Randal Rauser's Blog, page 32

The Shocking Violence of Greg Boyd’s “Non-Violent” God

Greg Boyd’s book “The Crucifixion of the Warrior God” has been widely praised for offering a provocative non-violent account of biblical violence. But a closer look reveals the book actually attributes surprisingly violent actions and intentions to God.

?

The post The Shocking Violence of Greg Boyd’s “Non-Violent” God appeared first on Randal Rauser.

William Lane Craig’s Failed Defense of the Canaanite Conquest

In this video, I offer a critique of William Lane Craig’s recent defense of the Canaanite conquest which amounts to a failed attempt to defend ethnic cleansing and genocide.

?

The post William Lane Craig’s Failed Defense of the Canaanite Conquest appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Paul Copan and Matthew Flannagan Don’t Want to Debate Me. But if They Did, I’d Ask Them This

Paul Copan and Matthew Flannagan offer extensive critiques of my views in their book Did God Really Command Genocide? In turn, I devoted most of a chapter on what I called “The Just War Interpreters” to an extensive critique of their ‘kinder, gentler’ interpretation of the Canaanite genocide by demonstrating that it collapses into ethnic cleansing and genocide. In other words, their attempt to align the text more closely with our moral intuitions is, in my view, an utter failure.

Needless to say, I was interested in debating Copan or Flannagan. So a popular YouTuber reached out to Flannagan in late April. He agreed to debate and so I sent him an e-copy of Jesus Loves Canaanites. Flannagan has not responded in months so it is now a safe bet that he is not, in fact, going to debate.

In early May, another popular YouTuber reached out to Paul Copan asking him to debate. His reply was that he was too busy. To be sure, a debate would only take an hour or two and I would be happy to accommodate Copan’s schedule. So I was disappointed by that unequivocal no.

To sum up, it would appear that neither Copan nor Flannagan is willing to debate me on the central thesis of their book. They claim that God didn’t command genocide but I argue that on their reading of Deuteronomy and Joshua, God did command genocide. So I’m left with this. What would I ask Copan or Flannagan if they did debate me? In this article, I will highlight a question I want to ask them. But first I need to provide a bit of set-up.

Copan and Flannagan as Genocide Apologists

A central piece of Copan and Flannagan’s argument is that God’s primary directive was to drive Canaanites out of the land (which, I point out, is ethnic cleansing). The mass killing was only intended for anybody remaining behind who happened to be caught by the advancing Israelite armies. Furthermore, that practice of mass killing was primarily (though not exclusively) focused on the ‘cities’ like Jericho and Ai. But this brings us to a key claim: Copan and Flannagan argue that we ought to view these settlements as closer to military forts than civilian centers. And so, the mass killing was primarily limited to forts while the civilian population was driven out of the land.

Or so say Copan and Flannagan.

One problem with this claim is that ‘forts’ are not just military targets: they are also civilian centers of commerce and life. And this is clear in Joshua. In Joshua 6:21 we read, “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.” Call them ‘military outposts’ if you like: they were still civilian settlements that included children, the elderly, and women. And all these individuals were butchered (cf. Joshua 8:24-5).

Now put this into our contemporary context. Imagine that you read today of one cultural, national, religious group (the Mora people) invading a territory in Sub-Saharan Africa that has been settled by another group (the Bora people) for centuries. The Mora people attack Bora settlements which include soldiers, merchants, women, children, and the elderly and they slaughter all the people within those settlements. They also slaughter their animals and destroy all the signs of the Bora people’s distinctive cultural identity markers and religious practices (cf. Deut. 7:5). After that, they burn the entire settlements to the ground. The Mora armies then advance over the land, driving out and slaughtering all the remaining Bora people living in the countryside.

Those actions would constitute ethnic cleansing, no doubt. But it is also clear that they would meet the UN Definition of Genocide:

Article II

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

Killing members of the group;Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Now, all we need to do is switch out Mora/Bora and modern Africa with Israelite/Canaanite and ancient Canaan. Clearly, the same judgment would apply. Even on their kinder, gentler reading, Copan and Flannagan’s account is still genocide. And that makes them de facto genocide apologists.

What About the Less Mobile Inhabitants?

And now, finally, we get to what I would really like to ask Copan and Flannagan.

