Bart Ehrman - Jesus Interrupted

[Antlerman]

Hot damn! We're on page 50!!!

 

(so far... no converts. Carry on.)

No wait! I feel something. I think it might be my spirit being touched. I think it might be me feeling the force of the argument and the Holy Spirit moving my soul. Oh. Nope. False alarm. I guess it was the beans from lunch talking to me.

Good thing it didn't turn into a full-out religious experience. Otherwise it could have become a river of living beans.

[Mriana]

It all depends on who is talking about what symbolism and how they interpret it, but yes, if one considers the kingdom as being within, then it could be said JC was both the son of man and son of god- metaphorically of course.

That's the argument of the scholar Marcus Borg, that the kingdom of God refers to a spiritual kingdom on Earth and not a literal kingdom and the idea of the literal belief in the kingdom of God evolved later and Borg believes Jesus did refer to himself as the Son Of Man, but then his book Jesus is a few years older than Ehrman's book, so I don't know who has the most up-to-date information.

 

If I recall correctly, Marcus Borg is also Episcopalian. Just a bit of trivia there. Anyway, the idea that the whole think is symbolic and not literal is an idea I can deal with. It leaves plenty of room for discussing various literary tools used in order to convey a particular idea. The problem is when people take the Bible as being literal. When they do that they ruin the whole thing, including the metaphoric message. All too many Fundamngelicals take it far too literally that they ruin everything about the story and refuse to see that the Bible is NOT the inerrant word of God nor is it inspired by God. It is a purely human creation and if kept in the literary realm, it is more tolerable and easier to discuss. The book wasn't meant to be taken literally at all.

 

Up-to-date? I don't think when it comes to religion there is anything outdated or most up-to-date. I think in some cases, even that which was written in 1914 is still reasonable and viable to use. One has to be selective about what they use though. Keep in mind the main text was supposedly written from some where around 50 A.D. to 200 A.D. or later depending one the scholar. If you are going to say something about religion is outdated due to age, well let's go for the main text and throw it out, discussion is over then.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

Up-to-date? I don't think when it comes to religion there is anything outdated or most up-to-date. I think in some cases, even that which was written in 1914 is still reasonable and viable to use. One has to be selective about what they use though. Keep in mind the main text was supposedly written from some where around 50 A.D. to 200 A.D. or later depending one the scholar. If you are going to say something about religion is outdated due to age, well let's go for the main text and throw it out, discussion is over then.

What I mean is in regards to biblical scholarship. Like in Borg's book Jesus, Borg mentions he's revised his view on Jesus after the past 20 years he wrote his first book in light of modern scholarship. What I meant was that I don't know what the most reliable information scholars now have is in terms of what do scholars know now compared to back then and which scholars can be trusted to be the most reliable when secular scholars all have different views on who Jesus is.

[NotBlinded]

Hot damn! We're on page 50!!!

 

(so far... no converts. Carry on.)

No wait! I feel something. I think it might be my spirit being touched. I think it might be me feeling the force of the argument and the Holy Spirit moving my soul. Oh. Nope. False alarm. I guess it was the beans from lunch talking to me.

Good thing it didn't turn into a full-out religious experience. Otherwise it could have become a river of living beans.

OMG! I swear ya'll crack me up.

[LNC]

Explain how the Israelites wondered through Egyptian territory for 40 years, Invaded an Egyptian territory, and then finally remained in an Egyptian territory without mentioning any Egyptians at all in their histories after the red sea. Is just that they didn't want to admit that after they'd taken the promised land they were still paying tribute to the Egyptians?

 

They wouldn't have been in Egyptian territory after they crossed the Red Sea, which they did shortly after leaving slavery. They spent most of their time in the Sinai Peninsula which wouldn't have been considered Egyptian territory.

[dagnarus]

Explain how the Israelites wondered through Egyptian territory for 40 years, Invaded an Egyptian territory, and then finally remained in an Egyptian territory without mentioning any Egyptians at all in their histories after the red sea. Is just that they didn't want to admit that after they'd taken the promised land they were still paying tribute to the Egyptians?

