"Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater

[Robert B Bullard]

Can God even commit murder? If God has control of human souls in this life and the next, could someone please explain to me why God should feel guilty about this command?  

Also as a Christian it is not within my right to condemn anyone to hell because God is the ultimate judge. So please don't tell me that all the Canaanites were sent to hell because we ultimately do not know...

[Matt]

Sandspirit wrote:

Hitler is a pejorative terms at the moment. Sure it was his view, but there are two questions to ask:

1. Was his view correct?
2. Even if his view was correct, was he actually (not what he thought personally) in a position to make and act upon that decision?

I don't suppose many of you became Christians in order to be associated with this sort of sentiment but in the name of "reasonable faith" you've compromised your critical faculties to the point where you don't know whether genocide is right or wrong. Many Christians shun Craig because of his views on genocide. Forget Dawkins and the debate - it doesn't matter. It's not hard to see that eliminating an entire people is wrong. Or maybe I'm mistaken.

I have to address Blank again, which I am working on, however I am trying not to make it quite so long as most people probably won't read it and will probably get confused as to the core of the argument.

This is a perspective thing.  When we say that some situation is bad or wrong from any perspective... I think it DOES merit consideration of whether the pejorative terms are really can be used in that case, or if it is a case of using a word that is pejorative so that people will ASSUME that the wrong action was taken.

Again a whole group of some group (every individual in that group) can do something wrong, meriting a severe punishment for each individual in the group.  Now each individual of the group is being punished in a way that is merited and thus the whole group is being punished for the same crime with the same merit.  If it was the taking away of land, or the death penalty that was merited by their actions... one might be able to say that it was technically "genocide" but it was not wrong to do.  They merited the punishment.

You seem to be the one that is not up to looking at the situation fully, and rather continue to ASSUME the negative nature of the act simply based on the pejorative usage of genocide.  Unfortunately, words do have meanings and meanings do get mixed up.  It is always important to look at what a word actually means as compared to what someone is trying to make people ASSUME it means.   To hoist "genocide" up without the whole context of the situation is disingenuous.

[Matt]

 

Let us set the context.

 

Genocide: the deliberate and systematic extermination (and or destruction) of a national, racial, political, or cultural group. (notice not positive or negative)

 

Terms origin: 1944, apparently coined by Polish-born U.S. jurist Raphael Lemkin in his work "Axis Rule in Occupied Europe" [p.19], in reference to Nazi extermination of Jews, lit. "killing a tribe," from Gk. genos "race, kind" (see genus) + -cide. The proper formation would be *genticide.

 

Usage: genocide [(jen-uh-seyed)]

 

The deliberate destruction of an entire race or nation. The Holocaust conducted by the Nazis in Germany and the Rwandan genocide are examples of attempts at genocide.

 

Who is conducting the genocide according to the word? Human beings

 

The word genocide does not tend to be used in regard to situations with animals exterminating or destroying other animal groups.  If it is, it is not used in a moral sense of being “good or bad”.

 

In the situation with the Canaanites, it is proposed that God is the being who judges the Canaanites and decides that they merit destruction physically and/or culturally (It is not necessitated that they were all to be killed but that may be the case).

 

What quality of the God that is giving the order might allow for that being to judge the merit properly and fairly? Omniscience (all knowing).

 

What quality of the God that is giving the order might prevent that being from making this order when it is not properly merited? Omni benevolent (all [more appropriately, perfectly] loving) We see this in that God waits until the iniquity of the Ammonites is at its maximum point (400 years) before the Canaanites are judged in this way. (Genesis 15:12-16) This also shows that God gives an individual every opportunity to turn before the judgment takes place.  This is possible due to perfect knowledge. (Did the Canaanites know of this situation? Yes you can see that in Joshua 2.[also Joshua 9] They could have repented and been saved.)  This can also be seen with the woman of Tekoa talking to David regarding David’s behavior with shunning his son.  The woman states to David ‘For we will surely die and are like water spilled on the ground which cannot be gathered up again. Yet God does not take away life, but plans ways so that the
   banished one will not be cast out from him.’ (2 Samuel 14:14  This of course does not necessitate that a son will turn back to God.  You can also see this in the conversation between Abraham and God regarding Sodom and Gomorrah (“if there are 50,40,30,10… righteous people I will not destroy them” Genesis 18:22-33)

 

What quality of the God that is giving the order might render that being to give the order when it is properly merited? Perfect Justice

 

Are perfect love and perfect justice contradictory? One who is perfectly just can and must enact justice even on those they love.  One who loves perfectly can and must continue to love those whom they enact justice upon.  Both can be done at the same time. Part of the perfection of the love and justice of God is that they are properly (or perfectly) balanced between each other. We can see this in that God does not take delight in the death of the wicked, rather God desires that they turn from their wickedness and be saved.  Although God desires that they turned and be saved, God must pursue justice if they do not turn from their wickedness.  This does not contradict God’s desire that they do turn from their wickedness and be saved. Does God treat this situation fairly?  Yes (Ezekiel 3:16-21 ; Ezekiel 33: 1-20)

 

So how does God decide if it is merited? What if they don’t have a perfect understanding of God’s commands?

