Did God Command Genocide in the Bible? w/ Dr. Randal Rauser
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 жов 2024
- In this episode, I sit down with Dr. Randal Rauser to discuss the various theological options that are available to Christians in responding to the troubling problem of biblical genocide.
3 Months FREE at Hallow: www.hallow.com...
--------------------------- FREE STUFF ---------------------------
"The Rationality of Christian Theism" & "The Ultimate List of Apologetics Terms for Beginners" E-Books (completely free): tinyurl.com/CC...
------------------------------- GIVING -------------------------------
Patreon (monthly giving): / capturingchristianity
Become a CC Member on UA-cam: / @capturingchristianity
One-time Donations: donorbox.org/c...
Special thanks to all our supporters for your continued support! You don't have to give anything, yet you do. THANK YOU!
--------------------------------- SOCIAL ---------------------------------
Facebook: / capturingchristianity
Twitter: / capturingchrist
Instagram: / capturingchristianity
SoundCloud: / capturingchristianity
Website: capturingchris...
-------------------------------- MY GEAR ---------------------------------
I get a lot of questions about what gear I use, so here's a list of everything I have for streaming and recording. The links below are affiliate (thank you for clicking on them!).
Camera (Nikon Z6): amzn.to/364M1QE
Lens (Nikon 35mm f/1.4G): amzn.to/35WdyDQ
HDMI Adapter (Cam Link 4K): amzn.to/340mUwu
Microphone (Shure SM7B): amzn.to/2VC4rpg
Audio Interface (midiplus Studio 2): amzn.to/33U5u4G
Lights (Neewer 660's with softboxes): amzn.to/2W87tjk
Color Back Lighting (Hue Smart Lights): amzn.to/2MH2L8W
Recording/Interview Software: bit.ly/3E3CGsI
-------------------------------- CONTACT --------------------------------
Email: capturingchrist...
#Apologetics #CapturingChristianity #ExistenceofGod
Did he say God can kill of an entire region (or whole earth) with a flood and 2 cities with fire in judgement, but cannot order humans to enact judgement?
I asked myself the same thing when I heard him say that.
Absolutely this. What difference does it make which way God chooses to enact judgment? It is the same end whether through flood, fire, or humanity.
@@Becca_Lynn lol, Gods Word calls them fools. I agree...
God does not command rape or sodomy. He is the author of life and death and can do so as he chooses. @@Roman-Labrador
Cameron handled himself very well in this one. He did a good amount of pushing back if needed to help push the dialogue but also had great clarification questions. Well done, Cameron!
I’m not impressed with and am slightly disappointed with Randal’s squishiness on this topic. He would probably call me a Gen. apologists but the violence of the old testament has never bothered me. I’ve read much of the other ancient works available in english translations from that era of human history & the event described in Joshua are not inconsistent with other cultures’ accounts of their own conquest both mythical and historical. Also, I don’t see an inconsistency with biblical ethics on this front either as we have the killing of the 1st born in Egypt. For me, knowing that Canaanites show up not just later in the bible but genetically still exists today tells me that this was the same type of ancient war rhetoric you’d see Egyptians or Babylonians use in overstating their victors. The distance from the story to its recording is a factor but the ancient authors knew what ancient war was like and described them accurately even if they didn’t know the exact details of the conquest they were inspired to write about and preserve.
There are definitely ways of looking at this issue that weren't even touched on. There was no discussion of the realities of warfare in this period, other than mention of the weapons that were in use. There was no discussion of the numerous passages in the OT prophets where God pronounces a foreign invasion as divine judgement, both on Israel and on surrounding nations. There was barely even an acknowledgement that even a literal reading of the text only requires the destruction of three cities (Jericho, Hatsor, and Ai), plus the permanent capture of a number of others (the wording in the Hebrew that describes the fate of other cities has a semantic range that allows for driving the inhabitants out). And, as you noted, there wasn't any engagement with the hyperbolic way other ancient texts often describe warfare and conquests. Even on the philosophical side, which is where this channel's content tends to focus, there seemed to be an assumption that our moral intuitions aren't culturally conditioned.
Randall seems to be mostly falling on the side of taking the approach to Joshua that is most palatable to 21st century Western culture. Which is probably the easiest approach to take from the point of view of apologetics, but which can be seriously problematic from the point of view of theology.
@@stephengray1344 I agree with you here 100%, and you mentioned some points I had in mind while listening but didn’t come up as I wrote my comment.
@Nothing But The Truth it doesn’t appear that this god is good or just in accordance with the biblical narratives
@YAJUN YUAN if you don’t believe any gods exist then no fear
@YAJUN YUAN I don’t really fear death. I mean, I would prefer to live a long life of course. I’m 64 now. I’ve had a good life and look forward to what I have left and that is fine with me. It is the cycle of life
"If you see a woman being raped you must intervene" God sees that every day and worse and does nothing.
You can't apply the same logic to you and God, the same way you can't equate the behaviors of men and dogs. My dog does not like when I vaccinate him. It is painful but he does not understand it is for his good. The same way, God may have reasons for temporarily allowing evil, which we cannot understand. We can speculate about these reasons with our inferior mind but we can never be sure about the reasons.
Well in Genesis God didn’t say a wife was gonna be easy in fact set the exact opposite, he allowed sin to enter the world, and evil happens as a result, and that is why us as humans need to fight against things like rape murder theft war etc. and trust the Lord that is what the Bible says, I do have a different view as to why God allows things to happen.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 Any being that witnesses evil happening, has the power to prevent evil from happening and does does nothing... is evil!
If you see someone being raped, by trying to stop the process of rape you're removing the rapist's free will to sin. You're saying god's justified in allowing evil because he'd be taking away free will to sin. So why wouldn't humans also be justified to allow evil in order to preserve other's free will to sin?
1. Whatever god does is objectively moral.
2. Allowing evil to occur is what god does.
3 Allowing evil to occur is objectively moral.
@@JayBandersnatch Have you heard of Tracy Harris?
If not look up "Christian Negates their own morality". Such a mic drop moment.
@@simphiwe4930 Yes, I miss both her and Jen Peeples, they were 2 of my favorite hosts on AXP.
I do wonder, if we look at scripture and choose to interpret things that are inconsistent with God’s character, like commands for genocide, as something else…but we also get our idea of what God’s character is through scripture…isn’t that a fallacy? Couldn’t someone do the opposite with the same epistemology, reading God as inherently violent and murderous and justifying the passages about love as being the wrong ones?