 

They wouldn't have been in Egyptian territory after they crossed the Red Sea, which they did shortly after leaving slavery. They spent most of their time in the Sinai Peninsula which wouldn't have been considered Egyptian territory.

 

OK fine.

 

What about Canaan the promised land which quite definitely was Egyptian?

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

What exactly is meant by the Bible being inspired by God? I take it to mean people think they have some understanding of the nature of God, and write about it. Is "inspired by God" meant to have some more dramatic meaning?

 

Phanta

When most xtians talk about the bible being inspired by God, it means that God wrote the bible himself through the biblical authors. They believe God told the authors everything to write and since God was communicating to the authors what to write and guiding the authors as they wrote it down, then that somehow means there are no errors anywhere in the bible because according to them, a perfect god would not create an imperfect book. Marcus Borg distinguishes between "soft" literalism and "hard" literalism. "Hard" literalism believes every single thing in all the scriptures are divinely inspired by God and are literally true, so when the bible says God created the universe in six days and only 600 years ago, that means it's literally true. Think of the bible as being like God's autobiography and that's how most hard literalists see the bible. "Soft" literalists accept some stories in the bible are metaphorical like the Genesis creation myth and Noah's ark but still believe in major miracles like the resurrection and the virgin birth and they might accept some scientific evidence that's contrary to these stories but they don't believe there's any serious errors that effects the bible as a whole like how Catholics see the bible. Or as one of my Catholic friends describes it, they believe in divinely inspired fiction.

[LNC]

 

But you just say yourself a few posts down this page of the thread that no scholar considers the bible to be fiction, so you've already contradicted your denial that you did not say the majority of scholars think the bible is historically accurate and you are a liar.

 

I don't believe I said that "no scholar considers the bible to be fiction". I specifically said, as you quoted, "scholars don't consider the Bible to be in the genre of fiction, even skeptical ones." That is true. If you don't agree, please cite a NT scholar who would refute my claim and we can discuss that. I never used the word "no" in reference to scholars, that is your addition to my statement. Still, you have not yet cited anyone to back your claim.

 

Now you're lying again. You did too claim that the gospels have no mythology in them. If you admit some stories of the gospels are made up, then that is mythology. It'd be like if I said the myth of Paul Bunyan was historically accurate but you pointed out errors in the story that prevent it from being true. But then I turned around and said "Oh, I don't need that part of the story of Paul Bunyan to be true" and unless you prove that the rest of the Paul Bunyan myth is false, then that must mean it's true. Either Paul Bunyan is true or it's not. You can't have it both ways. And if you're making an extraordinary claim that a Jewish man was resurrected from the dead but admit that the other stories about the Jewish man are made up and there's no extra-biblical evidence that the story of the Jewish man being raised from the dead is true, then it most certainly does call into question the reliability of the gospel accounts. It'd be like if you had four eyewitnesses who claimed to have seen a UFO at the same time and one of the eyewitnesses claimed they were abducted by the aliens, but then that story about the man being abducted later turned out to be made up, it would call into question the reliability of these four eyewitnesses if one of the witnesses made up a major part of their story. And your god frankly seems weak and limited if he can only raise one Jewish man from the dead but all those other Jews weren't really raised from the dead since you admit that story is made up. If I don't understand anything about literary critical methodology, then you don't understand anything about critical thinking. And if you have such proof that the resurrection of Jesus is real, why don't you email Bart D Ehrman and prove to him that it really happened? What are you so afraid of? The fact that you only want to harass non-professional atheists on an Internet forum but don't want to email a professional like Ehrman and convert him to Christianity is proof enough that you don't have any proof at all.

