Creationists for genocide

As someone who teaches courses on the Third Reich I always make the point that the roots of Nazi genocide were most assuredly NOT in Darwin or the ToE. The social Darwinism of the Third Reich grew from Luther, the cult of Wagner, and other Germanic occult ideas of race. The use of Darwin or any evolutionary thinking/writing was convenient justification for people with a priori ideas about race and religion. I'm glad to see Avalos give us some more on this.

This is an awesome rebuttal. Martin Luther's 7 point plan for the Jews is by itself an awesome response to the Darwin-Hitler nonsense! I have added this to my arsenal. Thanks!

Perhaps someone should bring Dr. Avalos' rebuttal to the attention of these bozos.

Has anyone ever written extensively on the idea that Darwinian evolution is a huge reason for the valuation of human life? Since it took billions of years for the evolution of the human species, and since millions upon millions of species have gone extinct over the eons, possibly at one future date to include us, isn't the valuation of human life one possible conclusion? Or, given the randomness of mutations and the rigors of selection, isn't it possible to conclude we're lucky to be here at all and shouldn't blow it because no species gets a second chance? Or that we should stop trying to kill each other off because we're all part of the same human extended family? It just seems to me there's a basis for that line of thought, maybe a stronger one ultimately than the creationist assertion that human life is valued because (and only if) God created it.

Indeed, ail. To this layman, life (on earth, and our human existence) seems in a way even more miraculous if it is an accident. God can do anything he wants, so making humans is no big deal. But if we are a result of contingent history... wow, we really *are* precious, rare, and valuable creatures.

Also, what God apparently really wanted was lots of beetles... :)

Henry

God can do anything he wants, so making humans is no big deal.

Even so, how do they know that thing(s) from the Bible is the creator God? Somebody throws a couple of thunder bolts and makes a donkey talk, and they assume that the thingy that did those are both one and the same thingy, and the creator of everything in the universe to boot! What utter gullibility.

Freethought Today Vol 19, #9 Was Catholic Hitler “anti-christian” On the trail of bogus quotes: Richard Carrier Excerpt: “Surveying Hitler’s remarks on religion in the Table Talk, Jochmann remarks that “Hitler was by no means unreligious.” It is the Genoud-Trevor-Roper text that distorts this picture far beyond that, painting Hitler as a quasi-atheistic anti-Christian. It is clear that Picker and Jochmann have the correct text and Trevor-Roper’s is entirely untrustworthy. Hitler was no more anti-Christian than your run-of-the-mill Protestant bigot. His Christianity was odd, surely, but so is that of many die-hard believers today.”

Very timely this essay since TBN are repeating D. James Kennedy's "Darwin's legacy" from Coral Ridge at the moment (I think it's on tomorrow afternoon here).

I assume they are repeats of the programmes from last year as I don't think Kennedy has recovered from the major heart attack that he had last Christmas, (as far as I know) ?

Adolph Hitler Munich, 1922: “My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice…. And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people…. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited.” -Adolf Hitler, in his speech in Munich on 12 April 1922

Overall, a good essay. The sections detailing how Nazi ideas came from Luther are particularly well done. However, there are a few problems with the essay. Most seriously, the essay seems to present creationism and a single whole, where the comments of Sarfati and others are all part of a single unifying ideology. While this may have some truth, many PT readers would immediately object if a writer did the same portraying the comments of Dawkins, PZ, Nick Matzke, Mark Perakh etc. as all part of some complete, consistent ideology.

A Pogo cartoon from 1959. reprinted in Shkovskii and Sagan's *Intelligent Life in the Universe*, goes like this:

"I been readin' 'bout how maybe they is planets people by folks with *ad*-vanced brains.

"On the other hand, maybe *we* got the most brains... maybe *our* intellects is the universe's most advanced.

"Either way, it's a mighty soberin' thought."

More on Hitler’s interpretation of Xianity. Doesn’t sound much like a closet atheist to me.

raven, more to the point, who cares what Hitler believed in private? It is his politics that counts, and you described them to a T.

In regard to comment Comment #199405. I do not know a single Christian creationist
who does not defend biblical genocide to some extent. Thus, this is most certainly
a unifying factor among all Christian creationists. Of course, there are also
non-Christian creationists (e.g., Muslim creationists), but they also would defend
God's right to command genocide.

In regard to comment Comment #199405. I do not know a single Christian creationist who does not defend biblical genocide to some extent.

Robert O'Brien, are you serious? You're telling us there are Young-Earth Creationists out there who believe the OT is literally true, yet concede that it was wrong for God to command genocide?

Robert O’Brien, are you serious? You’re telling us there are Young-Earth Creationists out there who believe the OT is literally true, yet concede that it was wrong for God to command genocide?

To echo Larsson, it's my understanding that Hitler said whatever it was that he thought would help him accomplish his goals. If that meant saying he was a Catholic, then sure enough he was one. If it meant just endorsing generic "Christianity," then that's what he did. Or if it meant invoking German mythology or ancient Northern European gods, then he'd do that as well. I think it went beyond merely trying to fool people, however. I think he was also self-delusional, and grasped for anything that might give him an edge.

In regard to Comment #199535: "There are other types of creationists besides YECs."
This changes the issue. The issue is not about whether different types of creationists
disagree on the age of the earth, but whether they disagree on the defensibility
of biblical genocide. So, Mr. O'Brien, why don't you provide us with one Christian
creationist (old or young earth) who repudiates, as immoral, biblical genocide.

In regard to Comment #199535: “There are other types of creationists besides YECs.”
This changes the issue. The issue is not about whether different types of creationists
disagree on the age of the earth, but whether they disagree on the defensibility
of biblical genocide. So, Mr. O’Brien, why don’t you provide us with one Christian
creationist (old or young earth) who repudiates, as immoral, ALL biblical genocide.

So, Mr. O’Brien, why don’t you provide us with one Christian creationist (old or young earth) who repudiates, as immoral, biblical genocide.

Very timely this essay since TBN are repeating D. James Kennedy’s “Darwin’s legacy” from Coral Ridge at the moment (I think it’s on tomorrow afternoon here). I assume they are repeats of the programmes from last year as I don’t think Kennedy has recovered from the major heart attack that he had last Christmas, (as far as I know) ?

Me. Although I do not describe myself as an OEC, that is probably how others would classify me.

I think he was also self-delusional, and grasped for anything that might give him an edge.

You need to get out more.

...the defense of genocide, infanticide and "eugenics" by creationists actually has a very venerable and lengthy tradition that precedes Darwin.

Yawn. Of course it does. So does opposition to those ideas by creationists. For 99% of human history, everybody was a creationist, no matter what their politics-of-choice was. There were creationists who supported each of those things, and creationists who opposed it. All this essay proves is that Mister Avalos is quite effective at cherrypicking examples from history that support his biased view of religion.

The fact of the matter is this: any religious, political, or social philosophy can be adapted to support mass evils, and any religious, political, or social philosophy can be adapted to oppose mass evils. The only exceptions to this are philosophies that explicitly build themselves around support of mass evils -- an exception which does not apply to religion as a whole, or Christianity as a whole, or Protestantism as a whole, or even most of the subgroups of Protestantism.

I don't understand why people think it's a good argument that Hitler wasn't really a Christian, but just said it to win support. Wouldn't that mean that Hitler himself was an atheist, but genocide could only be justified through religion?

Let me express a dissent from the essay. Not that I am denying the historical basis in Christianity for genocide. And most assuredly not that I would claim that there is a reasonable connection with "Darwin". (In fact, I think that Avalos gives away too much in conceding such a connection.)

