant. Where a statement is presented in scripture as a statement of fact, and where it is not ruled out as impossible, Catholics have traditionally been taught to believe it to be factually true, and still are so taught. See
http://www.catholicbasictraining.com...setexts/1k.htm

Hmm nice goalpost moving.

[Rasmus]

Originally Posted by geni

You question is based on the premis that historicaly most christians have been biblical literalists (laugable of course historicaly most chiristans couldn't read latin) which would require them to take the book of revelations literally.

I think you don't have to take "literalists" literally here.

Am I less of a literlalist if I believe that a book is literally true, even though I haven't read it myself and have only had the content eplxained by someone else?

Sure, it would act one more layer of possible errors - but that wouln't change how i view the book, would it?

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by geni

You question is based on the premis that historicaly most christians have been biblical literalists (laugable of course historicaly most chiristans couldn't read latin) which would require them to take the book of revelations literally.

That is the most absurd response imaginable to my question. I deny your logic. Insofar, by your reasoning, as Christians could not read the Bible in Latin, and were tortured to death for daring to possess translations, then they could not have had any beliefs at all! Of course, they were told what to think in all matters by the Church. I will present my question this way. Did the Church inform its flock that the slaughter of the Canaanites never took place?

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by geni

Hmm nice goalpost moving.

Tell me what you mean by that. Does my linked source believe the crossing of the Red Sea to be a historical fact? If yes, why not the slaughter of the Canaanites? Address the question, please. What is the meaning of Catechism 116, "All other senses of Scripture are based on the literal"?

[Beerina]

Genocide and death carry less gravitas in a milleau of afterlife.

If these people are going to Hell anyway, best to get on with it.

[Craig B]

@geni

Here's Haydock' Catholic Commentary, 1859 edition, on Numbers 31, which relates the atrocious slaughter of the Midianites by the Israelites. Please read that chapter and then the commentary, and let me know whether Haydock regards it as factually authentic.

Quote:

Ver. 2. Madianites. The five princes, (ver. 8,) had joined Sehon, in his attack upon the Hebrews, Josue xiii. 21. They had united with the Moabites against them, and had been most active in perverting the people of God. They had even the wicked Balaam still among them, who was bent upon destruction; so that God saw the measure of their crimes was full, their provocations unsufferable, and he was pleased to let Moses be witness of their just punishment ... This war of religion was terminated about a month before the death of Moses.

ETA Beerina; the one saving grace of the Pentateuch and Joshua is that they contain no doctrine of an afterlife. So, plenty of divinely commanded slaughter on earth - but on the other hand, no Hell.

[ddt]

Originally Posted by geni

You question is based on the premis that historicaly most christians have been biblical literalists (laugable of course historicaly most chiristans couldn't read latin) which would require them to take the book of revelations literally.

Revelations is a prophecy of things to come. For the other genocides in the Bible - the Egyptian first-borns, Joshua's conquest of Canaan etc. - are recorded in the Bible as if they were real history. And most Christians have taken them as history for most of the time. The discipline of Biblical Archaeology was all but founded on the idea of digging up the Holy Land to prove the Bible true. It's only the abject failure of Biblical Archaeology to provide that proof that has turned most Christians away from the notion there's any historicity in Exodus or in Joshua.

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by geni

Hmm nice goalpost moving.

That happens a lot around here

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by MG1962

That happens a lot around here

So you can answer my post #23 as well, then.

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by Craig B

Tell me what you mean by that. Does my linked source believe the crossing of the Red Sea to be a historical fact? If yes, why not the slaughter of the Canaanites? Address the question, please. What is the meaning of Catechism 116, "All other senses of Scripture are based on the literal"?

First though can you tell me where that quote is sourced. I dont see that in my version and going to the Vatican website to check failed to turn it up

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by Craig B

So you can answer my post #23 as well, then.

Good luck with that.

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by MG1962

First though can you tell me where that quote is sourced. I dont see that in my version and going to the Vatican website to check failed to turn it up

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a3.htm#III

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by Craig B

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a3.htm#III

Okay thats the same as my version, which I think you will agree is a little different to what you posted.