Exactly!!!!!
“The God of the Old Testament (the Bible) is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
~R. D.
Jesus says if you have seen me you have seen the Father, so Jesus reveals God character
@@williamrice3052 I've never seen Jesus, have you? And, the anonymous Gospels and (accepted letters of Paul) are an incongruent, inconvenient mess.
Yes exactly in the Bible even warns about this, throughout history people have done evil in God‘s name in the Bible says they will be charged for it.
I've heard it argued that this doesn't meet the definition of 'genocide' because their destruction was not because of their ethnicity, nationality, religion or race, rathe because of their idolatry or sin.
I'm not sure about the tactic of saying that Israel driving the Canaanites from the land is 'Ethnic Cleansing' therefore bad. Why cannot it be a case of the Canaanites found guilty of their sins and the punishment was removal from the land. We don't say it was wrong for God to cause the exile, where Israel was found guilty of their sin and removed as punishment.
Why does everyone assume that the Israelites had complete understanding of God or his command? God always works with us in our capacity. Clearly, they did not have the correct understanding of who God was. God had to step into humanity and assume human form to deal with our mess. Jesus said, I desire mercy and not sacrifice, go and learn what that means. He rebuked the disciples when they wanted to call down fire from heaven. Paul said, we know in part and prophesy in part. I think the problem is Christians interpret Jesus through the lens of Moses and Paul, vs. interpreting Moses and Paul through the lens of Jesus.
I agree with most of your comment, but I have a slightly different take.
@@AwesomeWrench I would agree that many Christians are following an invented God and Athiest are vocal against that one and they should be! A religious system masquerading as the true Gospel.
I think the decisive and really only compelling case is the one offered by Fr. Stephen De Young in his book God is a Man of War. He also often appears on videos and podcasts to discuss his work. I really think you should reach out to him.
@12345shushi I wouldn't say "borrows," considering the depth of Fr. Stephen's education and training in all the relevant subject matter. There's definitely some overlap though, as they're both engaging with some things going on in old testament scholarship right now. The problem with Heiser though, is his failure to acknowledge anything sacramental in the judeo-christian tradition.
Do some of these things discussed violate our modern, moral sensibilities? Yes, however each time I hear these discussions I am reminded of the following passage of scripture, which provides me with comfort and resolution.
Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory. (Romans 9:21-23 ESV)
God's judgement is divine.
Took the words right outa my mouth. My overall impression from this video is that both of these gentlemen would answer “No” to Paul’s question. The potter cannot do what he wants with the clay. The clay stands in judgment over its molder. The creator is bound to conform to the ever-changing moral intuitions of his creatures. Sad
So the strong (God) can do what they want because they can. This Christian God is pretty Darwinistic.
A jar can be broken by it’s potter but can the potter be said to love the Jar he broke?
@@RangerRyke the potter defines what love is. Whether broken pots agree with his definition is irrelevant.
@@Alien1375 if that’s the way you want to look at it. Creatures can make no demands of their maker
The spiritualizing of the texts to me is probably the most rationally tenable position to reconcile with our moral sensibilities - it has the added bonus of making the texts more personally relevant to our individual spirituality
I’ve been chatting with a Dr Ramage who wrote a book on the topic. My two struggles are 1) Even if it is a possible reading, what makes it a probably reading (eg could do similar apologetics for the Qur’an)? and 2) even if metaphorical, is the language so outside of what one would attribute to God that it defies belief?
Unfortunately it just doesn't provide a consistent theological framework, as we then have to deal with the thoroughly eschatological Jesus in the gospels, pronouncing the same, and worse, prophetic judgment onto unrepentant Israel, and all non-believers there, even citing examples of what Rauser would deem genocide (e.g. the flood narrative) as paradigmatic for the coming judgment. We can't spiritualize what actually happened to Jerusalem in 70 AD, and unless you're a universalist of some sort , the fate that awaits non-believers as predicted by Jesus, is literally infinitely worse than the victims of OT conquest.
@@AlexADalton Excellent analysis. You should read skeptical scholars like John Dominic Crossan's book Jesus and the violence of scripture. He absolutely demolishes the idea that Jesus is peaceful, which Rauser keeps making without exegeting other passages of Jesus that contradict his gentle Jesus narrative. Even Rauser knows this. You should watch his video titled "eight problems of Biblical violence" in which he says that punitive punishments like the flood and hell are "problems". So he clearly has a problem with almost any form of violence in the OT and NT? What is this if not Marcionism?
@@computationaltheist7267 I need to pick up Crossan's book. I have his whole collection otherwise. Now I know Crossan, in the past, and against the consensus, actually denies the bedrock historical tradition of a thorough-going eschatological Jesus, so that's even more interesting coming from him. You are spot on with the Marcionism comment. He used to interact on his channel and blog more, but I've found that if you pose difficult questions, particularly wrt historical and social context in the Bible (where I find him particularly weak), he tends to ignore it. None of that is to say I don't like the guy. I think he has value as an apologist and brings a unique perspective.
@@AlexADalton I also like Rauser as a nice guy though I find him to be an interesting character. I have actually critiqued Rauser’s blog posts in his own blog without resorting to insults and he banned me from his website. That’s why I understand your comment that he tends to ignore serious objections to his arguments. You should read Catholic theologian J Luis Dizon’s critique of Rauser’s book Jesus loves Canaanites. The article is called: selective Christocentrism, a critique of Old Testament Errantists.
I just listened to a podcast on this very subject, with Bishop Barron, from a year ago.
It was very informative.
I am looking forward to hearing this gentleman's view on the subject.
I'm surprised they don't really give the hyperbolic avenue since for one, that seems the way ALL the Warrior kings of that time period talked about their approach to war. Utter annihilation is the energy they bring, even if that's not what actually happened.
And also because they simply did not. The Caanites are around and interacting with Jesus hundreds of years later. We know it's hyperbolic, it's just a question of degree
As a Catholic, seeing the growth of integralism and seeing even main stream theologians becoming sympathetic and adopting this ideology, I am heartened to see other theologians trying to provide clarity and understanding of the Old Testament like Rauser. Integralists and theologians that are sympathetic to the cruel treatment of heretics always point to the Old Testament for their beliefs while ignoring the New Testament. I’m hoping that we see more work like Dr. Rausers work here, especially hoping to see it from my Catholic camp, because I see a problematic trend amongst even main stream theologians in adopting integralism and other extremist ideologies in response to the extreme liberalism we are seeing today from the far left. Personally, from a political stand point, I think libertarian purists (anarchocapitalists specifically, see the work of Tom Woods and Bob Murphy as an example of a catholic and Protestant that believe these things are reconcilable) have the right idea, but it’s not super clear that it can be reconciled with Christianity or Catholicism to be specific. Just having more dialogues like this should hopefully provide clarity. I ultimately don’t know how to reconcile the Old Testament treatment of people as coming from a wholly good, all loving, maximally great being, but I’m gonna keep wrestling with it.