For one thing, there is always the problem of people going back in history to find that someone's ancestors were abused by someone else's ancestors. Not that Avalos is doing that, but it is a problem always to be avoided. The lesson to be learned from history is not to find out who abused whom. The more important lesson to be learned is how we should not repeat the crimes of our ancestors. Where did they go wrong? Are we going wrong, ourselves?

For another, I prefer (and it is my personal preference, which I cannot ask others to share) to keep this as a question of "evolution or creationism".

If there is something in the acceptance of evolutionary biology which has a danger of endorsing genocide, then that should be addressed. If creationism protects us against that danger, then that should be addressed.

But evolutionary biology today is in a different state than evolutionary biology in the early 20th century. That era has been called the "eclipse of Darwinism", because, to oversimplify things, it was thought that, although evolution happens, it does not happen according to "random variation and natural selection". Many people thought that natural selection was not productive enough, that there had to be something else going on - for example, an "elan vital", or some kind of "Lamarckian" progress up the "chain of being".

After all, the eugenicists felt that there had to be intelligent intervention in the process of biological change to avert an otherwise inevitable deterioration.

And the modern creationists definitely depend on that same idea, that there has to be "intelligent design".

The contemporary creationists do not differ from those of us who accept evolution at the level of "micro"evolution. They often insist on the reality of evolution within a "kind", and it's only evolution within "mankind" that could conceivably be a matter for eugenicists. So how do they propose to distance themselves from those social/political movements of the early 20th century? Not on the basis of the acceptance of evolution, for they agree that evolution is a reality within "mankind". Not on the basis of the need for "intelligent intervention", for they agree with that.

On other matters of biology, our contemporary creationists also agree with the rest of us that there is a great similarity between the human body and that of other living things, particularly the other primates. They only say that the similarities are due to some decision on the part of the "designer" to make us similar (or, perhaps, due to some limitations as to what the designer could do). In other words, they are "telling our kids" that we are "purposefully designed" to be "animals". Rather than providing a guard against our kids "acting like animals", it would, if taken seriously, tell us that they are animals-by-design. Moreover, our contemporary creationists agree that the body of each individual human being comes about by "random chance" (such as the particular genetic makeup that each individual has) and "natural law". If, as they seem to claim, the idea of random chance and natural law has bad implications, then how do they distance themselves from those implications?

The final difference between creationists and the scientists, is that the scientists will tell us that matters of morality are not scientific questions - "is does not lead to ought" - but by the very fact of the creationists' raising of the "moral consequences of evolution", they are telling us that their notions of evolution do have moral consequences. If they were being consistent (and, I add, that consistency is not a strong point of creationism), then how can they say that:

1. Evolution occurs within "mankind". The human body is basically just another primate body. "Random chance" plays an important part in the origins of the individual body.

2. WIthout intelligent intervention the process of evolution will lead to deterioration.

3. Biology has moral consequences.

How can they say those things, and assume a morally superior position over evolution?

Me. Although I do not describe myself as an OEC, that is probably how others would classify me.

— Robert O'Brien

I could be wrong, but doesn't Exodus 13: 12-15 in conjunction with Numbers 18: 15-16 imply that child sacrifice was not commanded or permitted by God, but that rather the firstborn males were to be 'redeemed' by paying a price of five sheckles or so to a priest? In fact, the Biblical God in these passages commands that all first-born be redeemed, that is, the boy's parents had to pay a price for him. This is John Gill's understanding as seen in his 'Exposition of the Old Testament,' so, as far as I know, it is kind-of verse cherry picking to say that Ex. 22: 29-30 implies that children have to be sacrificed in the way first born animals were ordered to be sacrificed (Lev. 22: 27).

Sparing a tiresome discussion of Divine Command Theory, I do think that Bill Craig's points about philosophy are relevant and must be addressed if Mr. Avalos' arguments are to get off the ground. The Biblical God, playing the role of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent judge, has reserved the sovereign right to judge sin as necessary. Hitler does not enjoy the same privilege. The Bible as a whole supports this notion. This is why the same act--killing--is justice when God ordains it whereas it is murder otherwise, just as sex is moral and ordained within the boundaries of marriage but is immoral outside of it (according to the Bible, that is). If one wants to argue that if Hitler does not have the right to order genocide, then God does not either, then one must address the matter philosophically (discussing, of course, Divine Command Theory).

Many more debatable points, but I'll settle on these for now.

I harbor serious doubts about Mr. Avalos' conclusions, philosophy, and reasoning, but I am open to reading his response. I did appreciate his well written article, and I hope he contributes more in the future.

In regard to Comment #199600: "Yawn. Of course it does."

You are missing the point of the entire essay. Weikart and other creationists attempt to portray
the Holocaust as having its main historical precedents no earlier than Darwin, thus he titled
his book "From Darwin to Hitler." My essay shows precisely that Weikart and other creationists have attempted to
erase the pre-Darwinian history you also agree is there in order to portray Darwinism as the main predecessor of the Holocaust.

In regard to Comment #199600: "So does opposition to those ideas by creationists."
No support is offered for this comment. Where do you find a Christian creationist, especially
today, that repudiates, as immoral, ALL genocide in the Bible? Give us an author, a book, etc.

Justin To echo Larsson, it’s my understanding that Hitler said whatever it was that he thought would help him accomplish his goals. If that meant saying he was a Catholic, then sure enough he was one. If it meant just endorsing generic “Christianity,” then that’s what he did. Or if it meant invoking German mythology or ancient Northern European gods, then he’d do that as well. I think it went beyond merely trying to fool people, however. I think he was also self-delusional, and grasped for anything that might give him an edge.

In regard to comment: Comment #199625
Redeeming the first-born in Exodus 13:12-15 and Numbers 18:15-16 seem to mark a later development, because they assume that redemption is a new commandment. You leave Ezekiel 20:25-26 left unexplained otherwise.

I addressed Dr. William Lane Craig’s philosophy indirectly in my conclusion. Dr. Craig’s purported philosophical solution is flawed because we cannot verify that any god ever authorized genocide. All we can observe is people who say or wrote that they BELIEVE that god authorized genocide.

The point remains that there is no method to verify a human claim that an infinite God authorized anything. Thus, Dr. Craig ends up with no better a reason than what an Osama bin Laden might offer: “Genocide is justified when I believe my God authorizes it.”

Since all faith claims are equal in their unverifiability, then Dr. Craig’s claim that he is following the true God is no better than Osama bin Laden’s claim that he is following the true God. I, for one, do not believe it is ever moral to sacrifice human life on the basis of a faith-claim.

Indeed, what is sad is that in the 21st century we still have seemingly well-educated persons advocating the notion that we can or should sacrifice human life on the basis of faith-claims.

Evolution is a fact. Darwinian chance and necessity is the best theory to currently explain that fact. As a scientific theory explaining the real world, it is neutral on religion or politics.

It really doesn't matter whether the Germans twisted Darwinism to their purposes or not. As a scientific theory to explain a well documented fact, scientifically it will always stand or fall based on its scientific merits. Whether people twist the idea to nefarious purposes or use it to solve medical and agricultural problems doesn't have any bearing on whether is is a true theory or not.

We can vote all we want about how the earth is the center of the solar system. At the end of the day, the earth still orbits the sun, not the other way.

This is one of many ways that the fundies get it wrong. They think reality is whatever people think it should be. The real objective world is what it is and isn't even capable of caring what people think it should be.