 

Can you cite the post where I said that the Gospels have no myth within them? You call me a liar, it is the least you could do is to back up your assertion and epithet with evidence. Would you consider a set of encyclopedias to be in the genre of myth since they discuss and even include passages from mythology? I don't think so. It is nonsensical to say that just because the NT discusses myth (and I am saying that it does so in relation to discussing the beliefs of people of that day, not in relation to what the Bible states as history) that it falls into the genre of myth. You would also have to say the same about the encyclopedia at that point, or even a history book that quotes mythology. You seem to want to take a very all or nothing approach when it comes to classifying literature. If it has any hint of mythology within, it is classified as mythology. That is not how this field works. You may want to take a look at Richard Burridge's book, What are the Gospels?: a comparison with Graeco-Roman biography, where he argues that the Gospels are written in the genre of historical biography. Again, you are not arguing against me as much as you are arguing against the vast majority of scholarship in this field.

 

I never said that God was limited in just raising one person from the dead as he says that one day all people will be raised from the dead (Rev. 20). I also never said that the account in Matthew 27 was made up, I simply said that I don't use it to make my case. I also argued that just because it doesn't have independent attestation, doesn't mean that it is not historical.

 

Regarding interacting with Bart Ehrman, I believe that he is already interacting with the likes of Dan Wallace, William Lane Craig and others who have made the case to him, so I don't think that my email is going to sway him if they didn't.

 

LNC: You don't understand my argument or even your argument. I am not trying to prove the Bible is true, I am using the Bible as a piece of evidence for the resurrection which is a separate issue from whether the Bible is true. However, that is a faulty claim that is often used by skeptics against Christians and shows a lack of proper logical thought. You prove your mistake in your next sentence when you say that using the Qur'an to prove that Islam is true is wrong. Here you didn't make the circular argument of using the Qur'an to prove the Qur'an is true, you said to prove that Islam is true. And, one can validly try to use the Qur'an to try to prove that Islam is true without begging the question. However, it is not my job here to argue for or against Islam.

 

NG: Ok then, so since you have no evidence that Muhammed was not visited by the angel Gabriel in a cave and since I don't use the other stories in the Koran to prove Muahammed was visited by Gabriel, then pointing out any contradictions in the Koran doesn't disprove that he was visited. And since you have no proof he wasn't visited by Gabriel and that you can use the propaganda of other religions to either prove or disprove their religions, then you fully admit that there's more evidence for the resurrection of Jesus then there is for the story that Gabriel visited Muhammed and Islam must be true! These are your words, not mine as you yourself said you can use the propaganda of a religion to prove the religion is true but you don't need all of the propaganda to be true in order for the religion to be true. I've also wondered why you haven't addressed the Southern Baptist Christian who was an archaeologist who proved the OT history was just mythology which you can't accuse of having an anti-supernatural bias.

 

You completely ignored what I said (and I left my statement in as proof) and jump to a completely different argument. Why is that? I will assume it is because you could not answer my argument. I don't care whether Gabriel visited Muhammad in a cave as I am not a Muslim. Now, would you care to address my argument? I can ague both the case for the resurrection and the case against Islam on the same basis, evidence. I don't even have to deal with what happened in the cave as there is no independent attestation of that event, it is non-falsifiable. I do agree that there is more evidence for the resurrection than for the supposed visit to the cave, it is called independent witnesses. We have them for the resurrection and we don't for the cave account. Regarding the story of the Southern Baptist archeologist, there is no conclusive evidence that he was even looking in the right place. Many believe that the town was located somewhere else. I don't find that to be too troubling as there were no maps in those days that told people that Jericho was 5 stadia down the road on the next exit. Archeologists have to reconstruct the locations based upon landmarks that no longer exist and other clues. It is not always easy to locate these places.

 

But you're the one making the extraordinary claim that a Jewish man was raised from the dead, not me. So you're the one who should be providing the extraordinary evidence that this story is true, not me trying to prove a negative which is logically impossible. You yourself said that there are even skeptical scholars who believe the gospels are historically accurate, but so far the only scholar you've cited for your views is an archaeologist from a 100 years ago and some random Christian guy, and I hardly find that to be the majority view of scholars. So, where's your proof? We've been 21 pages in this thread and so far you have not presented any proof of your claims at all. All you've been doing has been bashing and harassing atheists.