If you are Catholic you must be an integralist.
@@imjustheretogrill9260 we meet again!
You dropped this 👑
You should read a Catholic theologian J Luis Dizon who critiqued Rauser's book Jesus Loves Canaanites. The article is called selective Christocentrism, a critique of OT errantists. Dizon does a good job exposing Rauser a Marcionite.
@@HasanUnknown Interesting. Have you seen the UA-cam videos of Christian Prince? Or The Arabian Prophet? He will clarify some things for you. Good luck!
Things change. Our conscience is different at different times. Things don't happen all at once. As a person matures you can see the changes mental and physical, The same thing is happening to the human race. There seems to be no judgement on our immaturity. When we know better, we are held responsible. Also we have different angels that accept that stage of development we are in. Our so called fall, was an awakening. We don't accept "dog eat dog" anymore. That's why we can't accept our bad past. We are evolving.
I agree with the evolution of human consciousness and morals, if there was no God. But we have a God who could have intervened at any moment, to correct behaviors of early man.
What a brilliant video, so helpful. Thank you.
“He was despised and rejected- a man of sorrows, acquainted with deepest grief. We turned our backs on him and looked the other way. He was despised, and we did not care. Yet it was our weaknesses he carried; it was our sorrows that weighed him down. And we thought his troubles were a punishment from God, a punishment for his own sins! But he was pierced for our rebellion, crushed for our sins. He was beaten so we could be whole. He was whipped so we could be healed. All of us, like sheep, have strayed away. We have left God’s paths to follow our own. Yet the Lord laid on him the sins of us all. He was oppressed and treated harshly, yet he never said a word. He was led like a lamb to the slaughter. And as a sheep is silent before the shearers, he did not open his mouth. Unjustly condemned, he was led away. No one cared that he died without descendants, that his life was cut short in midstream. But he was struck down for the rebellion of my people. He had done no wrong and had never deceived anyone. But he was buried like a criminal; he was put in a rich man’s grave. But it was the Lord’s good plan to crush him and cause him grief. Yet when his life is made an offering for sin, he will have many descendants. He will enjoy a long life, and the Lord’s good plan will prosper in his hands. When he sees all that is accomplished by his anguish, he will be satisfied. And because of his experience, my righteous servant will make it possible for many to be counted righteous, for he will bear all their sins. I will give him the honors of a victorious soldier, because he exposed himself to death. He was counted among the rebels. He bore the sins of many and interceded for rebels.”
Isaiah 53:3-12 NLT
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16
God loves you so much and showed that by sending His Son to die for us so that we may inherit eternal life. We deserve hell but He gave us heaven through faith in Jesus. He took the punishment we deserved and by putting our faith in Him we can be saved. The Key To Eternal Life:
ua-cam.com/video/uZdv-TtiMkg/v-deo.html
For evidence for Christianity and answered questions, check out
ua-cam.com/users/drcraigvideos
and ua-cam.com/users/CrossExamined
because if Jesus really rose from the dead it is the most important fact ever!
God bless y’all!
What a pile of garbage
Haven't watched the vid yet but I seem to recall God had Sampson kill hundreds with a jawbone skull. Does that count?
Samsons entire life is a case study of a person who does literally everything wrong for his entire life, both regarding regular Jewish law, and regarding his set apart position, so I wouldn’t use him as an example of someone doing the Will of God.
The Bible narrative called Genesis that Yahweh dictated to Moses describes how Yahweh was sorry he had made humanity and proceeded to drown all of them except one family.
It's called "genocide"
"Genocide is the intentional destruction of a people-usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group-in whole or in part. Raphael Lemkin coined the term in 1944, combining the Greek word γένος (genos, "race, people") with the Latin suffix -caedo ("act of killing"). ... Wikipedia.
I just do not think our moral intuation works here, because if you walk by an alley and see a man raping a woman your moral intuation would scream EVIL, and because of that we would be morally "allowed" to hurt or even kill that man on the spot, because that man is guilty. Well we are all guilty, God is morally allowed to do whatever he wants to all of mankind, to be honest, we all deseve to be the objects of genocide, God is loving but He is also Just, that he spares any of us is His Loving side, and whatever He does to the rest of us is His Just side.
I feel like that is what he does in history. He puts our enemies to rule us because of our disobedience to him.
Sounds like you need therapy
Is it possible, as in even a .000000001 percent chance, for someone to live a life (which is given by God) where they are completely innocent in the eyes of God?
@@thetasteofwater918 Or....the Cross of Christ is that much more amazing to me.
@@YuGiOhDuelChannel but on your views you can't see the cross as being an expression of God's most fundamental moral nature, since you posit two ultimate "sides" in God - so any time God does show love it is just arbitrary, like a coin being flipped in his head
Full disclosure ....not a scholar....is it possible that the authorship of Joshua and related passages was written later so as to provide what they thought would be an adequate explanation of these actions
Being raised a Fundamentalist I was taught to believe in the literal interpretation. But even though I read much of Origen and C.S. Lewis it wasn't until I read John Cassian that I was convinced that the ancient teachers were correct. The symbolic meaning makes sense: Joshua is a book of the law and we should meditate on it because it was a way for us to overcome the seven faults within us. Bashing babies' heads means we are bashing the faults no matter how small or how seductive they are. Modern Fundamentalist and Evangelical schools and Universities do not teach Origen or John Cassian other than in recognizing they were leaders in the Church. And even the Church of Rome has not accepted Origen because of his view of reincarnation. If I had not read the views of the early Church, I would not understand the Logos of God((Word of God) or how the Church functioned without the cannon of books known today as the Bible.
Good video. I appreciate that you both acknowledge this is a difficult problem and topic.
@badger519 That is why he ordered the brutal murders of innocent children?
What an all-loving god you follow.