Genocide? Peanuts. What did the mighty God of the Xtians himself do - if not "biocide"? Almost wiping out his entire creation, even with the knowledge that no problem would be solved.

So, Mr. O’Brien, why don’t you provide us with one Christian creationist (old or young earth) who repudiates, as immoral, biblical genocide.

So you believe that God acted repeatedly immorally in the OT and NT.

Hector Avalos wrote: My essay shows precisely that Weikart and other creationists have attempted to erase the pre-Darwinian history you also agree is there in order to portray Darwinism as the main predecessor of the Holocaust.

And they were wrong to do that. My point is that you are equally wrong to suggest that genocide is a natural outgrowth of modern or even Reformation-era Christianity. And that is precisely what the title and opening of your essay do suggest. Any political or cultural philosophy, from any origin, religious or not, can be used to support evil. It is possible to construct a line of argument from Darwin to the Holocaust. It's also possible to construct a line of argument from the Bible to the Holocaust. So what? It doesn't matter to me how Hitler justified the Holocaust. It shouldn't matter to you either. The best answer to "Hitler was an evolutionist and used Darwin to justify the Holocaust" is not "no he wasn't, he was a Christian and used the Bible to justify the Holocaust." It's "I don't give a tinker's damn what stinking, rancid heap of illogic he used to justify the Holocaust. The Holocaust was an evil act committed by evil men, and it had nothing to do with any notion of science, whether Darwin's or anybody else's."

Oh, one other thing. If there haven't been religious people, and specifically Christians (and they must have been Christians because nobody in power in the West has been anything else for at least the last thousand years) who were against things like genocide, slavery, etc., then from whence came the idea that such things are wrong?

Quoting Robert O'Brien:

"So you believe that God acted repeatedly immorally in the OT and NT."

'No'

This is not a consistent proposition with your claim that you do not condone biblical genocide, assuming it actually happened.

Either God acted immorally with his genocides, or he didn't.

As you probably know, OEC itself covers a lot of ground, from the “young life” variants that accommodates all the biological arguments of YEC, to the “progressive” variants that accept all of mainstream science’s chronology, but deny only an evolutionary mechanism, and usually common descent too. Those who accept common descent too but (apparently) deny the mechanisms, and spin the usual anti-“Darwinism” arguments are usually called IDers, not OECs. So, regardless of what you prefer to be called, what is your position regarding the chronology of life and common ancestry of species? And have you ever challenged any creationists?

This is not a consistent proposition with your claim that you do not condone biblical genocide, assuming it actually happened. Either God acted immorally with his genocides, or he didn’t.

'Or God did not sanction the genocides or the genocides never occurred in the first place.'

In the bible god (supposedly) CAUSED at least one genocide himself. Heck, it wasn't just genocide, it was far beyond even that term (perhaps panthecide?) so I seriously doubt the big g would have a problem with genocide.

I'll agree that the genocides maybe didn't happen, but if you believe that god created kinds and that speciation outside of these kinds is impossible without any evidence, why not believe these genocides happened?

Even if they didn't actually happen, the idea of god supporting genocide still stands.

I am skeptical of common descent and sociobiology/ethology.

Please pray tell what skepticism regarding common descent you hold?

In the bible god (supposedly) CAUSED at least one genocide himself. Heck, it wasn’t just genocide, it was far beyond even that term (perhaps panthecide?) so I seriously doubt the big g would have a problem with genocide.

I am skeptical of common descent and sociobiology/ethology. And yes, I have challenged YECs.

— Robert O'Brien

I am skeptical of the idea that all life is derived from primordial prokaryotes in general and the idea that humans are evolved apes in particular

I am skeptical of the idea that all life is derived from primordial prokaryotes in general and the idea that humans are evolved apes in particular.

— Robert O'Brien

Good. Are any of those debates online or otherwise published? YEC-OEC debates are getting harder to find than silver coins in change these days. How about the IDers who accept common descent? Have you challenged them too? If so, any references to that?

Or God did not sanction the genocides or the genocides never occurred in the first place

— Robert O Brien

So what’s your take on Numbers 31, Robert? Was God misquoted? Did the Israelites go further than God intended in killing all the men, non-virgin women and the male children, and raping the Midianite virgins? And if they did, how come God then followed up with instructions on how to divvy up the loot?

I doubt such an event took place. But even if it did, I would characterize Numbers 31 as an ex post facto ‘rationalization.’

— Robert O Brien

I understand where you are coming from, Dr. Harbison, but I view the Hebrew Scriptures essentially as backdrop; they are useful for understanding the milieu of Jesus but not for apprehending the nature of God. (Except where there exist exact parallels with the New Testament.) I realize my view is at variance with the 'de jure' view of 'orthodox' Christianity but I think it is actually the 'de facto' view of many 'rank-and-file' Christians who tend to ignore the Hebrew Scriptures.

Incidentally, Dr. Harbison, are you familiar with Levine's Quantum Chemistry text? I think it is an excellent textbook, and I especially enjoy his discussion of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle in terms of non-commutative linear operators and eigenfunctions.

Or God did not sanction the genocides or the genocides never occurred in the first place

...I also notice none of you picked out the fact that he just essentially claimed the bible is nothing but fiction.

No.

I doubt such an event took place. But even if it did, I would characterize Numbers 31 as an ex post facto ‘rationalization.’

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5767

This should finally settle once and for all why Christians value human life above all other values.

i really don’t know why you dolts give RO the time of day, since he’s nothing but a troll, but I also notice none of you picked out the fact that he just essentially claimed the bible is nothing but fiction.

— Sir Toejam

Regarding post: Comment #199906.
I reference this blog post in my own essay. Dr. Craig's arguments for genocide, as I have argued in a previous post, are no better than those that might be offered by Osama bin Laden. Both would argue that genocide is justified because their god is the true God, and so the latter has authority to end life. I have also addressed apologetic arguments in defense of Christian and Islamic violence at greater length in my book, Fighting Words: The Origins of Religious Violence (2005).

One of the most common accusations against “Darwinism” and evolutionary theory, as a whole, is that they lead to the devaluation of human life such as was dramatically manifested in the Nazi Holocaust.

I am skeptical of the idea that all life is derived from primordial prokaryotes in general and the idea that humans are evolved apes in particular.

In other words, they are “telling our kids” that we are “purposefully designed” to be “animals”. Rather than providing a guard against our kids “acting like animals”, it would, if taken seriously, tell us that they are animals-by-design.

This is not difficult Toejam. At most, my posts can be construed as claiming the Hebrew Scriptures are fiction. However, I accept the historical reality of Jesus, that the NT substantially represents his teaching, that he was crucified at the instigation of several Jewish leaders, and that he was subsequently resurrected in a material body.

As you know humans need not be “evolved apes” to share common ancestors with other species. Michael Behe and the late Richard Goldschmidt proposed two more options. But since you apparently disagree with both, do you have any evidence that there were 2 or 3 different abiogenesis events for humans, chimps and gorillas (and if so is it 2 or 3)? And when do you think those events occurred - ~6 MY ago like the progressive OECs, ~6 KY ago like the “young lifers”, or some other time frame? I’m not looking for any “skepticism” (or incredulity) about evolution, just positive independent evidence to support independent abiogenesis.

I am skeptical of the idea that all life is derived from primordial prokaryotes in general and the idea that humans are evolved apes in particular.