 

Could you define what you mean by extraordinary proof? How much proof would it require? What kind of proof? Who decides? Where did that maxim come from and who decided it was true? I have cited a number of skeptics and didn't say that they considered everything in the Gospels to be reliable, but they consider enough of the evidence for the resurrection to be reliable to make the case. You need to read back on my posts as it appears that you may have skipped over many of them that will answer your questions here. I also don't believe that I have bashed or harassed any atheists; however, some of them have called me various and colorful names.

 

So, where's your facts and evidence? I don't see them anywhere, do you?

 

Reread my posts and you will find it all laid out.

 

How is it that you're able to read my thoughts to know that I really don't have any arguments? And it's rich that you start complaining when I insult your beliefs, then you turn around and call me unintelligent and stupid. I guess this must mean you don't have any arguments yourself if all you can do is call me unintelligent. What was that Jesus said about plucking the shard out of your own eye?

 

I don't have to read your thoughts, I can read your posts to find them lacking in effective arguments. If you have arguments, you are free to post them and we can interact with them. Where did I call you names? Maybe you could cite those posts and if I am guilty, I will apologize. Will you do the same? Sorry, the argument doesn't work for you as you have no evidence that I have resorted to name calling.

 

Why does it seem like in every other post you make, you whine about the way you're treated if you deny that you think you're being persecuted? Are you a masochist? Do you masturbate to this sort of thing?

 

I will consider the fact that you are engaging in hyperbole here. Isn't it you who above complained that I had called you names(when I actually haven't)?

[bdp]

I don't even have to deal with what happened in the cave as there is no independent attestation of that event...

 

Where is the independent attestation of 'the resurrection'? And multiple books of 'the bible' don't count.

[Neon Genesis]

Do you think LNC will finally read my post where I declared I'm not speaking to him anymore by next month at least? I love how in one breath he denies he ever said no scholar considers the gospels to be fictional and then in the same post says that no one considers them to be fictional, proving that once again that he is a liar. By the way, Marcus Borg considers some things in the gospels to be fictional, but of course he's an evil anti-supernatural Jesus Seminar scholar who can't be trusted expect when LNC wants to cherry pick John Dominic Crossan when he feels like. And LNC is driving me insane with how he denies he has a persecution complex and that he supposedly enjoys posting here but constantly whines about us calling him names.

[Ouroboros]

Do you think LNC will finally read my post where I declared I'm not speaking to him anymore by next month at least?

No. You have to be extremely rude to him, like me. The more I insult him, the more he responds.

 

... but constantly whines about us calling him names.

And at quite a number of occasions does he make remarks like, "you need to study more", "perhaps you haven't read enough", "I think you don't understand this", and other similar remarks that insinuates that he knows more and better. He's done it from the first day, so he can't complain about ad homs, since these comments are just as insulting, only a tad more subtle.

[Mriana]

 

 

Up-to-date? I don't think when it comes to religion there is anything outdated or most up-to-date. I think in some cases, even that which was written in 1914 is still reasonable and viable to use. One has to be selective about what they use though. Keep in mind the main text was supposedly written from some where around 50 A.D. to 200 A.D. or later depending one the scholar. If you are going to say something about religion is outdated due to age, well let's go for the main text and throw it out, discussion is over then.

What I mean is in regards to biblical scholarship. Like in Borg's book Jesus, Borg mentions he's revised his view on Jesus after the past 20 years he wrote his first book in light of modern scholarship. What I meant was that I don't know what the most reliable information scholars now have is in terms of what do scholars know now compared to back then and which scholars can be trusted to be the most reliable when secular scholars all have different views on who Jesus is.

 

Oh ok. I see what you are saying now. Yes, I agree, such things need to be taken into account. I also think one must weigh what they read too, esp if they run into contradiction from one scholar to another. IMO, I would prefer Marcus Borg's word over someone like say, Pat Robinson. I would take Pat Robinson with a grain of salt. Borg v Spong, that is a hard one, but I would probably go with what makes more sense to me, in that case.

 

 

Bible is NOT the inerrant word of God nor is it inspired by God.