Again, what if our moral intuitions lead us to believe that a deity impregnating a young girl with his son/self, and using the “shedding of blood” of sentient creatures as a tool for sin forgiveness, are abhorrent? Does that intuition invalidate the story of Jesus’s “conception”, ritual sacrifice laws and the claimed power of Jesus’s crucifixion?
@12345shushi - Well I'm sure he won't give Randal's take on the topic (which is what I was asking), but I'm willing to listen to what Michael's opinion is.
Is it the one titled, "What were the Sacrifices REALLY About?" or some other video?
I would strongly suggest that anyone seriously interested in this topic get a copy of Christian analytic philosopher and apologist Dr. Paul Copan's excellent book, "Is God a Moral Monster" - it delves deeply into the subject and exposes the many false belief's surrounding it. It also looks at the slavery issue in Scripture, what was, was not, and how slavery in ancient Israel was NOTHING like the 18th and 19th century slavery in the Americas - so, people often have a tremendously false view of it!
I’ve never heard of him before, i’ll check them out.
The bible condones chattel slavery, genocide of infant babies and so much more. It contains severe immorality
Fathers could sell their daughters into slavery, masters could beat their slaves, creditors could carry off children for failure to repay a debt, and foreigners could be kept for life, passed down as inherited property.
how similar or dissimilar this is to slavery in America isn't really the point.
@@JayBandersnatch as an Ex' Christian atheist he is extremely biased from his very liberal secular Education after rejecting his fundamentalists upbringing.
I think his views are still typical of hyper literalist interpretations of his fundamentalists upbringing only in a negative way now that he has rejected Christianity but his lack of understanding the Biblical hyperbole in the O.T is still with him.
@@davidjanbaz7728 Josh holds a B.S. in Religion from Liberty University, a Th.M. in the Old Testament from Capital Bible Seminary; and everyone knows how ultra liberal those schools are. It's funny how Christians will claim that people don't understand the OT because they haven't been educated on the culture of the OT, and then when someone comes along who clearly has the education to understand the culture of the OT the same Christian simply claims they're biased; where exactly would you like to set down this goal post you're carrying?
Why it can't be assumed that, even though the command was given by Joshua to kill all the people young and old in the city of Ai, they would have allowed those who wanted, to flee?
Waiting for the day Cameron starts to get biblical scholars instead of just philosophers. I get it, philosophy is the main arena for the channel, but topics like these are better explained by actual biblical scholars who can engage with the narratives of the Bible. Instead of philosophers who are intent on reframing the Bible so that it matches their own views of God.
Deception, my friend.
Same. (To both of u)
This was interesting. Its a topic I've stayed away from as its hard to grapple with.
He’s still straw manning the hyperbolic argument a bit. Not one of the people he mentioned makes the case for hyperbole from the small number of passages he cited alone. To my knowledge, every single one of them invokes the issue of Canaanite survival and operation after the conquest. And this argument necessarily addresses everything he is saying the hyperbolic argument doesn’t.
I’m not sure what my position is, but the hyperbolic argument is stronger than he’s granting.
Wonderful stream
Genesis 9 v 19. There is no-one on earth who is not descended from Noah, who was alive at least until Abram was born. Likely Job was not the only descendant who understood that the only way to show God that he understood the need for sacrifice in his relationship with God, but why - if other people were worshipping demons and devils again - is it not okay to destroy them as He had to the unrighteousness people in the first world? (2 Peter 2 v 5) God did not create us for our own purposes, but for His. Paul points out that death reigned from Adam to Moses (Romans 5 v 14) but sin was not imputed to them before the law, which awskens our consciences. (Romans 7 v 7). Nevertheless they (before the law) are already dead. Their only way to eternal life is by acknowledging God and worshipping Him as their only God, as Job (at least), and later Abraham did. (Genesis 26 v 5)
God knew that the sin principle would continue to be the overriding instinct in the Canaanites due to His curse on Canaan (Genesis 9 v 25) but in His mercy did not destroy everyone (usually) unless He deemed it necessary, and usually this was after several generations of a tribe had passed, without their making any attempt to reconcile with God or the people upon whom He had called by His name. The objections of humamism to God's ways and thought / reasoning [logos] are entirely predictable, but unrealistic in the terms of engagement with Him which remain to us under the new covenant. (Luke 13 v 4; Matthew 7 vv 13, 14, Luke 16 v 29 - 31)
Hey Cam, please get Mako Nagasawa of the New Humanity Institute to discuss OT judgment, then atonement, and different kinds of justice.
So many problems with Rauser's thesis, but the most glaring is that he consistently wants to focus on the OT, and shield Jesus from the implications of his arguments, though Jesus stands within the same stream of the prophetic tradition with respect to God's judgement. If he feels that God cannot judge a people, and wipe them and their cultural practices out, he cannot hold to any position other than Universalism. The alternative views of final judgment & hell - eternal torment, annihilationism, etc. - are quite obviously the greatest and most ultimate forms of genocide (on Rauser's definition) that could ever possibly occur. And really, the primary reason to hold to those views of hell and judgment, are grounded in the eschatological preaching of Christ, not Paul. Jesus would be, on Rauser's view, the greatest prophet of genocide, the world has ever known, condemning all those who are not his followers to either complete annihilation, or worse, eternal torment.
There aren’t that many comments on this one. It’s such a heavy topic I think most are just digesting it all maybe, haha.
Quit playing with Scripture! it says what is says and God can do whatever He wants. He's God! You are not! Your method is just like that of the devil in the garden, "Did God really say...?"
We don't judge the Bible. it judges us. You are leading people astray just like the devil is.
I disagree that God cannot justifiably take life whenever he wants. By right God should have ended the human race as a result of sin, but God did not, therefore all life continues under his love and mercy. A such, in instances where God took life not only is that life rightfully His since it is owed to him, He would merely be exacting a judgement which has been mercifully delayed since the day Adam fell.
Furthermore it is important to note that murder is only wrong because the moral worth of man comes from God and said worth is not independent of God. When man murders he infringes on that moral worth, he has taken something that was not rightfully his. When God takes life it cannot be said that he infringes on the same moral worth since He is the very source of it.
So you're good with the BEST idea your "god" could come up with was to make humans to burn in hell. You evidently fail to notice that a "good god" planted a poisonous plant in the kids' food garden. He failed to offer any defense WHATSOEVER beyond some lame-o "Don't do that" against a dangerous predator THAT he also let in to where the kids were. And told Adam something hopelessly incomprehensible: "Ye shall surely die." BECAUSE DEATH DIDN'T EXIST YET. Today that "father" would be deemed abusive and negligent.
