Jeremiah 13 v 14, Greg Boyd versus Steve Gregg and others

[Ian]

On this theme I found this good:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=en ... 37SbE&NR=1


The script runs a bit slow for faster than very slow readers but still worth viewing. Craig`s view is clearly very similar to Steve`s (not Greg`s!).

[dwilkins]

Craig's response seems a bit silly on a couple of points. If God was doing the kids of the Canaanites a favor by killing them (so they could go to heaven), then I think you could easily say the same thing today about American black urban abortions....but, I doubt we'd go along with it.

Doug

[Ian]

Doug wrote:

Craig's response seems a bit silly on a couple of points. If God was doing the kids of the Canaanites a favor by killing them (so they could go to heaven), then I think you could easily say the same thing today about American black urban abortions....but, I doubt we'd go along with it.

You`ve written that you think Boyd is wrong on this, but now you`re pointing out weaknesses in the opposing, more traditional view. Do you have a third position that fits better than either of these two? Thanks.

[dwilkins]

Doug wrote:

Craig's response seems a bit silly on a couple of points. If God was doing the kids of the Canaanites a favor by killing them (so they could go to heaven), then I think you could easily say the same thing today about American black urban abortions....but, I doubt we'd go along with it.

You`ve written that you think Boyd is wrong on this, but now you`re pointing out weaknesses in the opposing, more traditional view. Do you have a third position that fits better than either of these two? Thanks.

I don't know that Craig's position is the more traditional view. In summary, he's saying that the people who were to be eradicated were highly sinful (that part is stipulated to by everyone as far as know), and that God was simply trying to cleanse the land (as far as I can tell, literally ethnically cleanse). The laughable parts of Craig's explanation were that 1) We don't have any record of any women or children actually being killed, 2) if the children were killed God was doing them a favor because now they get to go to heaven, 3) the people in the land could always flee if they wanted to (the Israelites wouldn't pursue), 4) and this was a one time deal, so we shouldn't think that God would allow it again. I feel like I've forgotten one of his main points, but he at least said this much. I don't find any of those four point persuasive and don't blame Dawkins for laughing at them.

Boyd's old position was that God is pure love, so whatever he told them to do, he was basing his advice on an expression of love. He admits in the video provided that after writing for years and trying to bend (and eventually break) scripture to make it fit his theory he eventually gave up and tried a new one. The new one, as far as I can tell, is sort of like Calvin's "baby talk" theory of God's communication with us. That is, God talks to us in our language even though it's not what he really means. So, he is only using violent language throughout the Bible because that's all the people seem to be able to identify with. I don't think this approach is going to be very coherent either. I appreciate that he's willing to walk away from probably 1,000 pages of rough manuscript (that's brave on his part), but I think his struggle identifies a basic flaw in his conception of God.

In my opinion, the problem is confusing the essence and attributes of God. If you combine them, so that his essence is his list of attributes, and then promote love to the top of the attributes (as I think Boyd has basically done) you can't explain a good deal of scripture. Instead, I suggest having his attributes represent his personality just like humans have a personality. His essence would then be a layer above this. We are not controlled by any one part of our attributes. They are each relevant in a given situation. In the case of Canaanites, God was mad at them for being evil (just like he's happy with people who do good). He decided to wipe them out because their hearts were so hard that they couldn't simply be converted. I think he repeats this modus operandi throughout human history. He will only let a given civilization go on for so long before it has to be broken up because the culture of that civilization is such that people inside of it can't be reached by him. Just like Assyria, Babylon, and Rome did in fact kill women and children as an expression of the wrath of God against the evil Israelite nations they were fighting, he used the Israelites to do the same to the locals when they moved into the land (Though Craig thinks that the Canaanite destruction was a one time event, he admits that these other three are Biblical precedent as well). There is no point in sugar coating it. This is the MO of God. Of course, he also sends the likes of Jonah ahead of time. But, when that fails, and the culture of the nation is such that the destiny of the children in it is to be regularly sodomized and/or cooked and eaten by their parents, it's time to hit the reset button.

The sugar coating is the problem. Rational people can spot an attempt to minimize reality a mile away, which is why Dawkins is so upset that they'd let Craig get away with his presentation.

Doug

[dwilkins]

I finally remembered at least one of Craig's points that I accidentally left out. He claimed that since God can decide when it's time for each person to die then it's not out of bounds for him to kill (or have killed) anyone at any time that he pleases. I'm more comfortable with this argument then some of the others, but I wouldn't expect it to be useful in any way against someone who doesn't believe in God (or, for that matter, to encourage someone to believe in God). I think it would be worth adding a pinch of anthropology, where everyone's destiny is from dust to dust, but I don't think this argument is inherently incorrect.

Doug