Originally posted by VoidSpirit
Deu 6:14-15 "You shall not follow other gods, any of the gods of the peoples who surround you, for the LORD your God in the midst of you is a jealous God; otherwise the anger of the LORD your God will be kindled against you, and He will wipe you off the face of the earth.

nah, he's jealous and proud of it. dawkins got it right.
i would actually call it insanely jealous; there is definite fatal attraction there.

No he hasn't, the context of the verse states that its exclusive devotion that God
demands, Dawkins is a rabid bigot, he fails to remain objective,

According to Biblical usage, “jealousy” may be a positive or a negative quality or
emotion. (Pr 14:30; Zec 1:14) The Hebrew noun 'qinah', variously means “insistence on
exclusive devotion; toleration of no rivalry; zeal; ardor; jealousy [righteous or sinful];
envying.” The Greek zelos has a similar meaning.—2Co 11:2; 12:20.

Clearly Dawkins has not the slightest idea of anything Biblical and like all critics of
scripture his position is one of ignorance.

Originally posted by Pianoman1
"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"

Wow ...[text shortened]... ve disposition.

Excellent stuff!! (gues I'll just sit and wait for all the thumbs down!)

William Lane Craig answers Richard Dawkins "apologist of genocide" charge:

YouTube&feature=related

Atheist calls Dawkins a coward:

YouTube&feature=related

Originally posted by jaywill
William Lane Craig answers Richard Dawkins "apologist of genocide" charge:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmodkyJvhFo&feature=related

Atheist calls Dawkins a coward:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC1xgS1XGSg&feature=related

I dont think the statement that the children who were killed were recipients of a
greater good will stand, the statement seems offensive not only from a natural
perspective but Biblical. Hmmm, he also states that there is nothing in the narrative
to suggest that any women or children were killed (09:11) , this is simply not true,

(Joshua 6:20-21) . . .Then the people shouted, when they proceeded to blow the
horns. And it came about that as soon as the people heard the sound of the horn
and the people began to shout a great war cry, then the wall began to fall down flat.
After that the people went up into the city, each one straight before him, and
captured the city.  And they went devoting all that was in the city, from man to
woman, from young man to old man and to bull and sheep and ass, to destruction
by the edge of the sword.

(Joshua 10:28) . . .And Joshua captured Makkedah on that day and went striking it
with the edge of the sword. As for its king, he devoted him and every soul that was
in it to destruction. He let no survivor remain. So he did to the king of Makkedah
just as he had done to the king of Jericho.

Originally posted by JS357
I sometimes wonder why there is such conflict over the idea of God. Maybe there is something wrong with the thought that the idea of God can be truly shared. Sometimes I think that if we dig deep enough into the God-ideas of any two people we will find relative heresy -- a point on which they differ fundamentally. Of course now Black Beetle has me thinking abo ...[text shortened]... stence? Are the differences illusions? What words fit best? Maybe BB will see this and chime in.

It seems to me that a sentient being (ie a person), as a self-measuring conscious system, self-organises its reality so that it creates (out of its own subjective perspective) a specific and observable reality in a self-consistent way according to its nature; and then chooses how to proceed in its environment according to its will.
So, eager to come up with a unified theory of reality (in our case: the concept of G-d, G-d as the ultimate reality and the ground of all being and beings etc) from a mind-only field of possibilities, the consciousness of a person “chooses” one “actual proposition” out of the possible many, an “actual proposition” that is considered by this person “true”. Different persons, different concepts of G-d;
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
It seems to me that a sentient being (ie a person), as a self-measuring conscious system, self-organises its reality so that it creates (out of its own subjective perspective) a specific and observable reality in a self-consistent way according to its nature; and then chooses how to proceed in its environment according to its will.
So, eager to come up ...[text shortened]... ion” that is considered by this person “true”. Different persons, different concepts of G-d;
😵

The conflict must arise due to something that urges us to take the position that our chosen proposition(s) about this G-d are "true" in a sense that we (or more accurately other people) can be wrong about them and need, at any cost to them, to be corrected. Otherwise it would be like tomato-tomahto.

I think that once the propositions about G-d are put to mundane use, they can pose dangers. Like identification of who is "in" and who is "out." I can imagine the fear a closeted Jewish person had in the middle ages when asked by the Inquisition to recite a Christian creed, a specifically worded set of propositions about God, from memory, to prove his conversion was sincere.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes but again this is simply a one sided portrayal, what about the Gibeonites, they
came to Israel under the guise of being far away and were accepted, infact, their
descendants came to be workers at the temple in Solomon's time.

The Gibeonites deceived Israel. They were grudgingly 'accepted' because a treaty had already been made. Nevertheless, they were forced into slavery to Israel.

But this is really beside the point. It's like defending a murderer by pointing out other instances in which he chose not to murder. Maybe in some cases he settles for beating the crap out of potential victim, or lets the victim escape. None of this exculpates him for the murders he actually committed.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I dont think the statement that the children who were killed were recipients of a
greater good will stand, the statement seems offensive not only from a natural
perspective but Biblical. Hmmm, he also states that there is nothing in the narrative
to suggest that any women or children were killed (09:11) , this is simply not true,

(Joshua 6 ...[text shortened]... survivor remain. So he did to the king of Makkedah
just as he had done to the king of Jericho.

I am not totally endorsing all of Craig's explanations there.
I am undecided about a detail here and there.

But generally he greatly neutralizes Dawkins' claim of genocide.

Originally posted by jaywill
I am not totally endorsing all of Craig's explanations there.
I am undecided about a detail here and there.

