Craig advances an argument which has a bronze age sense of morality. In reality in a early Canaanite society there would be some people who had power. Men of a warrior class. Then there would be women who at the time had no agency. There would also be slaves who had no power either. Children of course in our society do not reach an age of criminal responsibility till they are ten or so. Children again would have no real culpability in the sorts of things that Craig has complained about. Child sacrifice various sexual practices. For someone to think that everyone in such a society merits the death penalty is obscene. It shows total moral bankruptcy
Gavin Ortlund advances the theory that the genocidal language is hyperbolic (as Randal mentions in the video) but he then goes on to state that the language used to describe the sins of the Canaanites is not hyperbole, and indeed that the very thought of their supposed perversion (i.e. child sacrifices) so sickens him he can barely talk about it. That's a heavy thumb he puts on the scale. Ignoring for the moment that all ancient historical accounts contain hyperbole and are considered unreliable by historians, by opening up the possibility that some aspects of the Biblical account contain hyperbolic language, then you're paving the way to highly subjective interpretations of the text -- in this case, playing down the crimes of the victors and authors of the history while playing up the crimes of the enemy.
@@EnglishMikeIt's made even worse since those claims about the culture aren't from the Bible so he accepts the accuracy of other sources while treating the Bible as suspect.
@@goldenalt3166 Right, and those claims are actually based on Carthaginian archeological remains that are a thousand miles and 400 years distant from the Canaanites of the Old Testament. No such remains have ever been found in Palestine.
@@EnglishMike The point is that ancient war accounts are known for using hyperbole but ancient law codes are not. It's about context here. You can't just blanketly say "the bible uses hyperbole here, so it uses it everywhere".
@@EnglishMikeso with Craig it’s head I win tails you lose. Ortland is just one of I’d say the majority, probably near unanimity of biblical scholars who determine that OT massacres are indeed hyperbolic, fictional. In fact the Jews (not counting contemporary Zionists) held that view of they whole Tanakh, and that is the view of the Apostolic Churches where they aren’t being obtuse lay literalistic.
Could the simple answer be: the Hebrew tribe wrote a series of books that explained their ideas about God and creation. In that book they gave God human attributes and so created a God iin the image of man. They went on to have this God proclaim them to be his children, the chosen ones. Once established, they used this God as their commander in chief, stating that all the murders and ethnic cleansing they committed were done by God's commandment. This is a nice way to get away with murder..
The account you proposed is fully compatible with God's existence and a liberal Christian may very well say: "The ancient Israelites had genuine experiences with God whom they came to recognise as being morally perfect but since they had a very flawed primitive morality, they naturally projected it onto the Almighty and wrote gruesome tales and legends about God having ordered them to carry out a genocide that actually never historically happened".
craig's view is so ridiculous and evil and it's a shame a man who can make these arguments is such a popular face in Christian outreach. Thank you for this series Dr. Rauser I'm eager to read your book.
@@EnglishMike no it’s full of people that just want to tear down anyone that actually tries to defend the faith. To be fair Randall has genuinely defended the faith going up against Aron Ra and Dan Barker in debates. But too much of his content is tearing down colleagues and people that I am assuming he deems, “brothers in Christ” all to promote the heresies of progressive Christianity.
@@MattCofer-sw2if you do understand that it is people like you and Alisa Childers who are throwing out accusations like 'heresy' and 'you're not actually a christian', right? Randal and others have every right to spend lots of time defending against such things. That does not qualify as 'tearing down colleagues', nor is it 'promoting heresies'. It is defending against false accusations and bad ideas, mostly from fundamentalist evangelicals, and again, it is they who are doing the tearing down. The irony is that you're criticizing him for tearing down colleagues, when those colleagues...keep saying he's not a colleague.
@@bengreen171The problem with Randall's logic is that if you believe this Bible, it's God that commanded this so if you disagree with it you disagree with the God you believe in. WLC made a mistake when he brought up the "all loving" part, it's very clear throughout the Bible that Yahweh does not love everyone. Randall also made an error when he said if Moses never existed it wouldn't invalidate Christianity, this is again another fallacy since Jesus claimed Moses wrote about him. Progressive Christians just have too many holes in their beliefs, and I honestly can't even tell what they believe. They claim to believe the Bible, yet they want to constantly apologize for it to make buddies with atheists who don't want anything to do with you in general.
Appreciate you continuing to address this most difficult of Biblical topics. You called out one of my comments on a prior pertinent video. One allusion I made was to Goliath and King Og of Bashaan and I had not seen nor heard a take from you on whether these giants of old were indeed 100% ontologically human. That is to say, was Goliath’s genome something altogether or even substantially different from David’s? Was Og’s enormous stature simply an OT case of giantism? I fully condemn rhetoric that would demote people made in God’s image to any “less than human” or “insectile” status, etc. But I truly am curious on whether the two exemplars I gave would be considered no different than you and me, save their enormous stature? I don’t have a problem with a Sethite view of Genesis 6 and I further think Heiser took some reaching liberties in his work. But I do not personally think those progeny in Genesis had human fathers- as conspiratorial-sounding as it may be.