This is not difficult Toejam. At most, my posts can be construed as claiming the Hebrew Scriptures are fiction. However, I accept the historical reality of Jesus, that the NT substantially represents his teaching, that he was crucified at the instigation of several Jewish leaders, and that he was subsequently resurrected in a material body.

What about the evidence that appears to contradict your claims?

Why the skepticism btw? Is it founded on scientific groundings or religious?

However, I have listened/watched Ken Ham and others, and their argument is that if you do not accept death as being physical in genesis then was Christ’s death and resurrection physical as well ?

Hello Peter. I believe I answered most of your questions in my other posts except this one:

"As an aside, do you accept the fact that the lifespan of the average human was 900 plus years during pre-flood times?"

No. Futurama (of blessed memory) tells me that humans older than 160 are a rarity. The only 900+ years old humans are those who have been cryopreserved.

In response my comments about Biblical child sacrifice, Mr. Avalos states (comment 199676), "Redeeming the first-born in Exodus 13:12-15 and Numbers 18:15-16 seem to mark a later development, because they assume that redemption is a new commandment."

How could one arrive at the conclusion that redemption of the firstborn is a 'later development' and that originally child sacrifice was ordained by the Biblical God, taking into consideration that the text proof that Mr. Avalos uses to indirectly infer child sacrifice comes in Exodus 22, which is just a few chapters /after/ Exodus 13, which clearly mandates that the first born are to be 'redeemed' and not to be sacrificed? The only way to hold this position is to believe that Exodus 13 (along with Numbers 18: 15-16) was added /after/ Exodus 22. This is not at all obvious and reflects only presuppositions on Mr. Avalos' part. (It is also very telling that Exodus 22 never explicitly calls for child sacrifice, but one must infer it indirectly with other proof texts; so one is put in the awkward position of relying on only a select few verses in the Mosaic law, such as Lev. 22: 27, while rejecting other parts, such as Exodus 13, in order to support the conclusion of a mandate of child sacrifice. Taken collectively the Bible is clear that child sacrifice was /not/ permitted.)

Mr. Avalos then states, "You leave Ezekiel 20:25-26 left unexplained otherwise."

No, I do not. Looking at the matter from a Calvinist perspective (although a Molinist perspective could work as well), God routinely permits and ordains evil actions without himself being evil. The context of Ez. 20: 25-26 is probably referring to Numbers 25: 1-3, when the children of Israel had sinfully turned their backs on the Biblical God and presumably took part in rituals of sacrifice to pagan Gods. Or it could be referring to Jeremiah 7 when the people of Judah sacrificed their children to pagan Gods. This was all ordained by God according to His sovereign will (Jer. 13: 13-14 is an example of God sovereignly controlling his people to go astray, as is Psalm 105: 24-25 where the Lord turns the hearts of a group of people to hate). Please do not let me go on any further in regard to how God can sovereignly ordain evil in his creation and yet not be evil in and of himself. One can turn to Calvin, or Edwards, or even Piper and get swallowed in the literature. The point is that, as it stands, the claim that child sacrifice was commanded by God is not, as far as I can tell, Biblically justified, unless, of course, you are referring to God's sovereign will in which he ordained the Israelites to sin and to rebel against his commanded will. But this has been discussed by theologians for centuries.

Mr. Avalos then states, "I addressed Dr. William Lane Craig’s philosophy indirectly in my conclusion. Dr. Craig’s purported philosophical solution is flawed because we cannot verify that any god ever authorized genocide. All we can observe is people who say or wrote that they BELIEVE that god authorized genocide."

This misses the point. Let's play hypotheticals. IF it is true that God commanded one to kill, would it be morally permissible? That is the question that you must address if you are to rebut Craig, Mr. Avalos. Craig argues, from a Divine Command Ethics standpoint, that morality is rooted in God's benevolent nature, and that if He makes a command (such as to kill a group of people as an act of righteous judgement), then the action is morally good and morally obligatory. This is clearly the stance the Bible takes. Do you disagree with this? On what philosophical basis?

Mr. Avalos then says:
"Since all faith claims are equal in their unverifiability, then Dr. Craig’s claim that he is following the true God is no better than Osama bin Laden’s claim that he is following the true God. I, for one, do not believe it is ever moral to sacrifice human life on the basis of a faith-claim."

What does it mean that Craig's claim is 'no better' than bin Laden's claim? Do you mean that it is no more true than bin Laden's claim? That can't be it, because that would mean that you are injecting your presuppositions into your conclusions (by fiat saying that 'I know that God could not have commanded this.') That is not an argument. It could possibly be true that God /DID/ command, as an act of righteous judgement, the destruction of a people group. He also, as a righteous judge, condemns people to Hell (according to the Bible). Is He outside of His moral rights in doing this? Does He not have the power of the potter over the clay (Romans 9)? You can only address this by addressing the philosophical claims about morality that Craig is making, because until you do, you have not made a convincing argument at all. Craig says that a wicked human such as Hitler did not have the right to kill human beings, but that God, as a righteous judge, holds all life in His hands and actively chooses how long one must live and by what manner one must die. Craig draws a distinction and shows why there is a difference between Biblical genocide and Hitler's attempt to extinguish Jews. Where is your response to Craig, beyond having shown that in both instances people were being killed?

Mr. Avalos then says: “Since all faith claims are equal in their unverifiability, then Dr. Craig’s claim that he is following the true God is no better than Osama bin Laden’s claim that he is following the true God. I, for one, do not believe it is ever moral to sacrifice human life on the basis of a faith-claim.” What does it mean that Craig’s claim is ‘no better’ than bin Laden’s claim? Do you mean that it is no more true than bin Laden’s claim? That can’t be it, because that would mean that you are injecting your presuppositions into your conclusions (by fiat saying that ‘I know that God could not have commanded this.’) That is not an argument. It could possibly be true that God /DID/ command, as an act of righteous judgement, the destruction of a people group. He also, as a righteous judge, condemns people to Hell (according to the Bible). Is He outside of His moral rights in doing this? Does He not have the power of the potter over the clay (Romans 9)? You can only address this by addressing the philosophical claims about morality that Craig is making, because until you do, you have not made a convincing argument at all. Craig says that a wicked human such as Hitler did not have the right to kill human beings, but that God, as a righteous judge, holds all life in His hands and actively chooses how long one must live and by what manner one must die. Craig draws a distinction and shows why there is a difference between Biblical genocide and Hitler’s attempt to extinguish Jews. Where is your response to Craig, beyond having shown that in both instances people were being killed?

Since all faith claims are equal in their unverifiability, then ...

This misses the point. Let’s play hypotheticals. IF it is true that God commanded one to kill, would it be morally permissible? That is the question that you must address if you are to rebut Craig, Mr. Avalos. Craig argues, from a Divine Command Ethics standpoint, that morality is rooted in God’s benevolent nature, and that if He makes a command (such as to kill a group of people as an act of righteous judgement), then the action is morally good and morally obligatory. This is clearly the stance the Bible takes. Do you disagree with this? On what philosophical basis?

Quoting Robert O'Brien (I can't get the hang of these Xml tags.)

'However, I accept the historical reality of Jesus, that the NT substantially represents his teaching, that he was crucified at the instigation of several Jewish leaders, and that he was subsequently resurrected in a material body.'

Which explanation of his birht do you prefer?

Which one of the gospels is accurate?

Assuming you think Joseph et al were taken to go for a census, can you explain why Herod the Great was dead 10 years before said (well documented) census took place?

I have an off topic question for Mr. Avalos. Did Ben Stein's film crew interview you under false pretenses for the movie Expelled like they did to PZ Myers and Eugenie Scott?