But generally he greatly neutralizes Dawkins' claim of genocide.

i found his speech rather uncomfortable to watch. some of the language he used to describe the caananites and gods feelings towards them reminded me of the way the nazi's spoke of jews. how can you call a whole race of people evil? is it possible for an entire race to be evil? is there any other example of it? the constant use of the word evil bothers me, what exactly does god class as evil?
also he states they only died because they didnt run away, so these 'evil' people that god thinks are so bad he is happy to see the dead can go and live somewhere else!!!! god doesnt care whos land they move into and probably kill or corrupt as long as they are not in his patch. not great morals there god.
his speech made god sound like a nasty, petty, racist.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
The Gibeonites deceived Israel. They were grudgingly 'accepted' because a treaty had already been made. Nevertheless, they were forced into slavery to Israel.

But this is really beside the point. It's like defending a murderer by pointing out other instances in which he chose not to murder. Maybe in some cases he settles for beating the crap out of po ...[text shortened]... or lets the victim escape. None of this exculpates him for the murders he actually committed.

Yes but Joshua held true to his word, he could not go back even though they were
deceived, this is hardly a genocidal maniac without principle is it?

Originally posted by jaywill
I am not totally endorsing all of Craig's explanations there.
I am undecided about a detail here and there.

But generally he greatly neutralizes Dawkins' claim of genocide.

sure thing, i must admit freely that if there is really any part of scripture that i have a
crisis of conscience over, its the conquest of Canaan. Sure we can justify it in terms of
divine judgement because of the iniquity of the Canaanites, or that the mandate was
simply to drive them out, but it stills rests a little uneasy.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Yes but Joshua held true to his word, he could not go back even though they were
deceived, this is hardly a genocidal maniac without principle is it?

I'm still having a hard time understanding how this one incident somehow neutralizes all the other genocide they committed.

Originally posted by jaywill
William Lane Craig answers Richard Dawkins "apologist of genocide" charge:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmodkyJvhFo&feature=related

Atheist calls Dawkins a coward:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC1xgS1XGSg&feature=related

I watched this and really it is nothing I have not heard before. I'd like to respond to a few things WLC said.

God was destroying these Canaanite petty kingdoms as nation-states.

Here's the definition of the word genocide:
noun
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

Craig makes the point that there was no command to hunt down the Canaanites or kill them all off, but only to kill those who remained 'behind'. But this has no relevance to what actually happened: the killing of entire nations. It's like saying that no Jews would have been killed in the Holocaust if they had just fled Germany once the Nazis took power.

Sorry WLC, but that's still genocide.

In fact, there is nothing in the narrative to suggest that ANY women or children were killed. There is no narrative whatsoever that says that anybody other than combatants were killed in this cleansing of the land.

Ummm...here's what happened to Jericho.

21 They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.
(my emphasis)

Is WLC reading the same Bible I'm reading here?? "Only combatants were killed"?? Yeah. Because infants, cattle, sheep and donkeys sure sound like dangerous 'combatants' to me. 🙄

But it gets worse...he goes on to say that children WERE in fact killed [blatantly contradicting his earlier statement 😲] and that God was actually doing them a FAVOR by 'saving' them - giving them eternal life in heaven. This is all justified by Divine Command Morality [which is a crock, excuse me for saying].

I didn't finish the whole thing. I had had enough. 🙂

Edit: I see robbie beat me to it. 🙂

Edit2: and stellspalfie. 😛

I guess great minds think alike. 😀

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I watched this and really it is nothing I have not heard before. I'd like to respond to a few things WLC said.

God was destroying these Canaanite petty kingdoms as nation-states.

Here's the definition of the word genocide:
noun
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a [b]national, racial, political, or cultural group.
...[text shortened]... e to it. 🙂

Edit2: and stellspalfie. 😛

I guess great minds think alike. 😀[/b]

Or if you want a s*** ton of WLC deconstruction see the freethought blogs FTB...

Small selection below....

http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2011/10/27/from-the-archives-how-religion-contorts-moralit/

http://freethoughtblogs.com/alethianworldview/2011/11/03/craig-digs-in/

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/08/07/live-by-the-science-die-by-the-science/

http://freethoughtblogs.com/alethianworldview/2011/12/11/god-vs-suffering/

http://freethoughtblogs.com/alethianworldview/2012/01/22/eyewitness/

http://freethoughtblogs.com/hallq/2012/02/02/the-creepy-delusions-of-william-lane-craig/

http://freethoughtblogs.com/hallq/2012/02/26/from-the-archives-how-william-lane-craig-misleads-his-followers/

Originally posted by jaywill
I am not totally endorsing all of Craig's explanations there.
I am undecided about a detail here and there.

But generally he greatly neutralizes Dawkins' claim of genocide.

no, he does nothing of the sort. he tries to explain it away, but gets an F on scriptural knowledge.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No he hasn't, the context of the verse states that its exclusive devotion that God
demands, Dawkins is a rabid bigot, he fails to remain objective,

According to Biblical usage, “jealousy” may be a positive or a negative quality or
emotion. (Pr 14:30; Zec 1:14) The Hebrew noun 'qinah', variously means “insistence on
exclusive devotion; tole ...[text shortened]... ea of anything Biblical and like all critics of
scripture his position is one of ignorance.

i think you're just showing an ignorance of definition here.

jealous:
a : intolerant of rivalry or unfaithfulness b : disposed to suspect rivalry or unfaithfulness
2
: hostile toward a rival or one believed to enjoy an advantage

biblegod certainly is jealous, he proclaims it and he's proud of it.