On page 89 of Did God Really Command Genocide? they are addressing the armies advancing while the Canaanites flee for their lives. Within that context, they quote Kenneth Kitchen: “as in the south, the Hebrew force defeated the opposition; captured their towns, killed rulers and less mobile inhabitants . . . .” So I would ask Copan and Flannagan to tell me more about these “less mobile inhabitants” that are captured and slaughtered by the Israelites.

Since we don’t have Copan or Flannagan to answer, I’ll be happy to offer an account. “Less mobile inhabitants” is a gentler way of saying orphaned toddlers and handicapped children and anguished mothers carrying two infants and feeble elders and the poor generally who lacked animals/livestock that they could ride and use to carry their possessions. Those are the rural less mobile inhabitants that are hacked apart with the swords and impaled on the spears of the advancing Israelite soldiers: this crying toddler is bludgeoned with a large rock; that weeping mother is beheaded, her head rolling into the dust beside her screaming child; this elderly widow is run through the abdomen with a spear; that handicapped man is stomped to death as he tries to crawl away.

That’s the fate of the less mobile inhabitants, the ones that Copan and Flannagan choose to mention only in passing.

Let’s sum up. On Copan and Flannagan’s view, the Israelites do the following:

indiscriminately slaughter all the soldiers and civilians (men and women, young and old) within the cities/forts;drive out the mobile (and presumably wealthier, younger, and more powerful) rural populations, allowing them to reestablish their Canaanite religious and cultural practices elsewhere;indiscriminately slaughter the remaining less mobile populations including orphaned toddlers, handicapped children, anguished mothers carrying two infants, feeble elders, and the poor.

Okay, I said I had one question I wanted to ask them, but actually, here’s a second: how can you claim that God commanded the Israelites to engage in the indiscriminate slaughter of a group that would include orphaned toddlers, handicapped children, anguished mothers carrying two infants, feeble elders, and the poor?

And while we’re at it, here’s a third question: How can you seriously claim that the commission of such obvious moral atrocities would be deemed necessary to, of all things, maintain the spiritual purity of the Israelites? Isn’t that equivalent to proposing rape as a means to maintain chastity? In short, it’s a contradiction in terms.

And here’s a fourth question: How can you reconcile this all with the life and teaching of Jesus?

And here’s a fifth question: How can you reconcile this with the most basic deliverances of moral knowledge?

And a sixth question: If you believe God commanded such moral atrocities in the past, how can you be sure that he might not command them again in the future?

Okay, it turns out that I would want to ask more than one question. Which makes it all the more unfortunate that Copan and Flannagan have declined to debate me.

I do hope they change their mind.

In the interim, you can read my full critique and wider argument in my book Jesus Loves Canaanites.

The post Paul Copan and Matthew Flannagan Don’t Want to Debate Me. But if They Did, I’d Ask Them This appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Interpreting Scripture in Light of Our Moral Intuitions

My interview on The Analytic Christian regarding Jesus Loves Canaanites.

?

The post Interpreting Scripture in Light of Our Moral Intuitions appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Christian Terrorists and No True Scotsmen

My latest podcast takes on the Capitol riots. In this podcast, I respond to American Atheist’s statement that the Capitol insurrectionists were “Christian terrorists. Full stop.” Not so fast, American Atheist, it’s a bit more complicated than that. You can listen to it here.

The post Christian Terrorists and No True Scotsmen appeared first on Randal Rauser.

How Professional Wrestling can Help Us Understand the Bible

In this video, I argue that in the same way that we can appreciate professional wrestling as performance even if it is not a conventional sport, so we can appreciate non-historical aspects of the biblical narrative even if they are not literally true.

?

The post How Professional Wrestling can Help Us Understand the Bible appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Strawmanning Atheists: A Critique of Frank Turek

Frank Turek claims that atheists “steal from God.” In this video, I explain how Turek’s argument is based on a strawman of atheistic and a very uncharitable metaphorical framing of atheism conceptual reflection in terms of criminal theft.

?

The post Strawmanning Atheists: A Critique of Frank Turek appeared first on Randal Rauser.

William Lane Craig Says He Doesn’t Support Donald Trump. Don’t Believe It

Trump outside St. John’s Episcopal Church (Public Domain)

William Lane Craig recently devoted an episode of his Reasonable Faith Podcast to one of my videos in which he offered a critical response to some of my comments on his book Reasonable Faith and his ministry more generally. One of the points I raise is the way that his close alignment with the Republican Party and Donald Trump hurts his Christian apologetic. Here is what I said (and kudos to Reasonable Faith for transcribing my words):

“How do you think about a more adequate engagement of politics and Christianity? I think about someone like William Lane Craig in this respect. William Lane Craig has great arguments. Well, he has serious arguments, well-formed arguments for God’s existence. I think he’s an excellent apologist in many respects. And yet he has taken a view with respect to the alignment of Christianity with Republicanism and Donald Trump that I think for so many people just not only critically weakens but perhaps undermines his complete witness. We really need to think through carefully how to relate politics to Christianity.”