Goliath would fall within the normal range of an NBA player at about 6'9" per the Septuagint. The later Masoretic text increased his height to 9 feet. There's actually a possibility that Goliath was slain by Elhanan and David was given the credit later. Notably when 1 Chronicles goes over the same story it changes Goliath's name to Lahmi, which is actually the last part of the word for Bethlehemite (beit-ha’lahmi), and Elhanan's father was a Bethlehemite in the original 2 Samuel.
The massacres, genocide and ethnic cleansing described in the Bible, the blame cannot be put on the Israelite soldiers as there was a war on and the were 'just following' orders so it wasn't their fault. Now where have I heard that before ? Joshua Dirlewanger anyone ?
Ok since you're doing a point-to-point response I'll do one or your response: 3:12 No that does not follow from what he said. Even for Craig himself, who does have a more hardline view on this than others like myself, that isn't true. You know that elsewhere Craig said that this it is only moral to do so when given an explicit command by god; and it is also clear that Jesus is the only way to the Father so the modern-day state of Israel does not know God to receive a command from him. For those like myself which take a more nuanced view than WLC but nevertheless would agree with his statement here, God would not command this today because of several reasons which mean this is no longer justifiable under any conditions (due to Jesus's life death and resurrection, the coming of the Spirit and the closing of the canon). 4:33 I feel like you're splitting hairs here. Craig was obviously just using a shorthand for 'view the bible as historical at this point'. I would be astonished if WLC actually disagrees with anything else you go on to say in this section. What is clear though, is WLC thinks the Deuteronomic history is clearly presented as historical in the bible, and I would tend to agree (and say also the archaeology backs this up). 8:47 In context, what I think WLC means here by 'resist' is 'refuse to leave', not 'throw rocks at them'. 9:38 No, if they were simply slow at leaving, they'd just wait until they manage to do so. Obviously. 11:18 I can see you are no longer explicitly doing this; but by your tone it's implicit. You're saying that because people falsely accuse people of these things it's always wrong to use as a justification. The Rwandans would not have been wrong to use pesticide in their land, the problem was that the people weren't cockroaches. 11:23 Again, this criticism doesn't follow from what WLC actually said here. Ok based on what WLC said elsewhere it was justified to destroy the Canaanites based purely on their evil with no outside context, but only because God explicitly said so, which was not the case in the Rwandan Genocide. For those with a more nuanced perspective, the moral inadequacy of the Canaanites is only relevant because a) they could influence the Israelites to do the same (as they did not have the Holy Spirit protecting the from corruption), b) it was critically important the Israelites became uncorrupted because they performed the sacrifices for the world's sin and would be the ancestors of the coming messiah and c) scripture would be written to use the Canaanites as examples against such sins. None of these apply to the Rwandans either (well, a might; but that is irrelevant without b). One final thing which you don't really touch on (maybe you will later), is that your justification for opposing this is exclusively your moral compass (which WLC basically dismisses out of hand). I would not simply dismiss your (and my) moral compass, while it can make mistakes when it's signalling something this strongly it's worth listening to. But what it is signalling is that is is wrong to do so today (and God would not command it today). If you lived in the time of Joshua your moral compass would not be against it (or at least, not so strongly), because Jesus and the Spirit hadn't come yet and the canon was still open. So presumably, if we both lived in the time of Joshua, we would both be on the same page.
God Almighty said: *Because of that We ordained for the Children of Isr*el that if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind. And indeed, there came to them Our Messengers with clear proofs, evidences, and signs, even then after that many of them continued to exceed the limits (e.g. by doing oppression unjustly and exceeding beyond the limits set by Allah by committing the major sins) in the land!.* (Quran)
Couldn’t make it past point one without a caricature. Bummer. Nice try though, 🤷🏽. A thought provoking question you may wish to meditate upon: Was it wrong for God to pronounce, and carry out, judgement upon all the people in all the cities/lands of Sodom and Gomorrah?
it's only 'thought provoking' to people who think their own dogma is more important than holding a decent moral standard. Yes, mass murder is wrong - whoever the victims are, and whatever it is claimed they have done. Notice that God saved Lot - the person who wanted to let his own daughters suffer what some people might say is a fate worse than death. To be clear - you're the caricature here.