 

You can see in the end of Ezekiel 33:1-20 that the individuals will be judged according to their own standards, let alone God’s, and still be found lacking.  You can also see this in Romans 1:18 – 3:31.  All are held to a reasonable standard based on what they know. Also seen in Acts 17:22-31.

 

The information is available to every individual.  Some choose not to act on it. However people are only judged on the basis of what they know, it is also written that they are placed in time and space in a manner that would be optimal for them to come to knowledge (although not that they necessarily will come to knowledge as they can refuse).

 

I would argue that Genocide cannot really be attributed to God.  Even if it were, the definition does not render it a negative or positive term in and of itself.

 

Now the two examples of genocide usually related to the term (one which originated the term) can be determined to be instances where genocide took place and if it was negative in those cases.

 

I would suggest it was negative for a couple of reasons:

 

1.     1. Humans (on their own) cannot know if the punishment of the whole of the group is merited without going through strenuous court/legal proceedings with evidence, etc.

 

2.      2.These cases were not done under some kind of judicial/merit based situation, but rather a malicious hate based situation.  The merits were not justified in any way. This is something that can be examined in a situation where humans are making the decision so that we can determine if the action of ‘genocide’ is wrong and thus morally abhorrent.

 

If there was a situation where the last remaining group of 300 gypsies were in a country that allowed for the death penalty, and each one of those gypsies in the group were rightly suspected, tried, and convicted of a crime that merited the death penalty, all those gypsies facing the death penalty could technically be “genocide”.  However, all those gypsies would be guilty of a crime and meriting the death penalty.  Now the death penalty may not have to be enacted in this case but that does not mean that it cannot be.  Given that it is… this can be “genocide” in a technical sense but also a proper avenue of handling the situation as their individual actions merited individual deaths which lead to the death of the whole group.  

 

   ast-font-family:"times="" roman";color:#333333"="">I think in the realm of God making a command against the Canaanites and the realm of human beings making a command against another group of human beings, there is a stark difference of context.  Thus it does not seem that genocide is really appropriate (in regard to God's actions with the Canaanites) and even if it is used technically, it is not render a negative connotation, just a description of what has taken place: the extermination or destruction of a group.  In this case it would have been a merited and justified undertaking rather than the unmerited and unjustified undertaking of humans committing this act toward humans without correct and fair court/legal proceedings.

[blank]

expsredemption wrote:

Let us set the context.

Genocide: the deliberate and systematic extermination (and or destruction) of a national, racial, political, or cultural group. (notice not positive or negative)

Terms origin: 1944, apparently coined by Polish-born U.S. jurist Raphael Lemkin in his work "Axis Rule in Occupied Europe" [p.19], in reference to Nazi extermination of Jews, lit. "killing a tribe," from Gk. genos "race, kind" (see genus) + -cide. The proper formation would be *genticide.

Usage: genocide [(jen-uh-seyed)]

The deliberate destruction of an entire race or nation. The Holocaust conducted by the Nazis in Germany and the Rwandan genocide are examples of attempts at genocide.

Are your examples positive or negative?

expsredemption wrote:
Who is conducting the genocide according to the word?  Human beings

The word genocide does not tend to be used in regard to situations with animals exterminating or destroying other animal groups.  If it is, it is not used in a moral sense of being “good or bad”.

In the situation with the Canaanites, it is proposed that God is the being who judges the Canaanites and decides that they merit destruction physically and/or culturally (It is not necessitated that they were all to be killed but that may be the case).

Maybe we do not use it in situations involving animals because animals aren't considered as being moral agents but god and the Israelites are considered as such.

expsredemption wrote:
What quality of the God that is giving the order might allow for that being to judge the merit properly and fairly? Omniscience (all knowing).

What quality of the God that is giving the order might prevent that being from making this order when it is not properly merited? Omni benevolent (all [more appropriately, perfectly] loving) We see this in that God waits until the iniquity of the Ammonites is at its maximum point (400 years) before the Canaanites are judged in this way. (Genesis 15:12-16)  This also shows that God gives an individual every opportunity to turn before the judgment takes place.  This is possible due to perfect knowledge. (Did the Canaanites know of this situation? Yes you can see that in Joshua 2.[also Joshua 9] They could have repented and been saved.)  This can also be seen with the woman of Tekoa talking to David regarding David’s behavior with shunning his son.  The woman states to David ‘For we will surely die and are like water spilled on the ground which cannot be gathered up again. Yet God does not take away life, but plans ways so that the banished one will not be cast out from him.’ (2 Samuel 14:14  This of course does not necessitate that a son will turn back to God.   You can also see this in the conversation between Abraham and God regarding Sodom and Gomorrah (“if there are 50,40,30,10… righteous people I will not destroy them” Genesis 18:22-33)

What quality of the God that is giving the order might render that being to give the order when it is properly merited? Perfect Justice