And here is how Craig responds in the podcast:

“And he’s also, I think, inaccurately characterizing me. I have never endorsed Donald Trump or Republicanism. I have tried to stay out of politics except when it concerns an issue of ethical importance. I am unabashedly pro-life, for example, and in favor of heterosexual marriage because I think those are biblical values and ethical issues that Christians need to stand for. But I stay out of politics and the sorts of things that Randal is talking about there. I don’t even regard those things that he had on his list there as being relevant to my task.”

I will now offer a two-point critique of that statement.

Issues of Ethical Importance?

Craig says that he only involves himself in politics when it concern issues of “ethical importance.” He then gives two examples: a pro-life stance and an, er, “pro heterosexual marriage” stance. While I’m admittedly not entirely sure what the latter is supposed to mean, I assume that is a roundabout way of saying that Craig doesn’t think same-sex marital unions should be recognized by the state. Those are the examples of issues that Craig thinks are of “ethical importance” such that they warrant a Christian apologist to speak out.

But what about public, not-for-profit healthcare that guarantees medical coverage to the least of these? Isn’t that an ethical issue? What about gun control? Surely that is an ethical issue, isn’t it? What about climate change and environmental laws to protect ecosystems including vulnerable animal and human populations? Isn’t that ethical? What about a program like DACA that would allow children of some illegal immigrants to have a path to citizenship? Isn’t that an ethical issue? What about a living wage and the growing chasm between the uber-rich and everyone else? Isn’t that an ethical issue? Why, of all the possible issues Craig could talk about, does he only opine on abortion and, um, “heterosexual marriage”?

This brings me back to my concern about Craig’s apologetic. When skeptics of Christianity rightly recognize the enormous ethical import of issues like gun control, climate change, wealth inequality, and refugees, and they see that none of these issues are of sufficient concern that they warrant a mention from Craig, when they see, rather, that the two issues he mentions here are abortion and “heterosexual marriage,” that speaks volumes. It speaks about an impoverished moral vision, one tied to partisan party politics. And that effectively weakens the force of Craig’s apologetic overall.

Consider one of the most wicked and vicious policies of the Trump era. Beginning in April 2018, the Trump administration instituted a new family separation policy to deter new refugee claimants. According to this policy, children (even infants) would be separated from their parents and placed in shelters while the parents waited in detention facilities for their claims to be processed. The purpose of this policy was to deter future refugee claimants with the threat that they would lose their children. The policy resulted in hundreds of children being separated from parents for months and even years. As of May 2021, the Biden administration was still working to reunite children that had been separated from their parents by the Trump administration.

Let’s be clear about something: torture is the punitive infliction of severe physical and/or psychological/emotional suffering. When the Trump administration separated parents from their children for crossing the border and claiming refugee status, they were engaged in a policy of psychological and emotional torture. When my daughter was four years old, she went missing for 45 minutes. I still tear up recalling the anguish I experienced at that time. Now try to imagine what it would be like to have your four-year-old taken away and you are not reunited for months or years. That was a policy of the Trump administration. It was a wicked, cruel policy that violated international law.

Why doesn’t Craig talk about the family separation policy? Is it less important than “heterosexual marriage”? Does it not count as an “ethical” issue at all?

On Craig’s non-support Support for Donald Trump and the Republican Party

There’s an old saying: don’t spit on my boots and tell me it’s raining. I thought of that when I heard Craig say “I have never endorsed Donald Trump or Republicanism.” For Exhibit A, I would invite folks to listen to the May 31, 2020 episode of Reasonable Faith titled “Will there be a backlash against evangelicals?” in which Craig addresses the evangelical support for Trump and the Republican party. Keep in mind, this podcast was released during the election season and I think it can fairly be described as an extended apologetic for Donald Trump and the GOP.