Which explanation of his birht do you prefer? Which one of the gospels is accurate? Assuming you think Joseph et al were taken to go for a census, can you explain why Herod the Great was dead 10 years before said (well documented) census took place?

O'Brien wrote:

I have not engaged in any formal or protracted YEC-OEC debates. Usually, I just register my conviction that the earth and universe are billions of years old and leave it at that. As for those who accept ID and common descent, I do not think I have challenged such people, nor would I be inclined to...

In other words, you and your fellow creationists know that none of your claims can withstand anything resembling serious scrutiny, therefore you all agree not to subject each other's claims to anything resembling serious scrutiny.

At the paleontology end there appears to be not insignificant subjectivity involved in classifying a fossil as this or that hominid. Genetic analysis is more objective, I think, but even there subjectivity enters into the way in which the percentage of genetic commonality is calculated.

Got any specific proof of "subjectivity" compromising or degrading anyone's scientific work in particular? It's easy to say "That's just a subjective opinion;" it's not as easy to prove the "opinion" false.

A question for Dr Avalos. Why creationists and not Christians for genocide?

In other words, you and your fellow creationists know that none of your claims can withstand anything resembling serious scrutiny, therefore you all agree not to subject each other’s claims to anything resembling serious scrutiny.

PuM 'The hypothetical is easily rejected by pointing out that we have no way of knowing if it is true that God commanded one to kill.'

CARR
Christians have an answer for this as well.

Dr. Alvin Plantinga could argue that a belief that God has commanded one to kill is what he would term a 'properly basic belief' , in other words, a belief that you do not need evidence for , before it is rational to hold such a belief.

In regard to Comment #199762: “Any political or cultural philosophy, from any origin, religious or not, can be used to support evil.”

Again this misses the point of my essay because you are confusing the general phenomenon of evil with a particular instance of evil (the Holocaust). My argument does not deny that both religious and non-religious factors can result in what you call evil.

My essay is meant to refute the notion that the particular instance of evil called the Holocaust has mainly evolutionary theory as its cause.

It is important to show that Darwinism/Evolutionary Theory is not the main cause of that particular instance of evil because: 1) it is wrong historically; 2) creationists use this false history to attack evolutionary theory; 3) creationists use that false history to declare their theistic ethics superior in eliminating or minimizing genocide.

Comment #200265 AND Comment #199983: “Craig argues, from a Divine Command Ethics standpoint, that morality is rooted in God’s benevolent nature...”

Since I am attempting to restrict my posts to issues I have not discussed elsewhere, I will not address this issue at length here. I have done so in an entire chapter (15), titled “A Comparative Ethics of Violence,” in my book, Fighting Words: The Origins of Religious Violence (2005), which also addresses indirectly the claim in Comment #200265 that “Christians have an answer for this as well”. If that chapter does not satisfy you, I will be glad to address your questions thereafter.

Suffice it to say for now that it is an illusion to think that any sort of Divine command ethics frees you from a human judgment about the morality of genocide. For you cannot demonstrate that any theistic system of ethics is based on anything other than a human judgment.

Even if you say: “I will call Good what God calls Good,” you are still making the judgment that “It is Good to call Good what God calls Good.” It is a completely circular rationale.

If you say that God has a right to authorize genocide because he is benevolent, then you are not defining benevolent by anything other than a human judgment. How is it that you can even say God is benevolent, unless you already have made the human judgment of what counts as benevolent behavior and commands? All you are saying is that you have a definition of "benevolent" and the view of God you have constructed fits that definition.

The same applies to Plantiga. Mr. Carr apparently made the judgment that basic beliefs are morally justified. Mr. Carr still does not explain why it is moral to accept primary beliefs as moral. It is a tautology: Basic beliefs are moral because basic beliefs are moral. And that does not even begin to address the issue of how you determined that any belief was a properly basic belief.

Comment #200140: A question for Dr Avalos. Why creationists and not Christians for genocide?
Good question. I could have titled it “Christians for genocide." But, since I was
primarily reacting to anti-evolutionary pseudohistorical arguments, I thought a better contrast was “Darwinism/evolutionary theory v. creationism” instead of “Darwinism/evolutionary theory v. Christianity.” I also wanted to focus on the common idea that creationism, which can encompass religions beyond Christianity, helps to minimize or eliminate genocide better than evolutionary theory.

I would first like to ask Mr. Avalos to address my points about the Biblical justification for human sacrifice made in comment #199983, since he failed to do so in his reply in comment #200315.

I pointed out that the only thing Mr. Avalos' essay succeeded in doing is to show that in the Bible the Israelites (supposedly under the command of God) committed genocide, just as Adolf Hitler attempted to do in the 1940's. What his essay /completely failed/ to do was to address whether or not such an act could ever be morally permissible--he treats it as a given that genocide will always, under every possible circumstance (even under an act of sovereign judgement for wicked actions), be ethically wrong. But one cannot just assume this without discussing the relevant background philosophy (Divine Command Theory, which is what Scripture supports and is founded on.) One might as well assume that, because the act of rape involves sex, that all sex is morally wrong under every circumstance. This is, of course, not true. It depends on the cicumstance. We might need to draw similar distinctions for the taking of human lives, as exemplified in the Bible vs. Hitler/Stalin mass murder. The only way to know is to discuss the philosophy.

Mr. Avalos states:
"If you say that God has a right to authorize genocide because he is benevolent, then you are not defining benevolent by anything other than a human judgment. How is it that you can even say God is benevolent, unless you already have made the human judgment of what counts as benevolent behavior and commands?"

Bob Adams' modified DCT discusses just this point. I would encourage Mr. Avalos to look at authors discussing DCT from William of Ocham and Aquinas to modern day Adams and Craig. The fact is that if morality is objectively rooted in the necessity of God's nature, then what He commands as a reflection of his nature is morally obligatory. I realize that it would be impractical to have a philosophical discussion here, so I just want to let Mr. Avalos and readers know that there is a substantial body of literature questioning Mr. Avalos' assumption about ethics based upon Divine Commands.

I would also like to ask Mr. Avalos once more if he was interviewed by the same filming crew as PZ Myers and Genie Scott for the upcoming movie Expelled. Just curious.

Regarding Comments Comment #200421 AND #199983: “You leave Ezekiel 20:25-26 left unexplained otherwise”....No, I do not. Looking at the matter from a Calvinist perspective.... the context of Ez. 20: 25-26 is probably referring to Numbers 25: 1-3.”

I am not evading this question, I am just choosing to do so in a separate post. First, a Calvinist perspective in useless here, as the matter should be settled by Hebrew grammar, lexicography and exegesis.

Second, you are overlooking the Hebrew technical language used in Ezekiel 20:25-26. That passage uses the Hebrew terms “natan...huqim...mishpatim,” a combination normally reserved for the law codes, and not for an action taken after an individual event such as that in Numbers 25:1-3.

You can see this same Hebrew terminology in Leviticus 26:46 (NIV): “These are the decrees [huqim] and laws [mishpatim] and regulations that the LORD established [natan] on Mount Sinai between himself and the Israelites through Moses.”

Where is the action in Numbers 25:1-3 described with these words in Hebrew? In particular, huqim, often refers to inscribed laws, and so how would that apply in Numbers 25:1-3?

Dating redemption laws later than child sacrifice is due to the internal logic of the laws. We assume that a new law about redemption of the first-born means that previously redemption of the first-born was not practiced. You don’t normally prohibit actions that are expected to be extinct.