People bring up the malachites and the Canaanites as examples, that the God of the Old Testament supposedly is evil, but what they don’t mention is how evil the Canaanites in the malachites were, and the fact they were given hundreds of years to repent, Andrew stop doing the evil but they were doing.
Gotta love that Hallow ad spot.
Cameron, are you deleting comments? I read many comments and even posted one. I refreshed the page around 20 minutes later and a lot of these were gone
either him or UA-cam
I think it has to do with the sensitive topic evoking people to use banned not corporate friendly vocabulary such as geno------. Hate speech culture must be eradicated.
It’s UA-cam
Use old school elite speak or just use abbreviations and $&@%* instead of letters. I get awesome comments yeeted from my channel all the time. The algorithm bots are overly sensitive.
It’s more likely UA-cam
Genocide Excuse #1 = Wordplay: It is not genocide when god does it. We will call it his judgement.
Genocide Excuse #2 = Might Is Right: God created all. So, he can destroy anyone anytime - no question asked.
Genocide Excuse #3 = Divine Command Morality: God had his morally sufficient reasons. He doesn't need to provide them to anyone.
Genocide Excuse #4 = They were Evil: They were doing bad things to their children, so god killed them ALL.
Genocide Excuse #5 = Hyperbole: Even where the text says kill ALL, they really didn't kill everyone.
Genocide Excuse #6 = That's the OLD Testament: The genocides of the OT were committed by Yahweh. "Then, Jesus came."
LOL
Divine command theory isn’t a problem here. It’s how DCT is formulated.
Spot on.
@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns Actually Pay attention.
@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns Killing is a SIN for everyone else. But, not when god kills. He has morally sufficient reasons to kill. He is always moral. Even when he is killing. lol
@@pleaseenteraname1103 I was just trying to get extra precision. All of us, including myself, often fail at that
Conflating the issue of exterminating an entire people group and making them relocate under the umbrella term of “genocide” makes the term completely meaningless. When you have such a loose definition to make no distinction between two very different outcomes, you are being either intentionally dishonest or intellectually dishonest…which I’m sure would also fall under his umbrella term.
Randall is great, I'm grateful for his work on this issue
Absolutely. Beyond the specifics of Randall's position, I like one of the fundamental points he made at the top of the discussion -- i.e., that Christians have often disagreed on how to interpret and apply the relevant passages, and that you don't have to adhere to the one "right" answer. Just knowing that such a safety valve exists is immensely helpful to people struggling with such texts.
One methodological concern. Rauser seems to put moral intuitions as fundamental/completely prior to interpreting the Bible. But it seems as though hermeneutical principles can pick out the best interpretation at least partially independent of moral intuitions, and also that our moral intuitions should, as Christians, at least be partially informed by Scripture, so Scripture seems to be not totally posterior to moral intuitions.
It seems to me you should have a reflective equilibrium between interpretation and moral intuition, where we can adjust our moral intuitions somewhat in response to Scriptural input, not just equilibrium between theoretical and pretheoretical intuitions that then just get imported totally into our hermeneutics.
Randall is a |_ee. berr. all Christian,
and many like Brian Zahnd reference these annihilations conquest verses without any attempts to actually examine said texts' context, nor offer any attempts to demonstrate other possible tenable moral solutions with a consistent hermeneutics, and instead use this verse to deconstruct conservative views of Christianity and make their views of changing inspiration, infallibility, making all original core tenets/doctrines of Christianity all susceptible to change the only tenable option.
|_ee. berr. all Christians don't like actual good responses to these annihilations conquest verses,
because those views dont help further their age. |\|da and gaining more converts,
they want to replace (0|\|. serve. t!\/3 Christianity,
If God is pure love, none of these passages would exist.
Food for thought: No one in existence has “died” yet as per the Great white throne judgment, everyone is just asleep
I think our real lives are on the other side
All will be resurrected, including the residents of Jericho, even Sodom and Gomorrah. See Luke 10:12 etc. Check the youtube channel PerfectLove.
"Died" just refers to the body in this context so yes people die
Thanks!
I wonder why this video doesnt have many views and is not followed by christians as other videos from this channel
God is a Man of War by Fr Stephen De Young
Here is a simpler option. People killed the Cannanites and God didn't intervene in any way. That explanation is consistent with every other war ever.
Randal is a smart guy and Cameron has a knack for bringing out the best in their conversations imo. The link between DCT and moral intuition was excellent!
He kept saying that the “genocide apologetic” necessarily means that you have to dehumanize the other. I feel like this is a straw man. From the way I understand the biblical story, ALL humans deserve “genocide”, including the Hebrews, as shown by the “genocide” of the Hebrews by the Babylonians and Assyrians. God says that he will use the enemy to judge even his chosen people.
@Justin Key "ALL HUMANS DESERVE GENOCIDE"
Pretty metal, dude. You should get that printed on a T-shirt and wear it everywhere.
That is absolutely correct. We have all fallen way short of God's perfect standard(Romans 3:23). Let's be honest in that we all sin such as lying, stealing, pornography, hating God, hating people etc. The only One who is worthy is Jesus of Nazareth. The Son of God is completely holy, perfect, and without sin. He never had one millisecond of a lazy attitude or a sinful lust. As Peter 2:22 says "He committed no sin and no deceit was found in His mouth."
Is there a loving nature to take any life?
Whats Dr Rauser's proposed mode of interpretation for difficult texts as such?
Short answer Yes
Well it depends on how you define genocide, what is the killing justified absolutely.
There was a reason that Jesus told the Jewish religious leaders that they didn't know the Old Testament nor the power of God (even though they had it memorized and knew what all the words said). Most Christians read the OT exactly the same way as the Jews did.
What everyone misses is how God speaks, how He uses words. For instance speaking through Jesus He said "let the dead bury the dead". Once we learn from Jesus and realize this is Yahweh doing and speaking....and that He never changes....we can take His way of speaking and use it as a lens to read the OT.
Once you do that, Yahweh and Jesus look and sound exactly the same.
I was a combat marine and after coming home evaluated my life (today they call this deconstruction). As a former marine I know ethical guidelines in war. We are trained in this. The actions demanded by god in the Bible are absolutely unethical. If god was a commanding officer, his combat orders would be ignored. He is unfit for leadership.
I HATE watching videos like this. I haven’t watched but about to. It’s going to put me in a terrible mood as I relate statements in the video to experiences in the Middle East.
