Originally Posted by emailestthoume


Dr. Craig has defended his divine command morality in print, and in depth. I doubt he made such a simple mistake. I believe he has also successfully refuted Euthyphro's dilemma in other places. (using arguments of his own or others I am unsure) Furthermore, if I remember correctly, almost his entire speech about the destruction of the Canaanites had to do with the historical evidence about it, where he argued that what happened was indeed not genocide at all in the first place.

I would encourage everyone to watch it themselves and make up their own mind. It is dealt with towards the end in the question and answer section.

Originally Posted by expsredemption


What is the probability that you will EVER be convinced that the situation with the Canaanites was a moral situation?

Originally Posted by expsredemption

To me it seems that you are caught up on the term "genocide" as necessarily bad.  If the whole group is bad... and they are killed for that immoral nature... it can be just punishment AND genocide at the same time.

Originally Posted by expsredemption

Definition of Genocide:
"the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group." (www.dictionary.com)

If the whole national, racial, political, or cultural group is deserving of a penalty... it does not become undeserving just because the whole is punished, as they merited such punishment.

Originally Posted by expsredemption

Is you fixation on the word genocide? Or is your fixation that what happened with the Canaanites (even if not genocide) cannot ever be considered moral?

Originally Posted by Sandspirit

Quote:

If the whole national, racial, political, or cultural group is deserving of a penalty... it does not become undeserving just because the whole is punished, as they merited such punishment.

This was Hitler's view too.

How many of you, if you really reflect and think, feel comfortable with this statement? 

Originally Posted by expsredemption


You brought up the idea of collective punishment which is understandable.  From the human perspective collective punishment is a bad idea because we (as finite humans) cannot know whether a population really merits a collective punishment.

Originally Posted by expsredemption

I do see that you seem to acknowledge that punishment is, at least, sometimes personally merited.  So punishment in and of itself is not the issue.

Originally Posted by expsredemption

You stated that Genocide is a big issue with you.  It is a big issue for me as well.  However, I made my statement about some whole group meriting punishment in order to show that there can be cases where what looks like genocide is, in fact, merited punishment.

If a whole distinguished group merits the punishment... should the punishment not be enacted simply because it would punish the whole group (even though the punishment was merited)?

Originally Posted by expsredemption

There can be instances when a situation is merited punishment and yet we don't see or understand how it is merited... so we call it genocide.   This is not to make a case for a human to be able to make the decision as to whether the punishment of a whole group is merited.   This is to say that in a world where there is two perspectives, God's and man's, man may not always fully understand or see why God took some form of action.

Originally Posted by expsredemption

If the situation with the Canaanites were simply a decision made by a human being, I would be more than willing to call it Genocide and view it as a negative.   A human being is not in the position to make the decision of whether something like that is merited or unmerited.

If the situation involved a being such as God, the situation changes dramatically.  God does have a better position to acknowledge whether the punishment of the whole group is merited.  God would also have the ability to act upon that acknowledgment that the punishment is merited.   If the punishment is merited and deserved, it is not necessarily genocide as we commonly mean it.  Sure the whole group was effected fitting the definition but the pejorative nature would not be there as the punishment was merited and deserved.

Originally Posted by expsredemption

You brought up the concept of their land being taken away.  If there is a being such as God, is the land really the Canaanites?  Or are they just "tenants" of sorts?

Originally Posted by expsredemption

I don't know if you are doing this or not, but often times I see people trying to see things from the perspective of a being like God existing but actually continuing to view things from the human perspective with a being like God not existing.  Viewing out of context.

I would say that if there is a being like God (you know what context in which we are speaking) that a situation like the Canaanite situation can be merited and acted upon and not be immoral.  This of course is so long as God is the one making the decision rather than a man (who is not in the position to make this kind of decision).

Originally Posted by expsredemption

I would also state that if the situation is that a being like God exists, what you might call genocide subjectively in this case (in the pejorative negative sense) is not genocide objectively, rather an appropriate punishment for acts that merited such punishment (no matter how many people are being punished, even if they are a whole culture, it is not immoral if they merited such a punishment.)

Originally Posted by expsredemption

But lets look at the situation with the Canaanites. 
Is there a being such as God involved in the context? Yes

Originally Posted by expsredemption

Does God make the decision or does man make the decision? God

Originally Posted by expsredemption

Does God really kill all the people in the land? No

Originally Posted by expsredemption

Does it really call for all the people in the land to be killed? Not necessarily (this is something much bigger than what can be handled in the forum setting with here and there responses).

Originally Posted by expsredemption

Is the punishment merited? It can be. God seems to think so.  Man may not, but man does not have all the information either.

Originally Posted by expsredemption

Was this land objectively the land of the Canaanites in the context that a being such as God exists? No.

Originally Posted by expsredemption

Don't get me wrong, this is a tough situation to deal with even with a being such as God existing.  I don't intend to present the case more lightly than it should.  I simply don't know if there will be much movement on the topic in this format as people post here and there, and each small aspect of the posters statements are extensively discussed... the discussion tends to simply get larger rather than more narrowed.

Originally Posted by expsredemption

Looking forward to your thoughts.  I am really trying to get a good picture of where you stand and why.  It is much easier to discuss a topic when you know exactly where the other individual stands.

Originally Posted by expsredemption

I stand in a position where a being such as God is possible.  I also understand that if such a being as God existed and acted in the context given in the OT I would be held accountable by such a being.  Whether I liked that being the case or not would not matter as that would be the case and the frame of reference in which I would have to function.   Would I be mad if I were to be punished similar to the Canaanites?  Probably.  Does that mean I am justified to be angry... not necessarily.

Originally Posted by expsredemption

When I got a speeding ticket, I was furious that I got the ticket.  Was I speeding? Yes.  Did I deserve the ticket? Yes.  Did I know this? Yes.  Did I like it? No.  Why didn't I like it?  I felt there were other people who deserved a ticket as well.  Even if it was true that other people deserved a ticket as well, it does not change the fact that I deserved a ticket myself.  We don't always like the situations we find ourselves in, but that is not an indication that they are unfair, unmerited, or wrong.