Let me ask you this: Have you written any scholarly publications on Hebrew or Near Eastern legal systems? If not, I recommend these items I have written:

"Exodus 22:9 and Akkadian Legal Formulae,"
Journal of Biblical Literature 109 (1, 1990) 116-17.

"Legal and Social Institutions of Canaan and Ancient Israel," Civilizations of the
Ancient Near East, J. Sasson, ed. (4 volumes; New York: Scribner's, 1995) Vol 1: 615-631.

Your so-called philosophical solution is vacuous because it does not address my objection of circularity, which Divine command theory, as a whole, does not address, and neither did you. You simply gave us another circular rationale akin to this: “I call Good what my god commands as Good.” This leaves unexplained how you judged that: “It is Good to call Good what my god commands as Good.”

In any case, people should be appalled that you would defend the gruesome killing that is related in Numbers 25:7-8 (RSV):
[7] When Phin'ehas the son of Elea'zar, son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose and left the congregation, and took a spear in his hand [8] and went after the man of Israel into the inner room, and pierced both of them, the man of Israel and the woman, through her body. Thus the plague was stayed from the people of Israel.

Do you really condone such violence? How are you different from Al-Qaida in justifying violence against infidels? I hope you can give us more than Dr. Craig's “because I know my god is the right one...”

Okay, O'Brien, I'm still waiting for you to tell us what you really meant, if not what I imputed.

Don't quit your day job to become a scientist.

his groundbreaking documentary from Dr. Kennedy and Coral Ridge Ministries, looks into the chilling social impact of Darwin's theory of evolution -- and the mounting evidence that Darwin had it wrong on the origin of life. This 60 minute special featuring Ann Coulter, author of Godless; Richard Weikart, author of From Darwin to Hitler, Lee Strobel, author of The Case for a Creator; Jonathan Wells, author of Icons of Evolution; Phillip Johnson, author of Darwin on Trial; Michael Behe, author of Darwin’s Black Box, and Ian Taylor, author of In the Minds of Men will show why evolution is a bad idea that should be discarded into the dustbin of history.

Re: Comment #200421: I would also like to ask Mr. Avalos once more if he was interviewed by the same filming crew as PZ Myers and Genie Scott for the upcoming movie Expelled. Just curious."

If the same “crew” means, Mark Mathis and his assistants, then I was interviewed by that crew, and I have already commented on that on Pharyngula.

RE: “William of Ocham [sic] and Aquinas to modern day Adams and Craig.”

I specifically discuss Aquinas and dozens of other thinkers, ancient and modern, on the issue of biblical violence in Fighting Words (2005). I have debated Dr. Craig publicly (2004) on the resurrection of Jesus. I have responded to Dr. Craig’s philosophy of history (especially as it pertains to the historicity of the resurrection) in my newest book, The End of Biblical Studies (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2007).

I specifically discuss Aquinas and dozens of other thinkers, ancient and modern, on the issue of biblical violence in Fighting Words (2005). I have debated Dr. Craig publicly (2004) on the resurrection of Jesus. I have responded to Dr. Craig’s philosophy of history (especially as it pertains to the historicity of the resurrection) in my newest book, The End of Biblical Studies (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2007).

Re: Comment #200600: You were not able to get an academic press to publish these two books of yours? That’s shocking!

Is this the same Robert O’Brien who sent this gem of an e-mail to me on September 28, 2005?

“Avalos: I have to laugh at the claim you are a Biblical scholar. I am
very well read in the field, and I have you [sic] to encounter your name. As
an undergraduate I took Attic Greek from a favorite prof of mine who
studied under Gregory Nagy and James Kugel at Harvard; even with those
"once removed" credentials I would not hesitate to take you on.”

Attic Greek at basement prices, no less.

As I recall, that O’Brien also defended a book called The Privileged Planet, which purports to be scientific, but which was actually published by a political advocacy press called The Regnery Press. That did not seem to bother him.

As I have pointed out elsewhere, that Robert O’Brien has a blog, which is not worth mentioning for the moment, that receives few or no comments. That gives people an idea how little attention even ID/Creationists advocates pay to him.

That O’Brien was also fond of trying to impress folks by using Latin phrases for no good reason, but then seemed to be unable to respond if you respond in complete Latin sentences.

If it is the same Robert O’Brien, please do provide us with a list of scholarly publishing houses that have published your work so that I might contact them to see if they might accept my work.

Incidentally, Dr. Harbison, are you familiar with Levine’s Quantum Chemistry text? I think it is an excellent textbook, and I especially enjoy his discussion of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle in terms of non-commutative linear operators and eigenfunctions.

— Robert O'Brien

I’m not Dr. Harbison, but like Dr. Harbison, I am a physical chemist and familiar with Levine’s Quantum Chemistry text. Therefore, I’m curious as to why you asked this question and why you particularly enjoy the discussion you named instead of, say, the discussion on symmetry or the discussion of the solutions of the Schroedinger equation for the hydrogen atom.

Dr. Avalos, you should not pay attention to Robert O'Brien. He is notorious for entering various threads with comments that in fact are little more than snide remarks lacking substance but aimed at insulting and denigrating everybody he does not like.

On the other hand, he pretends to be a big expert in various fields which he studied under prominent professors. He used to claim to be great in math, having studied under Professor Rachev who in turn was a student of Kantorovich. However, wnen O'Brien was requested to provide a brief explanation of Kantorovich metrics, he just disappeared from this blog.

Apparently he thinks this episode has been forgotten as he again inundates this blog with his comments most of which are in the same vein of disdainfully dismissing the opinions of other commenters (sometimes using abusive language and obscenities) and trying to impress readers with his supposed erudition (like in his recent comment in this thread where, without any connection to the topic and to other comments, he wrote about Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which apparently was to demonstrate his deep knowledge not only of math, but also of physics).

Now we learn that he also is an expert in biblical studies. Right! Most probably he is as well versed in biblical studies (and apparently in any other subject) as in Kantorovich metrics. Since almost nobody ever reads his blog, he is trying to make himself noticed by poisoning this blog.

Dr. Avalos, he does not deserve replies from you. The administration of this blog displays a really great tolerance not banning such an arrogant spoiler as O'Brien.

On the other hand, he pretends to be a big expert in various fields which he studied under prominent professors. He used to claim to be great in math, having studied under Professor Rachev who in turn was a student of Kantorovich. However, wnen O’Brien was requested to provide a brief explanation of Kantorovich metrics, he just disappeared from this blog.

On the other hand, he pretends to be a big expert in various fields which he studied under prominent professors. He used to claim to be great in math, having studied under Professor Rachev who in turn was a student of Kantorovich. However, wnen O’Brien was requested to provide a brief explanation of Kantorovich metrics, he just disappeared from this blog.

On the other hand, he pretends to be a big expert in various fields which he studied under prominent professors. He used to claim to be great in math, having studied under Professor Rachev who in turn was a student of Kantorovich. However, wnen O’Brien was requested to provide a brief explanation of Kantorovich metrics, he just disappeared from this blog.

The problem with writing laws on the basis of what God said, is deciding what person (or group) gets to decide what it was that God said - and in general, those who claim that this should be done, want to be that person or group.

Henry

The three identical comments (200664, 200665, 200667) posted by Robert O'Brien are an excellent confirmation for what I wrote about him in comment 200659. They are in his typical style where arguments are replaced with abusive language designed to unnerve his opponents. It will not work, O'Brien - you are too well known here. When you refer to somebody as "rabble" it only works as a boumerang shedding light on your character.