I am going to end up just hating this guy in the video.
I recommend looking into the views about this, as well as ancient history, sir... This was consistent in history and the Israelites were constantly fighting for their lives.
Also I think you are brave for serving.
“The actions demanded by God in the Bible are absolutely unethical.” That statement seems like you claim to have a mind greater than the god of the Bible. God is Perfect, God is truth, God is love and God is just. In fact God is all knowing, If a God that is all knowing how is he unfit for leadership and how is he unethical if he is the creator of reality, and the universe? It is weird that he ordered Genocide but he is the creator of souls and there is context and history to this story and also as to why he had ordered such an act.
@LuthAMF Of course he is.
Sir. You are a rare person indeed. I truly hope you are able to teach others. You are someone whose morality is not determined by a superior. You know what is right and you know what is wrong. Whether a General or the "Command of God".
Thank you for speaking truth. I wish more warriors and more Christians would think like you.
@@chapelmontoya7232 You are the kind of person that would fight in the crusades or dehumanize people to enslave them. All because God commanded it. No one alive has ever heard a direct command from God. You would use the examples in the bible and blindly serve human masters in the name of God.
Wrong is wrong. Being a God doesn't make you above morality. Being a designer or creator of the rules does not make you above the rules. And if that's the moral example you are lost.
You are pretty much saying God created us so he can do anything to us. And ANYTHING he does is good? Including ordering genocide, killing kids, reaping women, enslaving humans.
I can only hope you are brainwashed because if not I'm absolutely terrified that this is a common belief amongst Christians
My prediction is Cameron that will become a progressive Christian. It seems his feelings are beginning to guide him more and more these days rather than the scripture
Be great to get Michael Heiser on to discuss this topic
I've been watching a lot of his material on the Canaanites and something bothers me about it. He is politically liberal. I bet if you applied his exact same standards to what happened to the Axis powers during and post war, or to western countries with mass migration, destruction of cultural icons, violence and destruction, dehumanizing language in media etc. he would say that he is actually okay with that. I don't think Randal would be consistent with his beliefs in this regard at all, and someone needs to push him on this because I bet even if he did say he was bothered by those things as well, it would make him very uncomfortable to admit it. And btw I'm not taking sides on these issues, for anyone looking to miss the forest for the trees, I am just saying I don't think Randal would be consistent on these issues and questioning him on this on the spot would show a serious flaw in his moral epistemology and possibly even motivated reasoning.
Can you get Paul Copan on the show at some point?
This is a very deep part of scripture to wrestle with and I’m with Cameron on the first theory if thats what it is. That since God created us He can do whatever He wants with us. I don’t have an issue with Him doing the killing but for Him to command us to do it is where I take issue. I feel like a pawn on a big playing field and God is just having fun moving us around.
The depravity of a might makes right mentality.
Until you realize he’s not even real and “God” is a book sold by a mad man under a bridge
" someone like _God_ . . . " 19:57 Did you _really_ just utter those words? There is no "someone like God". That your brain even allows the concept to make it all the way to your tongue speaks volumes.
Genesis 6 gene pool contamination of angels mating with women, and also genetically modifying animals makes the most sense. It explains the extreme genocide of the people and also the elimination of the animals. It also explains the giants that continue to cause problems such as Og and Goliath. It's not the Catholic view though.
Except then "Jesus" said that angels don't marry so one presumes they neither have sex.
@@jenna2431 Yes, in heaven, but when they are on Earth they can eat physical food and physically touch people. When we are in heaven we will not reproduce anymore either as Jesus said, but on earth we can. I don't know, but this is a question that I would really like to know the truth about. 🙏
@@jenna2431 Laura’s view of Genesis 6 doesn’t require the sons of God marrying with women - but simply having sexual relations. Also, the sons of God aren’t angels under Laura’s view.
@@jenna2431 Dr. Peter Gentry responds to this objection, he says "well they are not reading the gospels clearly and accurately because Jesus is saying that when, in the resurrection when Jesus returns at the end of history, we that are resurrected are not going to marry because we are like the angels in heaven. Notice he says the angels in heaven, and Jude says that they left their proper dwelling place. So there's no contradiction between Jesus and Jude. In heaven the angels don't marry, in Jude they abandoned their proper dwelling place and they go to commit strange immorality so there's no confusion."
Marrying is important here on earth because that's how mortal humans and mortal humanity continues, but in heaven angels are immortal and they don't need it, so I speculate that its not impossible to marry and reproduce in heaven, only that we aren't going to depend on it for either perpetuating our kind, or needing said families for love since in heaven all believers in Christ will experience perfect love without leaving one wanting more. Plus biblically heaven is only temporary before the resurrection at the end of the age. Also in the Old Testament, there were angels that looked like humans, like those in Sodom and Gomorrah, and Noah was said to have looked like a Sons of God/Angel (book of Noah at the end of the book of Enoch), and humans and angels are sons of God. Btw angels have more powers and technology than us, so even if were genetically different, they can manifest themselves physically and change their bodies and forms to be able to reproduce with human beings, there's nothing in the bible that says that they can't do this, on the contrary it seems like biblically they not only look us, but that in Peter, Jude, and Genesis 6, angels can reproduce with us and said scriptures state that they have already done this.
Yes
Yes HE did. God also send the flood and destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. And most people will go to eternal damnation.
If it's any consolation, Joshua's conquest is probably not historical, so there was likely no genocide that God could have even theoretically commanded.
So people at war with each other and genocide is not historical, this is something that happens throughout history. But a man rising from the dead, something that doesn't happen, that's historical?
@@jacoblee5796 Did I claim that a man rising from the dead historically happened?
@@Nillocke27 No you didn't, my mistake, i thought you were a Christian. You obviously must not be if you don't think a man rose from the dead. Again, my mistake.....
A god that both commands and executed the slaughter of infant babies is truly a malevolent entity.
Where.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 multiple examples.