Are perfect love and perfect justice contradictory? One who is perfectly just can and must enact justice even on those they love.  One who loves perfectly can and must continue to love those whom they enact justice upon.  Both can be done at the same time. Part of the perfection of the love and justice of God is that they are properly (or perfectly)  balanced between each other.  We can see this in that God does not take delight in the death of the wicked, rather God desires that they turn from their wickedness and be saved.  Although God desires that they turned and be saved, God must pursue justice if they do not turn from their wickedness.  This does not contradict God’s desire that they do turn from their wickedness and be saved. Does God treat this situation fairly?  Yes (Ezekiel 3:16-21 ; Ezekiel 33: 1-20)

So how does God decide if it is merited? What if they don’t have a perfect understanding of God’s commands?

expsredemption wrote:
You can see in the end of Ezekiel 33:1-20 that the individuals will be judged according to their own standards, let alone God’s, and still be found lacking.  You can also see this in Romans 1:18 – 3:31.  All are held to a reasonable standard based on what they know. Also seen in Acts 17:22-31.

The information is available to every individual.  Some choose not to act on it. However people are only judged on the basis of what they know, it is also written that they are placed in time and space in a manner that would be optimal for them to come to knowledge (although not that they necessarily will come to knowledge as they can refuse).

I would argue that Genocide cannot really be attributed to God.  Even if it were, the definition does not render it a negative or positive term in and of itself.

Now the two examples of genocide usually related to the term (one which originated the term) can be determined to be instances where genocide took place and if it was negative in those cases.

I would suggest it was negative for a couple of reasons:

1.     1. Humans (on their own) cannot know if the punishment of the whole of the group is merited without going through strenuous court/legal proceedings with evidence, etc.

In that case, it may just be that the act of genocide may end up being a good thing since no one really knows whether or not it is merited.

expsredemption wrote:
2.      2.These cases were not done under some kind of judicial/merit based situation, but rather a malicious hate based situation.  The merits were not justified in any way. This is something that can be examined in a situation where humans are making the decision so that we can determine if the action of ‘genocide’ is wrong and thus morally abhorrent.

God's system wasn't any better because he ordered indiscriminate killing. Is it a merit based situation to kill all people in a society?

expsredemption wrote:
If there was a situation where the last remaining group of 300 gypsies were in a country that allowed for the death penalty, and each one of those gypsies in the group were rightly suspected, tried, and convicted of a crime that merited the death penalty, all those gypsies facing the death penalty could technically be “genocide”.  However, all those gypsies would be guilty of a crime and meriting the death penalty.  Now the death penalty may not have to be enacted in this case but that does not mean that it cannot be.  Given that it is… this can be “genocide” in a technical sense but also a proper avenue of handling the situation as their individual actions merited individual deaths which lead to the death of the whole group.

Would this make it appropriate to kill the gypsy children and gypsies who just happened to be visiting within the vicinity?

expsredemption wrote:
I think in the realm of God making a command against the Canaanites and the realm of human beings making a command against another group of human beings, there is a stark difference of context.  Thus it does not seem that genocide is really appropriate (in regard to God's actions with the Canaanites) and even if it is used technically, it is not render a negative connotation, just a description of what has taken place: the extermination or destruction of a group.  In this case it would have been a merited and justified undertaking rather than the unmerited and unjustified undertaking of humans committing this act toward humans without correct and fair court/legal proceedings.

Of course. I hope you realize that you are simply defending genocide by special pleading. Saying genocide is wrong but when God does it is right, is speci
   al pleading. Claiming that we do not know whether a genocidal actions is right or wrong simply means that actual incidents of genocide cannot be decided as being immoral since we do not know the ultimate effects. After all, it could be that the action lead to avoiding a worse genocidal maniac.

[Matt]

blank wrote:

Let us set the context.

Genocide: the deliberate and systematic extermination (and or destruction) of a national, racial, political, or cultural group. (notice not positive or negative)

Terms origin: 1944, apparently coined by Polish-born U.S. jurist Raphael Lemkin in his work "Axis Rule in Occupied Europe" [p.19], in reference to Nazi extermination of Jews, lit. "killing a tribe," from Gk. genos "race, kind" (see genus) + -cide. The proper formation would be *genticide.

Usage: genocide [(jen-uh-seyed)]

The deliberate destruction of an entire race or nation. The Holocaust conducted by the Nazis in Germany and the Rwandan genocide are examples of attempts at genocide.

Are your examples positive or negative?

expsredemption wrote:
Who is conducting the genocide according to the word?  Human beings

The word genocide does not tend to be used in regard to situations with animals exterminating or destroying other animal groups.  If it is, it is not used in a moral sense of being “good or bad”.

In the situation with the Canaanites, it is proposed that God is the being who judges the Canaanites and decides that they merit destruction physically and/or culturally (It is not necessitated that they were all to be killed but that may be the case).

Maybe we do not use it in situations involving animals because animals aren't considered as being moral agents but god and the Israelites are considered as such.

expsredemption wrote:
What quality of the God that is giving the order might allow for that being to judge the merit properly and fairly? Omniscience (all knowing).