@@bengreen171 Christians don't have "blind faith". That's another thing you have wrong. You're strawmanning the Christian position. "Blind faith" is like saying square circle. Faith isn't blind. Get your facts right
infants can offer resistance? must be in his new age, new English KJV bible. Mine does not say that. Then again, what does it not matter what it says, since you can add or omit what you want, and interpret it in any way shape or form. Intellectual pride at its finest.
Children, not infants. Randal explicit gave the example of a five year old throwing rocks at a tank. There are plenty of examples of young children aping the actions of their elders in rioting and rebellion across many times and countries. And if five is too young to be believable, make it seven or either instead.
Randal, have you ever made videos on why you believe in God or even good reasons to believe there is such a being and what are your thoughts on the Shroud of Turin?
The shroud has been clearly demonstrated to have nothing to do with the historical Jesus. But in terms of the other question, I’d be very interested in learning what allows Randal to keep his faith.
@@SquekretGenius420 It hasn't been "just debunked". True believers in the Shroud continue to throw everything they can think of at the wall in an attempt to cast shade on the original carbon dating. None of has been taken seriously by the wider carbon dating community. The most recent paper published doesn't even claim to debunk the original measurements, it simply states that (in their opinion) there's enough doubt to warrant another round of testing. Of course, the True Believers immediately claimed victory. It's what they do. Carbon dating has come a long way in the last 40 years, and I doubt anyone would be averse to another round of testing. As the recent papers says, they would need a lot smaller sample of material this time around, so the risk of damage to the Shroud is minimal. The only problem is that the Vatican has refused to give permission for more testing, so if you want to get mad at anyone, get mad at them, since there is no real excuse for them to prevent more testing. Of course, it could be that the scholars at the Vatican already know that it would confirm the previous findings that it was a Medieval fake, since they already have all the contemporary documentary evidence they need to know it's a forgery. And be honest, if they ran more tests and came up with the exact same Medieval dates for the new samples, would it make any difference to your conviction that the Shroud really did wrap Jesus's body after his crucifixion?
@@EnglishMike So, you think the recent X-ray study is incorrect? I have no objection to it being tested again. If it's fake, then it's fake. I'm not sure why you think I'm a true believer just for asking one question: 'Are you talking about the old carbon dating that was just debunked?' Perhaps I should not have said debunked maybe that set you off, but I'm not sure why you think I would be 'mad' at anyone.
It is not about Willian Lane Craig, but the fact that today we have 1900 years of Christianity and are altogether self righteous about the morality or a moral belief of the pre Christian Era. And yet somehow today, I perceive that this channel would support a woman's pro choice to abortion. somehow there is more indignation for God's right to do what He commands with what is His than for us to have destroyed 60+ human beings for the so called "rights of women." This channel makes me think of the following scripture: Job 40:8 _"Will you really nullify My judgment? Will you condemn Me so that you may be justified?"_ - God speaking.
@@Randal_Rauser You are mistaken. I am not injecting any of my own morality. I am a Christian. I have no morality of my own. In Christ Jesus, God is my righteousness. I am not "dismissing" or making any reference to the death of children under the reality of war, except in the rarest of historical events. To be specific, God, literally commanding the ancient army of Israel. BTAIM, We are all under the judgment of death. And as such, the timing of the carrying out of that sentence, is only within the right of God's choosing, be it a miscarriage, childhood, young adult or aged death. We will all drink from the cup of Adam's sin. Abortion is not about war, it is premeditated in peace time according to our choosing. God, in the ancient past, condemned those in whom the iniquity of the Amorite was complete via war. God, throughout scripture, condemns the killing of children under the convenience or under the worshiping of the creature in peace time. You seem to forget who God is and therefore to you, I seem incoherent and therefore to you it would seem that God is incoherent. But He is not, He is God.
@@RobSed55 you mean the Christ Jesus who said to forgive not 7x but 70x7, and love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you? Your view absolutely is morally incoherent. You should watch Randal discussing this topic with the New Evangelicals, they go into cases of mothers who've heard voices and k*ll*d their own children b/c they thought God was telling them to. There are also many christians today who think they're hearing directly from God all the time, many of whom are very politically involved (e.g. the 'prophets' in the New Apostolic Reformation movement). If Divine Command Theory is correct, who's to argue with them if they carry out vi0lence b/c they believe it's what God demands? There is no moral or ethical ground to stand on in your view.
@@RobSed55your argument essentially boils down to: “A book that I ascribe meaning to told me that killing infants is okay, as long as the God character in this book is the one to order it.” So…what if God ordered you to kill an infant? Would you do it? I mean, for any reason? I wouldn’t. Period. I would sooner fight with God, wrestle with God, and argue with God than butcher an infant. If you’re being intellectually and morally honest, you too could acknowledge that there are limits to what you would do, even if God commanded you to do it. There are things that we simply *know* that God would never command us to do.