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by MG1962

First though can you tell me where that quote is sourced. I dont see that in my version and going to the Vatican website to check failed to turn it up

Originally Posted by MG1962

Okay thats the same as my version, which I think you will agree is a little different to what you posted.

No I don't. And please take that up with my linked site catholicbasictraining from which I took my commentary on it. Here is the full CCC reference, with associated matter. My bold.

Quote:

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God's plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ's victory and also of Christian Baptism.84

2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written "for our instruction".85

3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, "leading"). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86

118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:

The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by Craig B

No I don't. And please take that up with my linked site catholicbasictraining from which I took my commentary on it. Here is the full CCC reference, with associated matter. My bold.

Good because these are the two words you need to focus on

The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by MG1962

Good because these are the two words you need to focus on

The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.

And when the Scriptures describe the crossing of the Red Sea, the "exegesis" and "sound interpretation" deduce that Moses crossed the Red Sea, and import this "fact" even into the allegorical sense, as its basis, thus:

Quote:

The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ's victory and also of Christian Baptism.

If the words you say I need to "focus on" don't have this clear meaning, then they have no meaning whatsoever. The Exodus is described as an event.

It boils down to this: do you agree or not, that Catholic authorities taught that the events related in the historical parts of the Old Testament really happened as historical facts?

In my citation of CCC 116, by the way, what was there that you didn't see in your version? Does yours not contain the words "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal"? If it does, how can you say of it: "I don't see that in my version"?

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by Craig B

In my citation of CCC 116, by the way, what was there that you didn't see in your version? Does yours not contain the words "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal"? If it does, how can you say of it: "I don't see that in my version"?

Because you removed the inconvenient parts to suit your purpose, same as you have gone on to do with 117. And the key to 116 and 117 is 118 anyway

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by MG1962

Because you removed the inconvenient parts to suit your purpose, same as you have gone on to do with 117. And the key to 116 and 117 is 118 anyway

I removed nothing. I took it from the Catholic source given in my #20. When you say, I don't see that IN my version, and it is IN your version, then I must not approach your words in a literalist spirit, presumably.

Yes I agree 118 is the key, which is why I included it. "The letter speaks of deeds" whatever other things may be speaking of: The letter speaks of deeds. In this interpretation I have the support of Leo XIII,

Quote:

But [the expositor] must not on that account consider that it is forbidden, when just cause exists, to push inquiry and exposition beyond what the Fathers have done; provided he carefully observes the rule so wisely laid down by St. Augustine - not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires; a rule to which it is the more necessary to adhere strictly in these times, when the thirst for novelty and unrestrained freedom of thought make the danger of error most real and proximate.

Providentissimus Deus, 1893.

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by Craig B

I removed nothing. I took it from the Catholic source given in my #20. When you say, I don't see that IN my version, and it is IN your version, then I must not approach your words in a literalist spirit, presumably.

Because you left the first two thirds of 116 out. Why was that?

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by MG1962

Because you left the first two thirds of 116 out. Why was that?

I took it from a Catholic educational source. My question is simple: if the words cited were IN the version in front of you, why did you inform us that they were not, and that they were not to be found IN the version on the Vatican website? Am I entitled to say that the words "God Save the Queen" are not IN the UK national anthem, on the grounds that other things are IN it as well?

May I now invite you to address the materials contained in my last post?

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by Craig B

I took it from a Catholic educational source. My question is simple: if the words cited were IN the version in front of you, why did you inform us that they were not, and that they were not to be found IN the version on the Vatican website? Am I entitled to say that the words "God Save the Queen" are not IN the UK national anthem, on the grounds that other things are IN it as well?

Sorry no - if you remove the first two thirds of God Save The Queen we end up with this

Thy choicest gifts in store,
On her be pleased to pour;
Long may she reign:
May she defend our laws,
And ever give us cause
To sing with heart and voice
God save The Queen!

So who's Queen are we asking God to Save?

We need the first two thirds to establish we are singing about our Queen.

Aside, why have you not explained why you left so much of 116 and 117. I asked for clarification of your source to make sure I had the right reference and was not missing something important