What quality of the God that is giving the order might prevent that being from making this order when it is not properly merited? Omni benevolent (all [more appropriately, perfectly] loving) We see this in that God waits until the iniquity of the Ammonites is at its maximum point (400 years) before the Canaanites are judged in this way. (Genesis 15:12-16)  This also shows that God gives an individual every opportunity to turn before the judgment takes place.  This is possible due to perfect knowledge. (Did the Canaanites know of this situation? Yes you can see that in Joshua 2.[also Joshua 9] They could have repented and been saved.)  This can also be seen with the woman of Tekoa talking to David regarding David’s behavior with shunning his son.  The woman states to David ‘For we will surely die and are like water spilled on the ground which cannot be gathered up again. Yet God does not take away life, but plans ways so that the banished one will not be cast out from him.’ (2 Samuel 14:14  This of course does not necessitate that a son will turn back to God.   You can also see this in the conversation between Abraham and God regarding Sodom and Gomorrah (“if there are 50,40,30,10… righteous people I will not destroy them” Genesis 18:22-33)

What quality of the God that is giving the order might render that being to give the order when it is properly merited? Perfect Justice

Are perfect love and perfect justice contradictory? One who is perfectly just can and must enact justice even on those they love.  One who loves perfectly can and must continue to love those whom they enact justice upon.  Both can be done at the same time. Part of the perfection of the love and justice of God is that they are properly (or perfectly)  balanced between each other.  We can see this in that God does not take delight in the death of the wicked, rather God desires that they turn from their wickedness and be saved.  Although God desires that they turned and be saved, God must pursue justice if they do not turn from their wickedness.  This does not contradict God’s desire that they do turn from their wickedness and be saved. Does God treat this situation fairly?  Yes (Ezekiel 3:16-21 ; Ezekiel 33: 1-20)

So how does God decide if it is merited? What if they don’t have a perfect understanding of God’s commands?

expsredemption wrote:
You can see in the end of Ezekiel 33:1-20 that the individuals will be judged according to their own standards, let alone God’s, and still be found lacking.  You can also see this in Romans 1:18 – 3:31.  All are held to a reasonable standard based on what they know. Also seen in Acts 17:22-31.

The information is available to every individual.  Some choose not to act on it. However people are only judged on the basis of what they know, it is also written that they are placed in time and space in a manner that would be optimal for them to come to knowledge (although not that they necessarily will come to knowledge as they can refuse).

I would argue that Genocide cannot really be attributed to God.  Even if it were, the definition does not render it a negative or positive term in and of itself.

Now the two examples of genocide usually related to the term (one which originated the term) can be determined to be instances where genocide took place and if it was negative in those cases.

I would suggest it was negative for a couple of reasons:

1.     1. Humans (on their own) cannot know if the punishment of the whole of the group is merited without going through strenuous court/legal proceedings with evidence, etc.

In that case, it may just be that the act of genocide may end up being a good thing since no one really knows whether or not it is merited.

expsredemption wrote:
2.      2.These cases were not done under some kind of judicial/merit based situation, but rather a malicious hate based situation.  The merits were not justified in any way. This is something that can be examined in a situation where humans are making the decision so that we can determine if the action of ‘genocide’ is wrong and thus morally abhorrent.

God's system wasn't any better because he ordered indiscriminate killing. Is it a merit based situation to kill all people in a society?

expsredemption wrote:
If there was a situation where the last remaining group of 300 gypsies were in a country that allowed for the death penalty, and each one of those gypsies in the group were rightly suspected, tried, and convicted of a crime that merited the death penalty, all those gypsies facing the death penalty could technically be “genocide”.  However, all those gypsies would be guilty of a crime and meriting the death penalty.  Now the death penalty may not have to be enacted in this case but that does not mean that it cannot be.  Given that it is… this can be “genocide” in a technical sense but also a proper avenue of handling the situation as their individual actions merited individual deaths which lead to the death of the whole group.

Would this make it appropriate to kill the gypsy children and gypsies who just happened to be visiting within the vicinity?

expsredemption wrote:
I think in the realm of God making a command against the Canaanites and the realm of human beings making a command against another group of human beings, there is a stark difference of context.  Thus it does not seem that genocide is really appropriate (in regard to God's actions with the Canaanites) and even if it is used technically, it is not render a negative connotation, just a description of what has taken place: the extermination or destruction of a group.  In this case it would have been a merited and justified undertaking rather than the unmerited and unjustified undertaking of humans committing this act toward humans without correct and fair court/legal proceedings.

Of course. I hope you realize that you are simply defending genocide by special pleading. Saying genocide is wrong but when God does it is ri
   ght, is special pleading. Claiming that we do not know whether a genocidal actions is right or wrong simply means that actual incidents of genocide cannot be decided as being immoral since we do not know the ultimate effects. After all, it could be that the action lead to avoiding a worse genocidal maniac.