This is a warning to Robert O'Brien: Not to mention the abrasive tone of your comments (calling another commenter "Rabble") which in itself is a violation of the rules of conduct, posting the same comment three times is inadmissible. If you do it again, your comments will be deleted. The rules also prohibit posting comments under more than one moniker.

The three identical comments (200664, 200665, 200667) posted by Robert O’Brien are an excellent confirmation for what I wrote about him in comment 200659. They are in his typical style where arguments are replaced with abusive language designed to unnerve his opponents. It will not work, O’Brien - you are too well known here. When you refer to somebody as “rabble” it only works as a boumerang [sic] shedding light on your character.

I ask again, what do you want to know about the Kantorovich metric?

(1) Give a reference when and where did you ask such a question before today. I saw it the first time today in your comment repeated three times, where you chose to attribute to me a pejorative appellation.

Mr. Avalos states in comment #200480

"...you are overlooking the Hebrew technical language used in Ezekiel 20:25-26. That passage uses the Hebrew terms 'natan…huqim…mishpatim,' a combination normally reserved for the law codes, and not for an action taken after an individual event such as that in Numbers 25:1-3...Where is the action in Numbers 25:1-3 described with these words in Hebrew? In particular, huqim, often refers to inscribed laws, and so how would that apply in Numbers 25:1-3?"

Since I am inexpert on Hebrew and theology, I am strictly deferring to theologian John Gill's exposition of the verses, which he maintains can be interpreted in a number of different ways, none of which support child sacrifice. He states (and forgive me for the lengthy quote):

"[Ez. 20: 25: Wherefore I gave them also statutes [that were] not good…]

Yea, were very bad; not the moral law, and the statutes of it; for that is holy, just, and good, though the killing letter and ministration of condemnation and death to the transgressors of it; indeed those laws were both good and bad to different persons, as Abendana observes; good to those that observed them, but not good to those that transgressed them, the issue of which was death: rather these were the statutes and rites of the ceremonial law, which were not in their own nature good; nor did they arise from the nature and holiness of God, but from his will; and though very good and useful under the legal dispensation, until the Messiah came, especially when attended to by faith, and with a view to him; yet had the sanction of death to many of them, that a man could not live by them: but it may be, the punishments inflicted on them for their sins, by the plague, by fire, and by serpents, are meant; which may be called "statutes" and "judgments", because ordered and appointed by the Lord, and according to justice: or, as many, both Jews and Christians, think, the idolatrous laws, usages, and customs of other nations, the traditions of their fathers, their wicked laws and statutes, and their own; which, being left to a reprobate mind, they were suffered to walk in, to their hurt and ruin; which is sometimes the sense of the word give; and so here, he "gave", that is, he permitted them to observe such statutes; and this sense is countenanced and confirmed by (Ezekiel 20:26) ; to which agrees Jarchi's note,
``I delivered them into the hand of their imagination (or corrupt nature) to stumble at their iniquity;''
see (Romans 1:28) . Kimchi interprets them of laws, decrees, tribute, and taxes, imposed upon them by their enemies that conquered them. The Targum is,

`and I also, when they rebelled against my word, and would not obey my prophets, cast them far off, and delivered them into the hands of their enemies; and they went after their foolish imagination, and made decrees which were not right:'

[and judgments, whereby they should not live;]

yea, which were deadly and destructive to them; which brought ruin, destruction, and death upon them; for more is designed than is expressed: this was the effect of following the customs of the nations, and of walking in the statutes of their fathers, and of their own; whereas, had they walked according to the judgments and statutes of God, moral and ceremonial, they had lived comfortably and prosperously.

[Ez. 20: 26 And one polluted them in their own gifts…]
Suffered them to defile themselves; or declared them to be, and treated them as polluted persons, in the gifts and sacrifices which they offered to idols, particularly their firstborn: as the next clause explains it:

[in that they caused to pass though [the fire] all that openeth the womb;]

this very likely they did, when they sacrificed to Baalpeor, the same with Molech, (Numbers 25:3) ;

[that I might make them desolate;]

their families, by stripping them of their children, their firstborn, and strength:

[to the end that they might know that I [am] the Lord;]

a righteous God, in punishing men for sin, in a way it deserves. Some interpret this, not of causing the firstborn to pass through fire to an idol; but of causing them to pass, or of setting them apart, to the Lord, according to the law in (Exodus 13:12) ; where the same word is used as here; and the sense is that God declared them to be impure in or with all their gifts, by commanding them to cause their firstborn to pass to him, which they were obliged to redeem; which sense is approved of by Gussetius F12; and so Abendana, taking the words to refer to both, gives this sense of them,
``I pronounced them impure, and removed them far from me, instead of sanctifying them; because they caused everyone that opens the womb to pass from me, whom I commanded to give to me for holiness, but they have given them to idolatry;''
rather, according to Braunius F13, the words may be understood of God's rejecting and causing the firstborn to pass from him, and not suffering them to offer gifts and sacrifices unto him; which may be meant by pronouncing them impure, or polluting them in their gifts; this was after the worship of the golden calf; when he took Aaron and his sons in their room."

More to come...

(response continued)...

Mr. Avalos goes on to state

"Dating redemption laws later than child sacrifice is due to the internal logic of the laws. We assume that a new law about redemption of the first-born means that previously redemption of the first-born was not practiced. You don’t normally prohibit actions that are expected to be extinct."

As I have said, I am utterly inexpert on the subject, but it seems to me that the sole proof text that you have to even suggest child sacrifice is Exodus 22: 29-30. But this is a repitition of the law in Exodus 13, which qualifies what is meant by 'the first born of your sons you shall give to me.' (v. 29) From what I gather, it was originally meant that the firstborn sons of Israel were to be 'redeemed' with a price from the very beginning, just as the firstborn of unclean animals were to be 'redeemed' with the sacrifice of a lamb and the firstborn of clean animals were to be sacrificed period. This was symbolism of the liberation of the Hebrews from Egypt. To say that redemption laws came AFTER the command for sacrifice would imply that before the Hebrews were sacrificing the firstborn of unclean animals to God, something (as far as I know) that was forbidden by the Hebrew God himself. That would not make sense and would be inconsistent. It would make much more sense to believe that the price of sacrificial offering had to be paid IN SOME WAY for all firstborn of man and beast in Israel, and that the manner in which sacrificial offering was paid was by sacrifice for clean animals, sacrifice of lambs for unclean animals, and a price for human males. It seems the most logical to think that it was this way from the very beginning, if we suppose Scripture is consistent.

My scriptural support lies in Exodus 13, which qualifies what was meant in Exodus 22 since Exodus 22 was a reptition of the law. Exodus 13: 2 states in repitition of v. 29 in Exodus 22: 'Consecrate to me every firstborn male. The first offspring of every womb among the Israelites belongs to me, whether man or animal.'

Exodus 13: 12-13 directly states:

'you are to give over to the LORD the first offspring of every womb...' (followed by what this actually means)... 'Redeem every firstborn among your sons....'

The purpose of this is found in the following verses: "14 In days to come, when your son asks you, 'What does this mean?' say to him, 'With a mighty hand the LORD brought us out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 15 When Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, the LORD killed every firstborn in Egypt, both man and animal. THIS IS WHY I SACRIFICE to the LORD the first male offspring of every womb and REDEEM each of my firstborn sons.' 16 And it will be like a sign on your hand and a symbol on your forehead that the LORD brought us out of Egypt with his mighty hand."