@@RobSed55 _"I have no morality of my own"_ Of course you do. You don't know the mind of God. You don't have a perfect interpretation of the Bible. Your morality is necessarily colored by your experiences, your instincts, your choices, your thought, and your emotions. Do you love all your enemies and turn the other cheek and carry their load twice as far as they demand, as Jesus commands?
Not to defend Craig per se - certainly not to defend murder - but consider: "But before they went to bed, the men of the city beset the house, both young and old, all the people together. And they called Lot, and said to him: Where are the men that came in to thee at night? bring them out hither, that we may know them: Lot went out to them, and shut the door after him, and said: Do not so, I beseech you, my brethren, do not commit this evil. I have two daughters who, as yet, have not known man; I will bring them out to you, and abuse you them as it shall please you, so that you do no evil to these men, because they are come in under the shadow of my roof. But they said: Get thee back thither. And again: Thou camest in, said they, as a stranger, was it to be a judge? therefore we will afflict thee more than them. And they pressed very violently upon Lot: and they were even at the point of breaking open the doors." (Gen. 19:4-9) Would this behavior and state of civilization justify God's use of violent forces to utterly destroy that civilization or not? EDIT: Consider also how the violent punishment of the sword is not withheld from Israel by Israel: "And when Moses saw that the people were naked, (for Aaron had stripped them by occasion of the shame of the filth, and had set them naked among their enemies) Then standing in the gate of the camp, he said: If any man be on the Lord's side, let him join with me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him: And he said to them: Thus saith the Lord God of Israel: Put every man his sword upon his thigh: go, and return from gate to gate through the midst of the camp, and let every man kill his brother, and friend, and neighbour. And the sons of Levi did according to the words of Moses, and there were slain that day about three and twenty thousand men. And Moses said: You have consecrated your hands this day to the Lord, every man in his son and in his brother, that a blessing may be given to you." (Exod. 32:25-29)
It's not a believable story, but even so destroying an entire civilization because of the actions of the men sounds unjust. Is He unable to punish wrongdoers directly and in accordance to their own crimes?
@@goldenalt3166wouldn’t God know Man’s hearts that perhaps all were like this except for those who were specifically told to leave? Why is that not an obvious 3rd option?
@@javierclement3047 God clearly thinks no man's heart is worthy of life, so that's not helpful. And you're still killing woman, babies, and animals for the "men's hearts". Why is God so weak that he needs to commit genocide? Ever. And even if he did, it's a horrible idea to teach to human followers.
There were some rabbis at the time of Jesus who raised the very valid question "if Lot is so righteous what is he doing in Sodom?" When the angels arrive he is sitting at the gate, which would suggest he was acting as a guardian of it, so he appears pretty integrated into Sodomite society. So they believed that Lot's survival was basically a favor to Abraham not due to any virtue on Lot's part.
@@goldenalt3166 That's exactly what He did: "And they said to Lot: Hast thou here any of thine? son in law, or sons, or daughters, all that are thine bring them out of this city: For we will destroy this place, because their cry is grown loud before the Lord, who hath sent us to destroy them. So Lot went out, and spoke to his sons in law that were to have his daughters, and said: Arise: get you out of this place, because the Lord will destroy this city. And he seemed to them to speak as it were in jest. And when it was morning, the angels pressed him, saying: Arise, take thy wife, and the two daughters that thou hast: lest thou also perish in the wickedness of the city. And as he lingered, they took his hand, and the hand of his wife, and of his two daughters, because the Lord spared him." (Gen. 19:12-16)
I hope Craig gives you what you chased Ortlund for: a tiny bit of attention to refute your silly arguments. Unfortunately he probably won't, since Runaway Randal won't face EEW challenging his positions. And I'm nobody. Yet he flees 😅😅
it's so amusing that you seem to have no idea how the UA-cam ecosystem works. Even William Lane Craig does response videos, and do you really think he continues to interact with every UA-camr out there who responses to his responses? Childish name calling should be beneath you, but sadly, it appears not to be.
![Does God Exist? William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens - Full Debate [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0tYm41hb48o/mqdefault.jpg)
Craig advances an argument which has a bronze age sense of morality. In reality in a early Canaanite society there would be some people who had power. Men of a warrior class. Then there would be women who at the time had no agency. There would also be slaves who had no power either. Children of course in our society do not reach an age of criminal responsibility till they are ten or so. Children again would have no real culpability in the sorts of things that Craig has complained about. Child sacrifice various sexual practices.
For someone to think that everyone in such a society merits the death penalty is obscene. It shows total moral bankruptcy
Gavin Ortlund advances the theory that the genocidal language is hyperbolic (as Randal mentions in the video) but he then goes on to state that the language used to describe the sins of the Canaanites is not hyperbole, and indeed that the very thought of their supposed perversion (i.e. child sacrifices) so sickens him he can barely talk about it. That's a heavy thumb he puts on the scale.