This was not a very substantive interaction with my post.  It also failed to take into account things that I have already made clear. (In terms of how God knows if it is or is not merited.  He is all knowing.  I also showed that God would not do it if he knew it was not merited [do to perfect love and justice].  You are dealing within the Christian frame of reference when you talk about the Christian God.  These are his qualities and how he makes the decisions.  You ask questions that are already answered)

You will also notice that I never said that genocide is wrong when everyone else does it and right when God does it.   I set parameters to show that the two cases of genocide most commonly used today (Holocaust and Rwanda) can be shown to be wrong based on a few facts (they people conducting the genocide could not know if everyone in the group merited the punishment; the people conducting the genocide did not go through a rational, fair, legal/judicial process to determine if every individual in the group merited that punishment.   I did also make clear that genocide conducted by human being is not necessarily bad.  If all in the group merit the punishment and it is justified punishment, the "genocide" would not be bad it would just be.

You seem to be taking statements in a vacuum. You ask questions that are answered already or later in the post and unnecessarily distinguish and separate thoughts.

It seems you are simply playing the skeptic.  If you have anything substantive to DISCUSS (rather than just being skeptical of) I look forward to the discussion. If not, thank you for your input thus far.

[blank]

expsredemption wrote:

Let us set the context.

Genocide: the deliberate and systematic extermination (and or destruction) of a national, racial, political, or cultural group. (notice not positive or negative)

Terms origin: 1944, apparently coined by Polish-born U.S. jurist Raphael Lemkin in his work "Axis Rule in Occupied Europe" [p.19], in reference to Nazi extermination of Jews, lit. "killing a tribe," from Gk. genos "race, kind" (see genus) + -cide. The proper formation would be *genticide.

Usage: genocide [(jen-uh-seyed)]

The deliberate destruction of an entire race or nation. The Holocaust conducted by the Nazis in Germany and the Rwandan genocide are examples of attempts at genocide.

Are your examples positive or negative?

expsredemption wrote:
Who is conducting the genocide according to the word?  Human beings

The word genocide does not tend to be used in regard to situations with animals exterminating or destroying other animal groups.  If it is, it is not used in a moral sense of being “good or bad”.

In the situation with the Canaanites, it is proposed that God is the being who judges the Canaanites and decides that they merit destruction physically and/or culturally (It is not necessitated that they were all to be killed but that may be the case).

Maybe we do not use it in situations involving animals because animals aren't considered as being moral agents but god and the Israelites are considered as such.

expsredemption wrote:
What quality of the God that is giving the order might allow for that being to judge the merit properly and fairly? Omniscience (all knowing).

What quality of the God that is giving the order might prevent that being from making this order when it is not properly merited? Omni benevolent (all [more appropriately, perfectly] loving) We see this in that God waits until the iniquity of the Ammonites is at its maximum point (400 years) before the Canaanites are judged in this way. (Genesis 15:12-16)  This also shows that God gives an individual every opportunity to turn before the judgment takes place.  This is possible due to perfect knowledge. (Did the Canaanites know of this situation? Yes you can see that in Joshua 2.[also Joshua 9] They could have repented and been saved.)  This can also be seen with the woman of Tekoa talking to David regarding David’s behavior with shunning his son.  The woman states to David ‘For we will surely die and are like water spilled on the ground which cannot be gathered up again. Yet God does not take away life, but plans ways so that the banished one will not be cast out from him.’ (2 Samuel 14:14  This of course does not necessitate that a son will turn back to God.   You can also see this in the conversation between Abraham and God regarding Sodom and Gomorrah (“if there are 50,40,30,10… righteous people I will not destroy them” Genesis 18:22-33)

What quality of the God that is giving the order might render that being to give the order when it is properly merited? Perfect Justice

Are perfect love and perfect justice contradictory? One who is perfectly just can and must enact justice even on those they love.  One who loves perfectly can and must continue to love those whom they enact justice upon.  Both can be done at the same time. Part of the perfection of the love and justice of God is that they are properly (or perfectly)  balanced between each other.  We can see this in that God does not take delight in the death of the wicked, rather God desires that they turn from their wickedness and be saved.  Although God desires that they turned and be saved, God must pursue justice if they do not turn from their wickedness.  This does not contradict God’s desire that they do turn from their wickedness and be saved. Does God treat this situation fairly?  Yes (Ezekiel 3:16-21 ; Ezekiel 33: 1-20)

So how does God decide if it is merited? What if they don’t have a perfect understanding of God’s commands?

expsredemption wrote:
You can see in the end of Ezekiel 33:1-20 that the individuals will be judged according to their own standards, let alone God’s, and still be found lacking.  You can also see this in Romans 1:18 – 3:31.  All are held to a reasonable standard based on what they know. Also seen in Acts 17:22-31.

The information is available to every individual.  Some choose not to act on it. However people are only judged on the basis of what they know, it is also written that they are placed in time and space in a manner that would be optimal for them to come to knowledge (although not that they necessarily will come to knowledge as they can refuse).

I would argue that Genocide cannot really be attributed to God.  Even if it were, the definition does not render it a negative or positive term in and of itself.