 

What exactly is meant by the Bible being inspired by God? I take it to mean people think they have some understanding of the nature of God, and write about it. Is "inspired by God" meant to have some more dramatic meaning?

 

Phanta

 

IF they say "inspired by God" they are saying God wrote it.

 

 

 

 

What exactly is meant by the Bible being inspired by God? I take it to mean people think they have some understanding of the nature of God, and write about it. Is "inspired by God" meant to have some more dramatic meaning?

 

Phanta

When most xtians talk about the bible being inspired by God, it means that God wrote the bible himself through the biblical authors. They believe God told the authors everything to write and since God was communicating to the authors what to write and guiding the authors as they wrote it down, then that somehow means there are no errors anywhere in the bible because according to them, a perfect god would not create an imperfect book. Marcus Borg distinguishes between "soft" literalism and "hard" literalism. "Hard" literalism believes every single thing in all the scriptures are divinely inspired by God and are literally true, so when the bible says God created the universe in six days and only 600 years ago, that means it's literally true. Think of the bible as being like God's autobiography and that's how most hard literalists see the bible. "Soft" literalists accept some stories in the bible are metaphorical like the Genesis creation myth and Noah's ark but still believe in major miracles like the resurrection and the virgin birth and they might accept some scientific evidence that's contrary to these stories but they don't believe there's any serious errors that effects the bible as a whole like how Catholics see the bible. Or as one of my Catholic friends describes it, they believe in divinely inspired fiction.

 

Yes, what Neon said, but the thing is, humans wrote the Bible and they were inspired by their own selves to write it. There was no divine intervention or alike. The Bible is solely the creation of human beings to explain the unexplainable at that time and point during the history and knowledge of humans. None of it can be taken literally and it must be seen in it's literary context. Does this mean we can't glean something from religious texts? No, I think, like all literary works, we can glean something from various religious texts, but I don't believe we can glean anything literal from it. When I quote something like Thomas 3 and 77 or that Luke verse I mentioned, does this mean I believe a God is within us and in everything? No, I do not, but it is good allegory concerning the human condition and makes for interesting reading to think about the human condition- both past and present- but none of it can be taken literally in any way, shape, or form, nor is it inspired or written by any deity. It is solely the work of some very human writers of the past.

[Mriana]

Do you think LNC will finally read my post where I declared I'm not speaking to him anymore by next month at least?

No. You have to be extremely rude to him, like me. The more I insult him, the more he responds.

 

Is that why LNC ignores me? Oh goodie! I'll gladly keep up the good work of trying to avoid insulting him.

 

... but constantly whines about us calling him names.

And at quite a number of occasions does he make remarks like, "you need to study more", "perhaps you haven't read enough", "I think you don't understand this", and other similar remarks that insinuates that he knows more and better. He's done it from the first day, so he can't complain about ad homs, since these comments are just as insulting, only a tad more subtle.

 

Seems to me that LNC needs to study and read more, for he doesn't understand any of this.

[NotBlinded]

Do you think LNC will finally read my post where I declared I'm not speaking to him anymore by next month at least? I love how in one breath he denies he ever said no scholar considers the gospels to be fictional and then in the same post says that no one considers them to be fictional, proving that once again that he is a liar. By the way, Marcus Borg considers some things in the gospels to be fictional, but of course he's an evil anti-supernatural Jesus Seminar scholar who can't be trusted expect when LNC wants to cherry pick John Dominic Crossan when he feels like. And LNC is driving me insane with how he denies he has a persecution complex and that he supposedly enjoys posting here but constantly whines about us calling him names.

This here

 

I don't believe I said that "no scholar considers the bible to be fiction". I specifically said, as you quoted, "scholars don't consider the Bible to be in the genre of fiction, even skeptical ones." That is true. If you don't agree, please cite a NT scholar who would refute my claim and we can discuss that. I never used the word "no" in reference to scholars, that is your addition to my statement. Still, you have not yet cited anyone to back your claim.