Ignoring for the moment that all ancient historical accounts contain hyperbole and are considered unreliable by historians, by opening up the possibility that some aspects of the Biblical account contain hyperbolic language, then you're paving the way to highly subjective interpretations of the text -- in this case, playing down the crimes of the victors and authors of the history while playing up the crimes of the enemy.
@@EnglishMikeIt's made even worse since those claims about the culture aren't from the Bible so he accepts the accuracy of other sources while treating the Bible as suspect.
@@goldenalt3166 Right, and those claims are actually based on Carthaginian archeological remains that are a thousand miles and 400 years distant from the Canaanites of the Old Testament. No such remains have ever been found in Palestine.
@@EnglishMike The point is that ancient war accounts are known for using hyperbole but ancient law codes are not.
It's about context here.
You can't just blanketly say "the bible uses hyperbole here, so it uses it everywhere".
@@EnglishMikeso with Craig it’s head I win tails you lose.
Ortland is just one of I’d say the majority, probably near unanimity of biblical scholars who determine that OT massacres are indeed hyperbolic, fictional. In fact the Jews (not counting contemporary Zionists) held that view of they whole Tanakh, and that is the view of the Apostolic Churches where they aren’t being obtuse lay literalistic.
Could the simple answer be: the Hebrew tribe wrote a series of books that explained their ideas about God and creation. In that book they gave God human attributes and so created a God iin the image of man. They went on to have this God proclaim them to be his children, the chosen ones. Once established, they used this God as their commander in chief, stating that all the murders and ethnic cleansing they committed were done by God's commandment. This is a nice way to get away with murder..
The account you proposed is fully compatible with God's existence and a liberal Christian may very well say: "The ancient Israelites had genuine experiences with God whom they came to recognise as being morally perfect but since they had a very flawed primitive morality, they naturally projected it onto the Almighty and wrote gruesome tales and legends about God having ordered them to carry out a genocide that actually never historically happened".
To be clear it’s neighbor killing its neighbor.
craig's view is so ridiculous and evil and it's a shame a man who can make these arguments is such a popular face in Christian outreach. Thank you for this series Dr. Rauser I'm eager to read your book.
@@阳明子
Your view is ridiculous and evil
Randall’s comment sections remind me of Matt Dillahunty’s and Rationality Rules.
You mean it's full of comments from fundamentalist Christians who completely miss the point of the arguments presented in the video?
@@EnglishMike no it’s full of people that just want to tear down anyone that actually tries to defend the faith. To be fair Randall has genuinely defended the faith going up against Aron Ra and Dan Barker in debates. But too much of his content is tearing down colleagues and people that I am assuming he deems, “brothers in Christ” all to promote the heresies of progressive Christianity.
@@MattCofer-sw2if
so it doesn't matter that some Christians are condoning genocide - as long as they 'keep the faith'?
Think about that.
@@MattCofer-sw2if you do understand that it is people like you and Alisa Childers who are throwing out accusations like 'heresy' and 'you're not actually a christian', right? Randal and others have every right to spend lots of time defending against such things. That does not qualify as 'tearing down colleagues', nor is it 'promoting heresies'. It is defending against false accusations and bad ideas, mostly from fundamentalist evangelicals, and again, it is they who are doing the tearing down.
The irony is that you're criticizing him for tearing down colleagues, when those colleagues...keep saying he's not a colleague.
@@bengreen171The problem with Randall's logic is that if you believe this Bible, it's God that commanded this so if you disagree with it you disagree with the God you believe in. WLC made a mistake when he brought up the "all loving" part, it's very clear throughout the Bible that Yahweh does not love everyone. Randall also made an error when he said if Moses never existed it wouldn't invalidate Christianity, this is again another fallacy since Jesus claimed Moses wrote about him.
Progressive Christians just have too many holes in their beliefs, and I honestly can't even tell what they believe. They claim to believe the Bible, yet they want to constantly apologize for it to make buddies with atheists who don't want anything to do with you in general.
Appreciate you continuing to address this most difficult of Biblical topics. You called out one of my comments on a prior pertinent video. One allusion I made was to Goliath and King Og of Bashaan and I had not seen nor heard a take from you on whether these giants of old were indeed 100% ontologically human. That is to say, was Goliath’s genome something altogether or even substantially different from David’s? Was Og’s enormous stature simply an OT case of giantism? I fully condemn rhetoric that would demote people made in God’s image to any “less than human” or “insectile” status, etc. But I truly am curious on whether the two exemplars I gave would be considered no different than you and me, save their enormous stature? I don’t have a problem with a Sethite view of Genesis 6 and I further think Heiser took some reaching liberties in his work. But I do not personally think those progeny in Genesis had human fathers- as conspiratorial-sounding as it may be.