1. The commanded genocides of innocent infant babies with the Amelikites, Canaanites, Midianites, etc whereby god commanded human beings to be baby killers instead of doing the dirty deed itself
2. The flood in the biggest genocide of all of innocent infant babies
3. Sodom and Gomorrah. Sodom where god spared Lot, a man who offered his own daughters for a gangrape but didn’t spare innocent infant babies
4. The 10th plague. Where god murdered countless innocent infant babies and young children for the stubbornness of the Pharaoh. God massacred children for the stubbornness of one man…killing countless. Killing/punishing those who had nothing to do with the Pharaoh’s stubbornness
The commandment in force 24/365 is love your neighbor as yourself. The God that would suffer your penalty on a cross, that you may avoid judgement, for your soul to have eternal life, is not malevolent by any means. In the Old Testament God would use foreign armies to bring judgement upon the nation of Israel after many years of warnings, and in other instances He used Israel to deliver judgement. Even so our everyday directive is to love each other and God. Hating God (whom oddly you claim doesn't exist), does not help you or anyone else - this is not loving your neighbor but leading them to hate the only One God who can save us from eternal destruction.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 Some doctors today are pressured into performing abortions, maybe the 'god' Barbara accuses is plan ned parent hood ?
@@williamrice3052 what does any of that have to do with infant babies?
And William, any god who decides that bloodshed and suffering is required as sacrifice is that gods malevolence. A god can choose anything it wants for this remission of sins.
It could require someone to help the homeless for 3 months. Something like that, which would serve to help others as well….instead of demanding bloodshed and suffering for its own satisfaction
It takes SOOOOOOO much dodging, dancing, bending and creativie thinking to shuffle and force the facts in such a way as to try to salvage "Bible God's" morals. It defies reason.
Indeed. It is an incredibly immoral religion
Wrong. You can’t come up with an argument. So you have to straw man. Keep coping fedora tipper.
Maybe according to your own subjective morality. I would be MORE offended if God did NOT slaughter these people
@@jaserader6107 straw man? Lol. Nope. It's my opinion based upon a MYRIAD of sound reasons.
Yes, the abrahamic god also committed genocide -> flood.
You don't get to call yourself god of love & mercy and murder your own children because they don't act as you want them to (after giving them free will). The ones sending the flood always are the bad guys in mythologies -> Zeus, Ahriman, Enlil et cetera and never the ones, who are friends of mankind -> Prometheus, Mithra, Enki
@12345shushi Craig Keener, and Daniel Wallace also have good stuff on that topic.
You should get Greg Boyd. He's a open theist kinda guy with wild ideas on the bible
On hyperbole I am not a fan of that interpretation but I you can't quite give up your literalist readings. You say well if it is hyperbole to say they killed all the children then do you mean they killed some of the children?
But if I say Georgia killed Oregon last Saturday that would be hyperbole. It would not mean they didn't literally kill the whole team they just killed some of the players. No they didn't kill anyone at all. You say then that means you are abandoning the text. But it is not - rather it is just abandoning a literal reading of what I said when I said Georgia killed Oregon. They didn't kill anyone at all. It just means they won very decisively.
Likewise I think it is hyperbole when Jesus talks about flames in hell and hating your family. That does not mean I think Jesus is saying it's not literally flaming but it is always over 100 degrees in hell. Nor does it mean Jesus doesn't want us to hate our family but he does want us to dislike them. Hyperbole does not need to remain so faithful to the literal reading.
Its unclear what checking dna is supposed to prove. If you believe in evolution you recognize we share dna with many non-humans. Being made in the image of God and having an eternal soul is not necessarily proven by dna. That said I think we should assume all humans are made in the image of God. But that we should assume that, does not mean God might not know better.
@12345shushi I think both (hate family and hell is flaming hot) are both straight forward hyperbole. They use exaggerated language to make a point.
I find this discussion so futile. Even the host's charge that it is one that is necessary to have, as wholly misguided.
It is incorrect to try and legislate retrospectively... The law changes contexts. Consequently one may not condemn someone based on a newly found moral stance.
Furthermore, it's inconceivable that us humans can seek to pass judgement on what God has done in the past. A context we have no common experience with. God has a completely different view of reality to us. We can say illustratively, He has a bird's eye view of our reality, while we can only see reality horizontally.
The destruction of people who are charged with defiling the land is devine call. It is not motivated by bloodthirsty cruelty, but by love of humanity. Those who commit acts of defilement of the land hurt others who are innocent of those acts. Because such acts of defilement bring curses like drought, diseases, and large scale destruction of the land. Because apparently any offending action against the morals of the land, eg idol worship and witchcraft etc, elements of which Dr. Rauser described as artifacts, bring the wrath of the almighty. If we accept that God is the almighty one who sees where we cannot see.
Why is it that we find it within our right to bring God to our level of accountability? Surely he's above that...!
It's futile to play God on this and similar topics. Yes, let's be real!
Regarding the possibility of then being descendants of the nephilim, possibly the original reason for the flood: would we suppose that there would be DNA evidence of the crossbreed? Would absence of DNA evidence prove absence when Joshua reported seeing Giants?
Would Goliath have had a different DNA structure?
Yo don't fall down YEC rabbit hole u should check out Gutsick gibbon
This man’s whole argument doesn’t have a leg to stand on if he believes God’s wisdom is higher than ours.
Again if he holds this stance, to be logically consistent he must also say that God was wrong for flooding the earth, or allowing any human to die any death.
This guy is saying that all death is wrong. Where does he have the grounds for that claim? God commanded Abraham to kill Isaac. Even though he provided a lamb, if Abraham listened to any earthly argument against it, he would have been in direct disobedience to God.
By this logic, God is immoral for sending Jesus to die on a cross.
He is viewing death as an ultimate sin, when it could be a saving grace. Consider this, all the adult Canaanite’s had chose for themselves to live in sin, and I don’t believe children are judged the same way until they are at a certain age of understanding. So the adults who chose sin paid the price just like any other human, and I believe the children young enough went to the Lord because of their inability to make a judgment for themselves. So in one view, a merciful God put an absolute end to generational sin which would have instead lead to generation after generation of people going to hell for their sins. It is merciful for God to bring an end to sin and following, an eternal hell away from Him.
He is causing trouble for himself by applying the rules God gave for humanity to God himself. Who are we to tell God what he should or should not do?
Also in order to hold this view I feel like he is ignoring the absolute egregious wickedness of sin. The offense of one man killing another will never come anywhere near the offense of humans sin against an almighty, all righteous God. Mans sin is no small matter in the eyes of the Lord. Sin is so serious that we will be cast into HELL because of it! This man seems to think that man’s sin is not worthy of punishment or judgment. If that were not the case, why do we need the death of Jesus at all? Was it for nothing if sin isn’t that big of a deal or such an offense to God?
In my opinion he is applying a sinful human stance to sin, that it’s tolerable and ok, and thus the punishment is not fitting to him.