 

would appear to be what he does quite a lot of around here and is this:

 

Trivial objections (also referred to as hair-splitting, nothing but objections, barrage of objections and banal objections) is an informal logical fallacy where irrelevant and sometimes frivolous objections are made to divert the attention away from the topic that is being discussed. This type of argument is called a "quibble" or "quillet". Trivial objections are a special case of red herring.

 

The fallacy often appears when an argument is difficult to oppose. The person making a trivial objection may appear ready to accept the argument in question, but at the same time they will oppose it in many different ways. These objections can appear in the form of lists, hypotheticals, and even accusations.

 

Such objections themselves may be valid, but they fail to confront the main argument under consideration. Instead, the objection opposes a small, irrelevant part of the main argument. The fallacy is committed because of this diversion; it is fallacious to oppose a point on the basis of minor and incidental aspects, rather than responding to the main claim.

 

Example:

 

Amy: (after consulting a reliable source): It really looks like a cucumber is a fruit, not a vegetable.

Bob: You're an idiot! Why would you use 'really' in that sentence?

 

 

Or in LNC's case:

 

Neon: "No scholar considers the bible to be fiction." (As said in context to what LNC stated)

LNC: I never said "no" in this sentence, "scholars don't consider the Bible to be in the genre of fiction, even skeptical ones."

 

He may not have said "no", but he didn't say "few", or "most" either. The sentence as worded sounds inclusive of all scholars to me.

[Neon Genesis]

And who are these numerous skeptical scholars LNC claims can prove the resurrection of Jesus really happened that he says he's cited? I don't recall him ever posting any examples other than some random Christian scholar who I would hardly call a skeptic.

[Ouroboros]

Thank you NBBTB. That's exactly one of the things I've seen, but I could not for the world figure out how to explain it.

[NotBlinded]

Thank you NBBTB. That's exactly one of the things I've seen, but I could not for the world figure out how to explain it.

It just dawned on me myself after re-reading what Neon posted about LNC saying the same thing and refuting it in the same post. I read it again and thought what? At first I overlooked it because it didn't make any sense. Sly little devil LNC is... Earlier, now that I see what he's doing, he said something about it's ok to use the bible to prove the resurrection, but you can't use the bible to prove the bible. Another huh? I got to thinking that he is dividing things that shouldn't be divided. And I thought, hair-splitting!

 

Hans, I actually caught a feather!

[NotBlinded]

Here's another one all in the same post:

 

I also argued that just because it doesn't have independent attestation, doesn't mean that it is not historical.

 

Compare with this:

 

I don't even have to deal with what happened in the cave as there is no independent attestation of that event, it is non-falsifiable.

 

Alrighty then.

[mwc]

The events that happened in the cave are historical (since being historical doesn't require independent attestation) but he doesn't have to deal with them since they are non-falsifiable (since there is no independent attestation).

 

So the events in the cave are non-falsifiable historical events that do not have to be dealt with.

 

If you had a whole bunch of these types of events you could practically build a religion on them.

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

If you had a whole bunch of these types of events you could practically build a religion on them.

No way! That's impossible. No one builds a religion on a priori assumptions and non-falsifiable-historical-events-that-no-one-has-to-deal-with. Except Raelians maybe.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

Alrighty then.

He'll probably use William Lane Craig's stupid argument that the gospels, Acts, and the writings of Paul all somehow count as independent attestation but the hadith or whatever is somehow magically not an independent attestation for the Koran.

[LNC]

To steal from the wikipedia page on Historical Method (I highly recommend everyone involved in this discussion give this page a quick once over):

 

**edited out for brevity**

 

I can't see how, by any of these techniques, a person can reasonably state that anyone has ever came back from the dead (and, no, this isn't the only thing on historical methodology I've read but it is the most accessible for posting to the forum).

 

mwc

 

I have seen this analysis applied to the NT data and it stand up. Maybe you could run it through and show us why you believe it would not hold up. I would be interested in seeing your analysis and reasoning.