To be sure, in that podcast episode, Craig makes a similar disclaimer that he does not support Trump or the GOP: “for my part, as a somewhat public figure, I have to remain a-political. I cannot be seen as endorsing a particular political candidate or party.” However, it is important to understand what is really going on here. According to ProPublica, Reasonable Faith is a non-profit with a 501(c)(3) designation. (Cf. Charity Navigator.) According to the Internal Revenue Service

“Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.” (source)

In other words, the tax-exempt status of Reasonable Faith requires Craig to refrain from directly supporting Donald Trump and the Republican party.

Nonetheless, throughout the podcast episode, Craig provides a robust defense for Trump and his unflagging evangelical support. Craig says that Trump is pro-life, against gay marriage (our two big-ticket ethical topics) and he supports conservative Supreme Court justices and allegedly stands for religious freedom around the world.

Never mind his defense and praise of dictators (e.g. Putin, Duterte, Xi Jinping), his defense of his good friend MBS who ordered the killing and dismemberment of a US-based journalist, his determined attempts to subvert democratic elections, his demonization of Muslims and defense of white supremacists.

No wait, I’m going to stop myself. If I start enumerating all the examples of how horrible Donald Trump was and what an amoral decrepit shell the GOP that supports him has become, we’ll be here all day. (Side note: the GOP has a handful of morally courageous politicians like Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney: may their tribe increase.)

Instead, I’ll simply note that a recent C-Span survey of US historians ranks Trump as the fourth worst president in US history. And there are many reasons that Trump’s reputation is not likely to improve in the future including the following:

the SDNY investigation of the Trump organization beginning with the tax fraud scheme involving CFO Allen Weisselberg;the multitude of lawsuits against Trump including the Summer Zervos and E. Jean Carroll defamation suits regarding Trump’s denial of sexual assault allegations;the investigation of the Capitol insurrection;Trump’s increasingly erratic, vile, and despicable comments, such as his recent statement that he is “the greatest star maker of all time” but that some of his stars “are actually made of garbage” ( source );further shocking accounts of Trump’s utter ineptitude, ignorance, and volatility during his presidency such as the books published just this past week outlining such gems as his praise for Hitler , his desire that John Bolton would die of COVID , and the concern of General Mark Milley that Trump would attempt to use the military in a coup .Conclusion

William Lane Craig may say that he doesn’t support Trump and the Republican Party. But that appears merely to be a perfunctory attempt to retain the tax-exempt status of his 501(c)(3) organization. Craig’s defense of Trump and the GOP in his May 31, 2020 podcast clearly illustrates practical support for Trump, even if it is technically not recognized as such by the IRS. With Trump already ranked the fourth worst president in US history by historians and with his horrid reputation all but certain to spiral further into the future, we can offer the following conclusion: Craig’s practical support for the man has greatly damaged his apologetic with a skeptical, and morally incensed generation who are appalled by the legacy of the narcissist-in-chief and the evangelical support he has received.

Trump Footnote

Oh, one more thing. At the bottom of the Reasonable Faith website, we read this: “Website design and development by Parscale Digital.“ In case you were wondering, that’s the same Brad Parscale that worked for the Trump campaign. The statement includes a link to the website for Parscale Strategy which features the following quote: “‘[Parscale] absolutely has the Trump campaign on a much more advanced digital footing than I think any other presidential campaign in history.’ Politico.” That aged well, didn’t it?

But more to the point: of all the possible web developers in the country that one could use, why would Reasonable Faith employ the services of Brad Parscale?

The post William Lane Craig Says He Doesn’t Support Donald Trump. Don’t Believe It appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Discussing Biblical Violence on Conservative Talk Radio

Yesterday, I was a guest on the Bob Dutko Show (WMUZ, Detroit) to discuss Jesus Loves Canaanites. I’ve been on Bob’s show several times over the years and I always enjoy it. Speaking with Bob is a challenge as he is a conservative talk radio host who has supported Donald Trump, calls BLM a “Marxist group” and who staunchly defends young-earth creationism, among other things. As our exchange made clear, he also staunchly defends biblical genocides. But I find him to be congenial even if we see the world very differently.

https://tentativeapologist.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Dutko+Interview.wav

The post Discussing Biblical Violence on Conservative Talk Radio appeared first on Randal Rauser.

William Lane Craig Responds to My Modest Critique of Reasonable Faith

One of my students pointed out that William Lane Craig recently responded to one of my videos. (It turns out someone does watch my YouTube channel! ) You can listen here:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...

The post William Lane Craig Responds to My Modest Critique of Reasonable Faith appeared first on Randal Rauser.