Goliath would fall within the normal range of an NBA player at about 6'9" per the Septuagint. The later Masoretic text increased his height to 9 feet. There's actually a possibility that Goliath was slain by Elhanan and David was given the credit later. Notably when 1 Chronicles goes over the same story it changes Goliath's name to Lahmi, which is actually the last part of the word for Bethlehemite (beit-ha’lahmi), and Elhanan's father was a Bethlehemite in the original 2 Samuel.
The massacres, genocide and ethnic cleansing described in the Bible, the blame cannot be put on the Israelite soldiers as there was a war on and the were 'just following' orders so it wasn't their fault. Now where have I heard that before ?
Joshua Dirlewanger anyone ?
And Joshua says "We did that"
Ok since you're doing a point-to-point response I'll do one or your response:
3:12 No that does not follow from what he said. Even for Craig himself, who does have a more hardline view on this than others like myself, that isn't true.
You know that elsewhere Craig said that this it is only moral to do so when given an explicit command by god; and it is also clear that Jesus is the only way to the Father so the modern-day state of Israel does not know God to receive a command from him. For those like myself which take a more nuanced view than WLC but nevertheless would agree with his statement here, God would not command this today because of several reasons which mean this is no longer justifiable under any conditions (due to Jesus's life death and resurrection, the coming of the Spirit and the closing of the canon).
4:33 I feel like you're splitting hairs here. Craig was obviously just using a shorthand for 'view the bible as historical at this point'. I would be astonished if WLC actually disagrees with anything else you go on to say in this section. What is clear though, is WLC thinks the Deuteronomic history is clearly presented as historical in the bible, and I would tend to agree (and say also the archaeology backs this up).
8:47 In context, what I think WLC means here by 'resist' is 'refuse to leave', not 'throw rocks at them'.
9:38 No, if they were simply slow at leaving, they'd just wait until they manage to do so. Obviously.
11:18 I can see you are no longer explicitly doing this; but by your tone it's implicit. You're saying that because people falsely accuse people of these things it's always wrong to use as a justification. The Rwandans would not have been wrong to use pesticide in their land, the problem was that the people weren't cockroaches.
11:23 Again, this criticism doesn't follow from what WLC actually said here. Ok based on what WLC said elsewhere it was justified to destroy the Canaanites based purely on their evil with no outside context, but only because God explicitly said so, which was not the case in the Rwandan Genocide. For those with a more nuanced perspective, the moral inadequacy of the Canaanites is only relevant because a) they could influence the Israelites to do the same (as they did not have the Holy Spirit protecting the from corruption), b) it was critically important the Israelites became uncorrupted because they performed the sacrifices for the world's sin and would be the ancestors of the coming messiah and c) scripture would be written to use the Canaanites as examples against such sins. None of these apply to the Rwandans either (well, a might; but that is irrelevant without b).
One final thing which you don't really touch on (maybe you will later), is that your justification for opposing this is exclusively your moral compass (which WLC basically dismisses out of hand). I would not simply dismiss your (and my) moral compass, while it can make mistakes when it's signalling something this strongly it's worth listening to. But what it is signalling is that is is wrong to do so today (and God would not command it today). If you lived in the time of Joshua your moral compass would not be against it (or at least, not so strongly), because Jesus and the Spirit hadn't come yet and the canon was still open. So presumably, if we both lived in the time of Joshua, we would both be on the same page.
God Almighty said:
*Because of that We ordained for the Children of Isr*el that
if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and)
to spread mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed all mankind,
and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind.
And indeed, there came to them Our Messengers with clear proofs,
evidences, and signs, even then after that many of them continued to
exceed the limits (e.g. by doing oppression unjustly and exceeding beyond
the limits set by Allah by committing the major sins) in the land!.*
(Quran)
Couldn’t make it past point one without a caricature. Bummer. Nice try though, 🤷🏽.
A thought provoking question you may wish to meditate upon: Was it wrong for God to pronounce, and carry out, judgement upon all the people in all the cities/lands of Sodom and Gomorrah?
it's only 'thought provoking' to people who think their own dogma is more important than holding a decent moral standard.
Yes, mass murder is wrong - whoever the victims are, and whatever it is claimed they have done.
Notice that God saved Lot - the person who wanted to let his own daughters suffer what some people might say is a fate worse than death.
To be clear - you're the caricature here.
@@bengreen171
It looks like you want your own dogma to be correct. You argument applies to yourself. Talk about a caricature 🤡
@@eew8060
I'm an atheist. Tell me something I got wrong. My only 'dogma' is that I take scholarship over blind faith.