[LNC]

When God commanded Joshua to slaughter the Canaanites it was because the Canaanites had become an abomination. Do you know anything about the history of the Canaanites? Do you know that they would offer their children to pagan gods by burning them? Do you know what other kinds of ritualistic practices in which they were engaged? Unless you do, you are in no position to judge God for his commands. The answer is that it does not fill me with joy that the Canaanites became so wicked that they had to be so harshly judged. Judgment is never a good thing; however, neither is the sin that brings on that judgment. I won't ask you if it brings you joy that they were sacrificing their children in such a heinous way as I'm sure it is as detestable to you as the thought of their judgment is. However, before you put God on trial, you better make sure you have your evidence straight. In fact, you better make sure you understand the situation completely lest you be the one to look foolish. It would be unfortunate if you were to defend the guilty and indict the innocent, which is what you appear to be unwittingly doing.

 

So because the Caananite children were being sacrificed, the Caananite children deserved to be killed by the Jews. Does god punish the child for the sins of the parents or not? Depends on his mood.

 

I agree, Dagnarus. LNC, you seem to be affirming punishment for both the perpetrator and the victim, I suspect, as you would say, unwittingly. What's up with that?

 

Phanta

 

I reread this post, thanks for reposting it, and don't find that I am affirming the punishment of the victim with the perpetrator. I am simply explaining what happened. Why does God command that all living things be killed? I don't know and would only be speculating. Here is what I do know. God is omniscient and knows not only what has happened and will happen, but what could have happened. Therefore, he knows what could happen if circumstances go on as they are or would have gone on differently than they did. So, he may have seen what would have happened had he allowed any portion of the population to live. We also know that the people were not completely destroyed as Israel never carried out the commands completely in these cases, so it also could have been to test them. I am not sure, again, I am only speculating. However, if God exists, and I believe he does, his nature would include that he is inherently good (by definition) and would not commit an evil act, so I would assume that he had some valid purpose for giving this command, but since I don't know what the mind of God was in this situation, all I can do is speculate.

[LNC]

But there's a chance that the Iron Age Israel occasionally did sacrifice kids, but not the Canaanites in general. So was this a genocide instigated by a generalization and stereotyping of the people at that time? A couple of localized incidents during the rule of Israel were used to blame a whole culture? I can see politics, polemics, and propaganda hasn't changed much since. But it's even worse when God acts based on false labeling.

 

One of the gods in the pantheon of Canaanite gods was Moloch and it is known that child sacrifices were made to Moloch. You cite one source, but a cursory Google search turns up plenty of sources that say that child sacrifice was likely performed by the Canaanites. I know that there has been some recent debate about this topic; however, to conclude that it didn't happen seems to be against the weight of the evidence.

[LNC]

I agree with LNC that a "god" of any kind could and perhaps should be above moral judgment, however, if a God is above human morality, then it still wouldn't be appropriate of God to command humans to breach the morals they have to obey. If murder is wrong, then murder is wrong, regardless if God commands it or not. I can go as far as to say that God can act anyway he/she/it wants, but humans are still obligated to follow the "absolute morality" (if such exists). So who did wrong in this situation? Perhaps not God, except for giving inappropriate commands conflicting with his own absolute dicta, but definitely the believers who obediently followed the commands to act immoral instead of following the supposedly higher moral law they earlier had received. It only shows how religion makes people morally corrupt.

 

I think that your argument only works if morals are somehow above God. In other words, if morals derive from God and his immutable nature (which by definition is the standard of good), then he cannot command something that is evil as that would violate his nature. However, as was said, God's nature by definition is immutable (unchanging and unchangeable), therefore, he cannot command something that would violate his nature. So, if God commanded the Israelites to slaughter the Canaanites, then he had to have a just reason for doing so and therefore, it would not be committing murder on the part of the Israelites. Murder is the taking of innocent life and for some reason, God deemed the lives of the Canaanites to be guilty.

 

People don't become morally corrupted by religion, people morally corrupt religion because we are morally contaminated. If God is immoral, as you seem to imply, then by what moral standard to you judge? From where do morals come and on what basis do you judge God by them? Wouldn't they have to be objective in nature? How do you come by objective morals in the absence of an objective reference point or source? Your argument seems to work against you as you try to work it in your favor. Maybe you could explain these things to me.