Now the two examples of genocide usually related to the term (one which originated the term) can be determined to be instances where genocide took place and if it was negative in those cases.

I would suggest it was negative for a couple of reasons:

1.     1. Humans (on their own) cannot know if the punishment of the whole of the group is merited without going through strenuous court/legal proceedings with evidence, etc.

In that case, it may just be that the act of genocide may end up being a good thing since no one really knows whether or not it is merited.

expsredemption wrote:
2.      2.These cases were not done under some kind of judicial/merit based situation, but rather a malicious hate based situation.  The merits were not justified in any way. This is something that can be examined in a situation where humans are making the decision so that we can determine if the action of ‘genocide’ is wrong and thus morally abhorrent.

God's system wasn't any better because he ordered indiscriminate killing. Is it a merit based situation to kill all people in a society?

expsredemption wrote:
If there was a situation where the last remaining group of 300 gypsies were in a country that allowed for the death penalty, and each one of those gypsies in the group were rightly suspected, tried, and convicted of a crime that merited the death penalty, all those gypsies facing the death penalty could technically be “genocide”.  However, all those gypsies would be guilty of a crime and meriting the death penalty.  Now the death penalty may not have to be enacted in this case but that does not mean that it cannot be.  Given that it is… this can be “genocide” in a technical sense but also a proper avenue of handling the situation as their individual actions merited individual deaths which lead to the death of the whole group.

Would this make it appropriate to kill the gypsy children and gypsies who just happened to be visiting within the vicinity?

expsredemption wrote:
I think in the realm of God making a command against the Canaanites and the realm of human beings making a command against another group of human beings, there is a stark difference of context.  Thus it does not seem that genocide is really appropriate (in regard to God's actions with the Canaanites) and even if it is used technically, it is not render a negative connotation, just a description of what has taken place: the extermination or destruction of a group.  In this case it would have been a merited and justified undertaking rather than the unmerited and unjustified undertaking of humans committing this act toward humans without correct and fair court/legal proceedings.

Of course. I hope you realize that you are simply defending genocide by special pleading. Saying genocide is wrong but
   when God does it is right, is special pleading. Claiming that we do not know whether a genocidal actions is right or wrong simply means that actual incidents of genocide cannot be decided as being immoral since we do not know the ultimate effects. After all, it could be that the action lead to avoiding a worse genocidal maniac.

This was not a very substantive interaction with my post.  It also failed to take into account things that I have already made clear. (In terms of how God knows if it is or is not merited.  He is all knowing.  I also showed that God would not do it if he knew it was not merited [do to perfect love and justice].  You are dealing within the Christian frame of reference when you talk about the Christian God.  These are his qualities and how he makes the decisions.  You ask questions that are already answered)

Sorry you feel that way but you need to realize that on a forum such as this, I really cannot stand a wall of text. What I take from you here is that you're claiming that God has some good reason for commanding genocide because he is all knowing but you need to realize that such a claim will not fly unless you can demonstrate how it is that killing children best serves God's interest.

expsredemption wrote:
You will also notice that I never said that genocide is wrong when everyone else does it and right when God does it.   I set parameters to show that the two cases of genocide most commonly used today (Holocaust and Rwanda) can be shown to be wrong based on a few facts (they people conducting the genocide could not know if everyone in the group merited the punishment; the people conducting the genocide did not go through a rational, fair, legal/judicial process to determine if every individual in the group merited that punishment.   I did also make clear that genocide conducted by human being is not necessarily bad.  If all in the group merit the punishment and it is justified punishment, the "genocide" would not be bad it would just be.

You're saying that the holocaust and the Rwandan genocide are wrong for the reasons you gave but you forget that it was people that God commanded to carry out his own genocide. Unless you're saying a 1 year old child can be considered to be guilty of a crime and deserves punishment, then I don't see the distinction you're trying to draw between the Rwandan genocide and the one spoken about in the Bible. Or between the idea of genocide in general and the holocaust.

expsredemption wrote:
You seem to be taking statements in a vacuum. You ask questions that are answered already or later in the post and unnecessarily distinguish and separate thoughts.

It may appear that way because you're responding with a wall of text rather than addressing my actual statements. I have to distinguish various thoughts of yours in order to respond.

expsredemption wrote:
It seems you are simply playing the skeptic.  If you have anything substantive to DISCUSS (rather than just being skeptical of) I look forward to the discussion. If not, thank you for your input thus far.

No, I'm not playing but like I already said, you simply wish to appeal to special pleading which is unacceptable.

[Matt]

Blank,

 To make things clearer from this point I have started a new response so that all the information is not copied from previous posts.

If you are truly engaging, I will continue.

It seems you are playing the skeptic to me due to your sitting back rather then giving things that WOULD justify the situation for you.

I need to know what it is that it will take for you to accept a situation before I bother dealing with it.  This way, if that cannot be provided I don't have to waste time.  If it can, I will know what you are looking for and be more able to pin it down.

