WLC and the horror of OT slaughter

[Wertbag]

Doing the rounds of atheist YouTube is an interview that Alex O'Connor did with William Lane Craig (mockingly called low bar Bill after admitting he didn't care about evidence but would lower the bar to make Christianity acceptable because he wants it to be true).  The main topic was sparked by a comment by Richard Dawkins, who said he wouldn't debate WLC as he found the man's position on OT morality and defence of genocide to be abhorrent.  Alex grilled WLC about the biblical exterminations of the Amelikites and Canninites and got some truly horrific answers including killed babies get to go to heaven so it's really a blessing to be killed, and anything God commands is by default good, so if God tells you to butcher babies it must be the right thing to do.

 

The Mr Deity YouTube channel did a 6-part series going over every horrific thing that WLC said, and boy was it morally repugnant.  It does go to show that otherwise good people can be convinced of horrible things as good.  As the saying goes "Good people do good things and evil people do evil, but for good people to do evil requires religion".

But of course, these are the same Christian apologists who claim there is an objective moral standard and that it is "written on our hearts".  We instinctively know that killing babies is wrong, and that is put forward by apologists as a lynchpin in the moral argument for God.  Yet, in the next breath they say that God can break that objective moral standard and it is not immoral when He does so.  It's a glaring bit of special pleading and cognitive dissonance.

 

One apologist that I had more respect for was Gavin Ortlund of the Truth Unites YouTube channel.  I've seen him talk out about how wrong ideas like young earth, bible inerrancy, fundamentalist ideas and the global flood are, so he at least is somewhat grounded in science and reason.  His latest video goes over the OT slaughters and is one of the biggest stretches I've seen an apologist make to try and justify the horror described.  One of the verses at the centre of the controversy is 1 Samuel 15:3 "Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.”

So firstly, he says the bible is full of hyperbole, and killing everyone and everything is just over the top boasting.  He then tries to say that the bibles use of the word "city" actually means a military camp, and therefore there might not have been any civilians harmed at all.  I'm sure the fundamentalists who love their literal readings would be enraged at both of these ideas.

 

But if you are willing to accept when the bible says kill everyone, it doesn't mean it, and when it says to target women and children, it doesn't mean it, and when says you come to a city, it doesn't mean it and when it says blessed are those who smash the little ones on rocks, it doesn't mean it...  then by ignoring what the text says you can convert the story from what it says it was, to only an attack on a camp that was evil men only.

 

It reminds me of famous quote by Winston Churchill "History is written by the victors".  Justifying wars and slaughters can be done, and with no counter story we only have the victor's tales of their demonised enemy to go on.  The "other guy" was always the bad one and our guys were the just and fair saviours doing holy work, until it was Christian on Christian conflict then each side claimed God was on their side, they were the righteous and the others were evil heretics.

[♦ Fuego ♦]

Sadly, at least in America I'm seeing more open advocates of what amounts to Christian sharia law. Most seem like whiny "beta" males who get off on the idea of being strict rulers over others and enforcing with violence what they believe to be biblical roles for men and women. Some also conflate that with white supremacy and claim god rejected the Jews and has selected them to be his new chosen people. The percentage of them in the populace in America is low, but they appear to either be growing or just more open about it. And they are running for political positions in small government offices as well as nationally. I don't know if this is happening elsewhere in the world.

 

On one hand humans have lived through countless kings, despots, cult religions, genocides, barbarian raids, and more. On the other, I can't help wonder why humans seem to be so intent on rejecting science, logic, actual history, and keep fanatically promoting their cult beliefs instead of doggedly pursuing ways that bring well-being to most people. I think it is because it makes them feel special, powerful, and magical, and being in a group that echoes the same beliefs is a powerful reinforcement. 

 

But I am also seeing a lot more open talk about deconversion/deconstruction on YouTube, and open criticism of biblical literalism, where people in past years would always repeat "Well, you have to respect their beliefs". So there is a tide change in that respect. 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

Yes, it is very sad and scary stuff!!  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

If I would be judged and punished for dashing a baby against a stone, then I am being held to a higher moral standard than god.  That simple fact alone gives the lie to the argument that god is the source of objective morality, or that god is the moral standard.  Objectivity would simply look at the facts--the action and the consequence--and make no allowances or exceptions for motivation or the persona of the aggressor involved.  Objectivity would either hold both god and me as guilty, or we would both be equally acquitted.  Additionally, if god were the moral standard, then there could/should not exist a higher standard against which I would be held.  Yet, the same people who would absolve god would want to see me strung from a yard arm.  Obviously a double standard, which cannot logically exist, if there is one objective standard.

[Wertbag]

There is also a conflict in the two narratives the apologist is trying to spin.  Firstly, they will say the Caninities were evil people (baby sacrifice, bestiality, demon worship etc) so were deserving of punishment and God's wrath.  Then on the other hand will say the killings are hyperbole, it was attacks on military camps only and not civilian centres, the people weren't targeted but were driven from their lands.  If they were just expelled from their homes, then they would continue to perform their evil rituals in their new lands.  The attacks wouldn't be punishment and wouldn't be justice for the baby killings as they would have been free to go.

If narrative 1 is true, then it's killing the evil population and the biblical verses of killing everyone stand as justified.  If narrative 2 is true then it was a military campaign and had nothing to do with how evil they were, and the text is just wrong with its descriptions.  So, which is it?  Did they butcher the babies to stop the Caninities from killing them, or did they leave them alive and in the care of the demon worshipping baby killers?

 

Historians say the Caninities were driven from their lands and settled elsewhere, with the biggest group growing into the Carthaginian empire.  Apparently, Carthaginian's spoke and wrote the Cainite language.  There is evidence of child sacrifice in Carthage, with several Roman historians reporting such things.  While this would support the apologists claim that the war wasn't a genocide and the people weren't the target, this just points towards the attack not being to stamp out such practices and nothing to do with divine justice, but just a good ol' land grab by the Israelites.  If they actually cared or if God cared, then they completely failed to do what was their primary mission.