There are so many holes to this argument that I could only listen about 30 minutes before I had to take a break. I pray this man humbles his heart before the Lord and stops putting himself on a pedestal to judge the wisdom and righteousness of God. I also pray that we all will continue to seek truth in all humility.
I’ll respond to rest of your comment later, I don’t find Randall to be the most compelling, I personally think Michael Heizer, Daniel Wallace,and Craig Keener make better cases. You completely completely misunderstand, understand that story of Abraham, God never intended for Abraham to kill his son, he was testing Abrahams loyalty.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 Did you miss the part where I said God provided a lamb? He commanded Abraham to follow through until he intervened.
@@Becca_Lynn yes because it was a test, i’m sorry I haven’t got back to you I will.
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
~R. D.
Again the bunch of nonsense.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 fundamentalist belief in the Bible? Agreed.
@@monkkeygawd depends on what you mean.
Richard Dawking is an ape spewing out buzzwords. This is no grounding for an ethical worldview.
22:00 straight against the high Calvinist view 👍
48:00 onwards. The Bible clearly describes these people as such. Why are you trying to imply that they were not? our trust is first put in the Bible, not some obscure random pagan archeologist. Furthermore, you bring up the fact that a lot of vulnerable people would have been left behind? So what? Does it mean that because you’re young, or that you’re old, or that you’re a women that you are a gentle and lowly saint? This is an appeal to emotion and a non sequitur
If a young handicapped woman murders another person, should she be spared the sword because she is « oppressed »?
Can god command a woman to have an abortion? Hasn’t that been defined as gravely sinful? I would say he cannot command it and still be wholly good. He would be committing sin, which God can’t do. can God command the killing of a baby after it has been born and still be wholly good?
@@jordand5732 in the same way that God cannot describe a square circle, God cannot command sin. So when God commanded the killing of children, it was not sinful. Hope this helps, best regards
It does seem to be an more of an emotional problem than logical.
The argument in essence is:
God cannot have a good enough reason to order genocide.
@@apracity7672 do you take the stance that might makes right, then? In other words, there’s nothing God could ever do that is ultimately immoral because he can do whatever he would like. If he wants to tell a woman to have an abortion she can have an abortion? I feel like it takes away the heaviness of sin to hold this view. If the only difference between women that have abortions and women that choose life is God’s command, and not an ultimately moral law, then it just seems to really just be a broken rule issue instead of a moral issue to be outraged about.
@@jordand5732 No, I don't take that stance. I take the stance that God could never do anything wrong because of who He is. In the same way that I cannot jump out of an airplane and start flying like a bird, God cannot do anything immoral. It's simply impossible.
If God were to say that a woman should go get an abortion, it wouldn't be wrong because abortion wouldn't be wrong. Because God is perfectly good and righteous he cannot command sin. Therefore, by logical necessity, abortion wouldn't be immoral.
Obviously this is a hypothetical, abortion is sinful.
I think we’re assuming an entirely literate interpretation without any room for expression or exaggeration. For example if I wrote something down that was then read 3,000 years later or more and in that writing I described a football game and I said that we showed up and slaughtered them! Now without a proper understanding of our language and culture along with a strict interpretation one could come away thinking that we killed our opponents ruthlessly not that we beat them soundly in a game.
I think there’s room for hyperbolic language here by authors to make a point.
Lastly, it may be of interest to bring on a Jewish Rabbi. There knowledge of the OT is by far superior to most Christian apologists.
As far as a Christian Apologists one of the most qualified in Christianity would be Brant Pitre. He has a PHD in both the OT & NT. So he may be uniquely able to address this issue and how that compares to Christianity’s understanding of God.
When Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." he was also exaggerating and using hyperbole. Right ?? He was just promoting his way when we all know there are so many other ways. Right ??
I have a feeling you'll switch back to "entirely literate interpretation" on this verse.
LOL
@@sanjeevgig8918 it’s not all one or the other. You’re setting up a false dichotomy. There are clearly many hyperbolic passages throughout Scripture. I don’t see Christians all walking around with one eye or one hand do you?
@@brianfarley926 Yes, Xtianity is CHOOSE YOUR OWN ADVENTURE system. LOL
@@sanjeevgig8918 Perhaps you’re not intellectually capable of understanding, don’t worry I get it.
@@brianfarley926 I accept your abject surrender and running away like a scared female doggy.
LOL
If the Bible is still so ambiguous after 2000 years that the greatest minds we have (Thiest Vs Theist as well as Thiest Vs Atheist) still cannot agree on how to interpret it's contents, then why should any of its contents be taken seriously?
Let me save you 100 minutes.
Yes.
God did.
Yes he did, but killed out of love. He's great
Brian Holdsworth is all a very thoughtful apologists. He may have some insight which is useful. For example he did this video about a year ago regarding the crusades. I know it’s not the same topic I’m saying he could probably add something to conversation which would be worth listening to.
ua-cam.com/video/YiqkUcWLlC0/v-deo.html
I think to further deal with these passages invite a Jewish Rabbi on whose knowledgeable. Also take a look at Dr. Brant Pitre
@12345shushi fair enough I’m saying Pitre could certainly add to this conversation with his perspective on it. Whether someone thinks it’s of value or not we’d have to hear him out first but he’s highly educated in both OT & NT as I assume you know.
I’m aware that Judaism today is fractured with different ranging theologies. It may be necessary to get perspectives from different ones. Personally I’d check with the Orthodox Jews first. To me anyway they seem to be the most knowledgeable and serious about their faith. I’m not saying other individuals aren’t I’m talking about them as a whole.
Even discussions perhaps with Jews who became messianic Jews or Jews who accepted Catholicism I think both groups could add something valuable to this question
Pitre definitely is very familiar with the Talmud I’ve read a few of his books. I find him to be quite insightful and many other people as well. I think he’s a bit more unique than most considering his PHD’s in OT & NT. As far as I know that’s pretty unique
Ah my favorite soft boii
Delusion. Delusion everywhere....
If this is such a huge problem, then why hasn't YHW answered it himself? It is funny, now that we have the scientific method YHW no longer has the time and/or will to inspire/reveal his thoughts to us.
What do you do with baby cockroaches?
There is no problem here unless you think you are more righteous than God.
Second guessing God is not smart. Declaring people innocent, that you have never met is just dumb. The wickedest people in the world where once baby's.
Trust God's judgment.
Good riddance to roaches. Have some faith.