The large post that I put up breaking down what genocide is, and that it is not necessarily good or bad on itself (without background or supporting information).  It was to make it clear that genocide is not necessarily a negative thing just by being called "genocide".

Please give me some clarification on your end so that I know what exactly you are looking for and what you would find acceptable.

[blank]

expsredemption wrote: Blank,

 To make things clearer from this point I have started a new response so that all the information is not copied from previous posts.

If you are truly engaging, I will continue.

It seems you are playing the skeptic to me due to your sitting back rather then giving things that WOULD justify the situation for you.

I need to know what it is that it will take for you to accept a situation before I bother dealing with it.  This way, if that cannot be provided I don't have to waste time.  If it can, I will know what you are looking for and be more able to pin it down.

The large post that I put up breaking down what genocide is, and that it is not necessarily good or bad on itself (without background or supporting information).  It was to make it clear that genocide is not necessarily a negative thing just by being called "genocide".

Please give me some clarification on your end so that I know what exactly you are looking for and what you would find acceptable.

That's just it. I don't think genocide can be justified. Saying genocide isn't necessarily a negative thing and that humans aren't omniscient means to me that even the examples of genocide that you gave may in fact be positive occurrences just that humans in their limited capacities don't know this to be so.
That is why I look askance at people trying to justify genocide. They don't seem to realize the far reaching implications of such a justification.

[James Arlington]

blank wrote:

Blank,

 To make things clearer from this point I have started a new response so that all the information is not copied from previous posts.

If you are truly engaging, I will continue.

It seems you are playing the skeptic to me due to your sitting back rather then giving things that WOULD justify the situation for you.

I need to know what it is that it will take for you to accept a situation before I bother dealing with it.  This way, if that cannot be provided I don't have to waste time.  If it can, I will know what you are looking for and be more able to pin it down.

The large post that I put up breaking down what genocide is, and that it is not necessarily good or bad on itself (without background or supporting information).  It was to make it clear that genocide is not necessarily a negative thing just by being called "genocide".

Please give me some clarification on your end so that I know what exactly you are looking for and what you would find acceptable.

That's just it. I don't think genocide can be justified. Saying genocide isn't necessarily a negative thing and that humans aren't omniscient means to me that even the examples of genocide that you gave may in fact be positive occurrences just that humans in their limited capacities don't know this to be so.
That is why I look askance at people trying to justify genocide. They don't seem to realize the far reaching implications of such a justification.

What if the subject of the genocide were Nazis? We decide to wipe out all Nazis to prevent them from committing genocide on the Jews. Are we not justified?

[Matt]

Jove81 wrote:

What if the subject of the genocide were Nazis? We decide to wipe out all Nazis to prevent them from committing genocide on the Jews. Are we not justified?

If you "just decide", then I would say there is no way that you are justified (even if they were all guilty... you would not have good reason to think that by "just deciding").

I would say it is highly probable that some of the people who would be called "Nazi's" did not agree with the policies but were forced (by their fear) to go along with the Nazi ideals.   Again, based on this, you cannot rightly condemn all of them justly.

In the absence of a reasoned, fair, legal/judicial process, ruling, appeals, sentencing process, you would not be justified.

Blank might try to bring up the women and children, again, out of his ignorance for the common language usage in the OT and the situations described, in regard to the situation of God and the Canaanites compared to the "we can't know" in the human context.  To that I would encourage him to look into some of the work of Paul Copan on this subject.   There is more than good reason to think that the language style that would be used to describe the situations the OT Canaanite situation took place does not necessitate that women and children were actually harmed or even intended to be harmed.

A basic start would be this interview

[Jacob Bukaty]

If god killed all Americans, for reasons unbeknownst to us, would that be perfectly kind and loving just because he did it?  If so, do you wish for mass death delivered by the hands of such a god?  Wouldn't such a thing be a perfect embodiment of the perfect will of a perfect being?

[blank]

Jove81 wrote:

Blank,

 To make things clearer from this point I have started a new response so that all the information is not copied from previous posts.

If you are truly engaging, I will continue.

It seems you are playing the skeptic to me due to your sitting back rather then giving things that WOULD justify the situation for you.

I need to know what it is that it will take for you to accept a situation before I bother dealing with it.  This way, if that cannot be provided I don't have to waste time.  If it can, I will know what you are looking for and be more able to pin it down.

The large post that I put up breaking down what genocide is, and that it is not necessarily good or bad on itself (without background or supporting information).  It was to make it clear that genocide is not necessarily a negative thing just by being called "genocide".

Please give me some clarification on your end so that I know what exactly you are looking for and what you would find acceptable.

That's just it. I don't think genocide can be justified. Saying genocide isn't necessarily a negative thing and that humans aren't omniscient means to me that even the examples of genocide that you gave may in fact be positive occurrences just that humans in their limited capacities don't know this to be so.
That is why I look askance at people trying to justify genocide. They don't seem to realize the far reaching implications of such a justification.

What if the subject of the genocide were Nazis? We decide to wipe out all Nazis to prevent them from committing genocide on the Jews. Are we not justified?