@@bengreen171
Christians don't have "blind faith". That's another thing you have wrong. You're strawmanning the Christian position. "Blind faith" is like saying square circle. Faith isn't blind. Get your facts right
@@bengreen171are you trying to be ironic? Who determines what is right or wrong? Is there an objective measure or is it just a matter of opinion
Liberal woke reasoning
Lol what? 🗿
infants can offer resistance? must be in his new age, new English KJV bible. Mine does not say that. Then again, what does it not matter what it says, since you can add or omit what you want, and interpret it in any way shape or form. Intellectual pride at its finest.
Children, not infants. Randal explicit gave the example of a five year old throwing rocks at a tank. There are plenty of examples of young children aping the actions of their elders in rioting and rebellion across many times and countries. And if five is too young to be believable, make it seven or either instead.
Randal, have you ever made videos on why you believe in God or even good reasons to believe there is such a being and what are your thoughts on the Shroud of Turin?
The shroud has been clearly demonstrated to have nothing to do with the historical Jesus.
But in terms of the other question, I’d be very interested in learning what allows Randal to keep his faith.
@AaronGardner98 what evidence do you have that it doesn't? Science knows its not a forgery or how it was made
@@AaronGardner98 Are you talking about the old carbon dating that was just debunked?
@@SquekretGenius420 It hasn't been "just debunked". True believers in the Shroud continue to throw everything they can think of at the wall in an attempt to cast shade on the original carbon dating. None of has been taken seriously by the wider carbon dating community.
The most recent paper published doesn't even claim to debunk the original measurements, it simply states that (in their opinion) there's enough doubt to warrant another round of testing. Of course, the True Believers immediately claimed victory. It's what they do.
Carbon dating has come a long way in the last 40 years, and I doubt anyone would be averse to another round of testing. As the recent papers says, they would need a lot smaller sample of material this time around, so the risk of damage to the Shroud is minimal.
The only problem is that the Vatican has refused to give permission for more testing, so if you want to get mad at anyone, get mad at them, since there is no real excuse for them to prevent more testing. Of course, it could be that the scholars at the Vatican already know that it would confirm the previous findings that it was a Medieval fake, since they already have all the contemporary documentary evidence they need to know it's a forgery.
And be honest, if they ran more tests and came up with the exact same Medieval dates for the new samples, would it make any difference to your conviction that the Shroud really did wrap Jesus's body after his crucifixion?
@@EnglishMike So, you think the recent X-ray study is incorrect?
I have no objection to it being tested again. If it's fake, then it's fake.
I'm not sure why you think I'm a true believer just for asking one question: 'Are you talking about the old carbon dating that was just debunked?'
Perhaps I should not have said debunked maybe that set you off, but I'm not sure why you think I would be 'mad' at anyone.
It is not about Willian Lane Craig, but the fact that today we have 1900 years of Christianity and are altogether self righteous about the morality or a moral belief of the pre Christian Era. And yet somehow today, I perceive that this channel would support a woman's pro choice to abortion. somehow there is more indignation for God's right to do what He commands with what is His than for us to have destroyed 60+ human beings for the so called "rights of women." This channel makes me think of the following scripture:
Job 40:8
_"Will you really nullify My judgment? Will you condemn Me so that you may be justified?"_ - God speaking.
You dismiss child killing ex utero even as you condemn it in utero. Your moral incoherence is staggering.
@@Randal_Rauser You are mistaken. I am not injecting any of my own morality. I am a Christian. I have no morality of my own. In Christ Jesus, God is my righteousness. I am not "dismissing" or making any reference to the death of children under the reality of war, except in the rarest of historical events. To be specific, God, literally commanding the ancient army of Israel. BTAIM, We are all under the judgment of death. And as such, the timing of the carrying out of that sentence, is only within the right of God's choosing, be it a miscarriage, childhood, young adult or aged death. We will all drink from the cup of Adam's sin. Abortion is not about war, it is premeditated in peace time according to our choosing. God, in the ancient past, condemned those in whom the iniquity of the Amorite was complete via war. God, throughout scripture, condemns the killing of children under the convenience or under the worshiping of the creature in peace time. You seem to forget who God is and therefore to you, I seem incoherent and therefore to you it would seem that God is incoherent. But He is not, He is God.
@@RobSed55 you mean the Christ Jesus who said to forgive not 7x but 70x7, and love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you?
Your view absolutely is morally incoherent. You should watch Randal discussing this topic with the New Evangelicals, they go into cases of mothers who've heard voices and k*ll*d their own children b/c they thought God was telling them to. There are also many christians today who think they're hearing directly from God all the time, many of whom are very politically involved (e.g. the 'prophets' in the New Apostolic Reformation movement). If Divine Command Theory is correct, who's to argue with them if they carry out vi0lence b/c they believe it's what God demands? There is no moral or ethical ground to stand on in your view.