Who is a Nazi? Are children Nazis? I don't think you can justify indiscriminately wiping out an entire population even if you're unable to separate the guilty from the non-guilty, you cannot justify it yet an omniscient God who can separate the guilty from the non-guilty chose not to do that.

[blank]

expsredemption wrote:

What if the subject of the genocide were Nazis? We decide to wipe out all Nazis to prevent them from committing genocide on the Jews. Are we not justified?

If you "just decide", then I would say there is no way that you are justified (even if they were all guilty... you would not have good reason to think that by "just deciding").

I would say it is highly probable that some of the people who would be called "Nazi's" did not agree with the policies but were forced (by their fear) to go along with the Nazi ideals.   Again, based on this, you cannot rightly condemn all of them justly.

In the absence of a reasoned, fair, legal/judicial process, ruling, appeals, sentencing process, you would not be justified.

But you think God's decision to do just that when he could have picked out individuals that he felt were evil was justified?

expsredemption wrote:
Blank might try to bring up the women and children, again, out of his ignorance for the common language usage in the OT and the situations described, in regard to the situation of God and the Canaanites compared to the "we can't know" in the human context.  To that I would encourage him to look into some of the work of Paul Copan on this subject.   There is more than good reason to think that the language style that would be used to describe the situations the OT Canaanite situation took place does not necessitate that women and children were actually harmed or even intended to be harmed.

Of course I'll bring up the women and children we're talking about a genocide here aren't we? What am I to get from Paul Copan's work? If you understand his work well enough, why don't you present it satisfactorily?

expsredemption wrote:
A basic start would be this interview

Does this interview contain the best response to the problem in an audio form?

[Matt]

blank wrote:

Blank,

 To make things clearer from this point I have started a new response so that all the information is not copied from previous posts.

If you are truly engaging, I will continue.

It seems you are playing the skeptic to me due to your sitting back rather then giving things that WOULD justify the situation for you.

I need to know what it is that it will take for you to accept a situation before I bother dealing with it.  This way, if that cannot be provided I don't have to waste time.  If it can, I will know what you are looking for and be more able to pin it down.

The large post that I put up breaking down what genocide is, and that it is not necessarily good or bad on itself (without background or supporting information).  It was to make it clear that genocide is not necessarily a negative thing just by being called "genocide".

Please give me some clarification on your end so that I know what exactly you are looking for and what you would find acceptable.

That's just it. I don't think genocide can be justified. Saying genocide isn't necessarily a negative thing and that humans aren't omniscient means to me that even the examples of genocide that you gave may in fact be positive occurrences just that humans in their limited capacities don't know this to be so.
That is why I look askance at people trying to justify genocide. They don't seem to realize the far reaching implications of such a justification.

What if the subject of the genocide were Nazis? We decide to wipe out all Nazis to prevent them from committing genocide on the Jews. Are we not justified?

Who is a Nazi? Are children Nazis? I don't think you can justify indiscriminately wiping out an entire population even if you're unable to separate the guilty from the non-guilty, you cannot justify it yet an omniscient God who can separate the guilty from the non-guilty chose not to do that.

Well... as Paul Copan might take it... you are taking an ill-informed Sunday School reading of the text when there is a much deeper and informed reading of the text that you are unaware of.  You are looking at the words you see from the standpoint you want to see them from, rather than looking at the language usage of the time in which it was written.

You just showed your ignorance in the past two posts.  If you were more informed you would realize that the command that God leveled does not necessarily mean that women and children were harmed in any way.  Secondly the Canaanites had the ability to turn from what they were doing and be saved (example of Rahab and Gibeonites).  Third, within the area directly dealing with the commands there is information that the Canaanites still persist.  The writers are not foolish enough to keep the Canaanites in existence while writing words that literally mean utter destruction.

I cannot solve a situation of ignorance for you.  You won't believe something you haven't seen or read with your own eyes... (obviously, or we wouldn't be having this discussion in this fashion).  One of the problems is... you stop your search before looking at all the details and understanding all the background information.

Copan's work deals with the common usage of the language (specifically dealing with war and combat language) of the time in that setting.  You would benefit from it because it will clarify some of the things you take to be the case in your current state of ignorance (lack of knowledge of some thing).

You continue to mention women and children out of ignorance of the subject.  This is the third time I am telling you this.   Will you do it again?  You have shown that it is likely.

[Matt]

"Of course I'll bring up the women and  children we're talking about a genocide here aren't we? What am I to  get from Paul Copan's work? If you understand his work well enough, why  don't you present it satisfactorily?"

No, we are not necessarily talking about a Genocide here unless all the people were ACTUALLY intended to be dealt AND were dealt with.

There is ample evidence to show that NOT ALL people were intended to be indiscriminately (as you stated in your ignorance) brought to death, and NOT ALL people WERE indiscriminately brought to death.   You understand this, of course, depends on doing some research and taking some effort.  That is your call.  However, it will be hard to call yourself rational and reasoned in your position if you do not.