@@RobSed55your argument essentially boils down to: “A book that I ascribe meaning to told me that killing infants is okay, as long as the God character in this book is the one to order it.”
So…what if God ordered you to kill an infant? Would you do it? I mean, for any reason?
I wouldn’t. Period. I would sooner fight with God, wrestle with God, and argue with God than butcher an infant. If you’re being intellectually and morally honest, you too could acknowledge that there are limits to what you would do, even if God commanded you to do it. There are things that we simply *know* that God would never command us to do.
@@RobSed55 _"I have no morality of my own"_
Of course you do. You don't know the mind of God. You don't have a perfect interpretation of the Bible. Your morality is necessarily colored by your experiences, your instincts, your choices, your thought, and your emotions. Do you love all your enemies and turn the other cheek and carry their load twice as far as they demand, as Jesus commands?
Not to defend Craig per se - certainly not to defend murder - but consider:
"But before they went to bed, the men of the city beset the house, both young and old, all the people together.
And they called Lot, and said to him: Where are the men that came in to thee at night? bring them out hither, that we may know them:
Lot went out to them, and shut the door after him, and said:
Do not so, I beseech you, my brethren, do not commit this evil.
I have two daughters who, as yet, have not known man; I will bring them out to you, and abuse you them as it shall please you, so that you do no evil to these men, because they are come in under the shadow of my roof.
But they said: Get thee back thither. And again: Thou camest in, said they, as a stranger, was it to be a judge? therefore we will afflict thee more than them. And they pressed very violently upon Lot: and they were even at the point of breaking open the doors." (Gen. 19:4-9)
Would this behavior and state of civilization justify God's use of violent forces to utterly destroy that civilization or not?
EDIT: Consider also how the violent punishment of the sword is not withheld from Israel by Israel:
"And when Moses saw that the people were naked, (for Aaron had stripped them by occasion of the shame of the filth, and had set them naked among their enemies)
Then standing in the gate of the camp, he said: If any man be on the Lord's side, let him join with me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him:
And he said to them: Thus saith the Lord God of Israel: Put every man his sword upon his thigh: go, and return from gate to gate through the midst of the camp, and let every man kill his brother, and friend, and neighbour.
And the sons of Levi did according to the words of Moses, and there were slain that day about three and twenty thousand men.
And Moses said: You have consecrated your hands this day to the Lord, every man in his son and in his brother, that a blessing may be given to you." (Exod. 32:25-29)
It's not a believable story, but even so destroying an entire civilization because of the actions of the men sounds unjust. Is He unable to punish wrongdoers directly and in accordance to their own crimes?
@@goldenalt3166wouldn’t God know Man’s hearts that perhaps all were like this except for those who were specifically told to leave? Why is that not an obvious 3rd option?
@@javierclement3047 God clearly thinks no man's heart is worthy of life, so that's not helpful. And you're still killing woman, babies, and animals for the "men's hearts".
Why is God so weak that he needs to commit genocide? Ever.
And even if he did, it's a horrible idea to teach to human followers.
There were some rabbis at the time of Jesus who raised the very valid question "if Lot is so righteous what is he doing in Sodom?" When the angels arrive he is sitting at the gate, which would suggest he was acting as a guardian of it, so he appears pretty integrated into Sodomite society. So they believed that Lot's survival was basically a favor to Abraham not due to any virtue on Lot's part.
@@goldenalt3166 That's exactly what He did:
"And they said to Lot: Hast thou here any of thine? son in law, or sons, or daughters, all that are thine bring them out of this city:
For we will destroy this place, because their cry is grown loud before the Lord, who hath sent us to destroy them.
So Lot went out, and spoke to his sons in law that were to have his daughters, and said: Arise: get you out of this place, because the Lord will destroy this city. And he seemed to them to speak as it were in jest.
And when it was morning, the angels pressed him, saying: Arise, take thy wife, and the two daughters that thou hast: lest thou also perish in the wickedness of the city.
And as he lingered, they took his hand, and the hand of his wife, and of his two daughters, because the Lord spared him." (Gen. 19:12-16)
I hope Craig gives you what you chased Ortlund for:
a tiny bit of attention to refute your silly arguments. Unfortunately he probably won't, since Runaway Randal won't face EEW challenging his positions. And I'm nobody. Yet he flees 😅😅
You have not advanced one thing to suggest that the arguments of this creator are wrong
Please tell us how it’s morally correct for God to command genocide?
it's so amusing that you seem to have no idea how the UA-cam ecosystem works. Even William Lane Craig does response videos, and do you really think he continues to interact with every UA-camr out there who responses to his responses? Childish name calling should be beneath you, but sadly, it appears not to be.
@@EnglishMike It is not childish name calling. It is showing disdain for a repugnant idea.
@@tomfrombrunswick7571
I didn't intend to