Numbers 18: 15 -16 is yet another repition of the rules of law, and what is actually meant by the broad statements in Exodus 22. No reason to suppose that this was dictated after sacrificial laws of old. Again, I am referring to John Gill, who shares this interpretation.

Mr. Avalos goes on to state:
[Your so-called philosophical solution is vacuous because it does not address my objection of circularity, which Divine command theory, as a whole, does not address, and neither did you. You simply gave us another circular rationale akin to this: “I call Good what my god commands as Good.” This leaves unexplained how you judged that: “It is Good to call Good what my god commands as Good.”]

And I would have thought that Mr. Avalos would have brought up the Euthyphro dilemma by now. That is the classic objection to DCT. Setting aside the issue for now of whether in principle you can know God is speaking to you, let us suppose that Craig's version of God does indeed exist, one who is righteous and does not command cruelty for cruelty's sake. IF, Mr. Avalos, that God did exist, and in some hypothetical way it one could be certain that this God demanded the death of a people group by killing, would it be morally impermissible to obey his commands?

I assume that you have read Bob Adams modified Divine Command Theory, as well as J.L. Mackie's essay concerning the subjectivity of values? Would you like to comment on either of the ideas proposed by said authors?

As a side note, does anyone else find it funny that Ben Stein is supposed to be the truth-seeker in his new film, a man unafraid to confront atheists and evolutionists, yet it is not him doing the interviews with those whom he disagrees but his unknown associate Mathis? I suspect this tactic was designed to avoid hard questions and insure cooperation from his opposition.

It's late, more later...

Regarding comment: Comment #200821
“Since I am inexpert on Hebrew and theology, I am strictly deferring to theologian John Gill’s exposition of the verses...”

You are using an argumentum ad vericundiam (an argument from authority), which is inadmissible unless you can explain why you think it is correct.

Gill offers nothing much beyond theological say-so. I see nothing based on lexicography, grammar and exegesis of the Hebrew terms huqim and mishpatim. For example, where does Gill show an example where the combination of huqim-mishpatim is applied only to laws that were not “the moral law.” How do you read Leviticus 26:46, then? Are huqim-mishpatim related ony to the non-moral law there?

Since you are unable to verify for yourself the meaning of the Hebrew sources on which your interpretations depend, then you are probably not in a position to make any judgments, either way, on this issue. Is it not better for you to withhold judgment until at least you have acquired the equipment necessary to make an independent judgment on this issue?

Comment #200842: And I would have thought that Mr. Avalos would have brought up the Euthyphro dilemma by now...
As I pointed out before, I am attempting to restrict myself to issues I have not discussed elsewhere. I have addressed the use of Euthyphro’s dilemma in my book, Fighting Words (p. 351).

It is unnecessary to refer to this here because the problem of circularity does not disappear with Euthyphro’s dilemma.

The hypothetical you propose can be formulated in an a number of ways. For example, a supporter of Al-Qaida could do the same:

"If Allah did exist, and in some hypothetical way it one could be certain that Allah demanded the death of a people group by killing, would it be morally impermissible to obey his commands?"

Moreover, this does not evade the problem of circularity which you persist in disregarding. You are expressing a tautology: “It is morally permissible to obey the commands of God because it is morally permissible to obey the commands of God.”

You are not explaining how you determined that it is morally permissible to obey the commands of God even if he did exist. You must have made a human judgment that it is morally permissible to follow the commands of a God if he exists. But your human judgments are no better than many alternatives we could posit.

I think that you should update your reading list before I expend more time simply recapitulating arguments I have made elsewhere. After you read my book on religious violence, I would be glad to answer questions that remain.

that he was crucified at the instigation of several Jewish leaders

The fact is that if morality is objectively rooted in the necessity of God’s nature, then what He commands as a reflection of his nature is morally obligatory.

let us suppose that Craig’s version of God does indeed exist, one who is righteous and does not command cruelty for cruelty’s sake

Since I am inexpert on Hebrew and theology, I am strictly deferring to theologian John Gill’s exposition of the verses

Nazi anti-semitism was not a Darwinian idea, because Nazi anti-semitism targeted all Jews, not just those who were physically and/or mentally unfit.

So post a brief explanation of the essence of the concept of Kantorovich metric in your own words (rather than copying it from an encyclopedia or a textbook). It should be easy for a Rachev’s student.

I don't come to Panda's Thumb very often, but a friend told me about Hector Avalos's essay about my book, so I couldn't resist reading it. What I find remarkable about it is that he ignores the historical context about which I am writing in my book. My book is about the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and shifts in thinking that occurred during the period of approximately 1859-1914. Avalos hardly ever says anything about what Christianity was like during that period. His claims about what the Bible allegedly teaches--for instance child sacrifice--strains credulity, and I doubt that very many (maybe zero) Christians in the nineteenth century were using the Bible to defend child sacrifice. Since even according to his own view, the later parts of the Old Testament reject child sacrifice and it is clear that Christianity rejected child sacrifice from the start, what does this have to do with the shift in the nineteenth century I am discussing?

It is clear that Avalos is more interested in attacking the Bible as an allegedly immoral book, rather than trying to discover what happened in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries to make infanticide, euthanasia, and genocide intellectually acceptable to leading scholars (the ones I discuss were generally anti-Christian, a point Avalos apparently doesn't like too much).

What were the prevailing views of Christians during that time? Sure, some Christians were (and still are) racist--some atheists were and are racist, too. But what was the prevailing current of thought? I find it interesting that during that time many Darwinists themselves lamented that Christianity supported egalitarianism, while--they asserted--Darwinism proved human inequality. Of course, there are many examples Avalos could bring up to show that not all Christians were egalitarian in the nineteenth century.

I also never claim in my book that Darwinism produced racism. I specifically remind my readers that racism predated Darwin. However, even Stephen Jay Gould admitted that racism increased significantly after and because of the advent of Darwinian theory. My book explains why that is so.

I never claimed in my book, either, that Darwinism was the sole culprit for genocide or racism or any other human evil. Evil has been around much longer than Darwinism.

However, Dr. Avalos sidesteps a key issue in my book: under the influence of Christianity for centuries infanticide and killing the disabled were forbidden by all European societies. Darwinian-inspired thinkers of the late nineteenth century began to endorse infanticide and involuntary euthanasia. The famous Darwinist Ernst Haeckel was the first to promote killing the disabled in Germany--and he based it on his Darwinian worldview. Ian Dowbiggin, Nick Kemp, Udo Benzenhoefer, Hans Walter Schmuhl, and other scholars have all shown the importance of Darwinism in fostering the euthanasia movement, not only in Germany, but also in the United States and Britain.

These are apparently unpalatable truths for Dr. Avalos.

I will not likely be looking back at this website, since I'm going to the University of Leeds to the "Darwinism after Darwin" conference, where I will discuss my book with some of its critics. Fire away, but know that my lack of response is simply because I'm gone.

You will be happy to know, however, that I am currently preparing some more grist for your mill, since I'm on leave this coming academic year to write a book entitled "Hitler's Ethic," where I will prove that evolutionary ethics was a central part of Hitler's worldview. Stay tuned.

Evolutionary ethics? One of the conclusions of evolution theory is that variety is a valuable asset, and under changing condition just might be a necessity for survival of a species. Given that, wiping out genotypes is if anything a reckless endangerment of the species. So if there were any ethics implied by evolution, it would be to increase variety, not reduce it.

Henry

However, even Stephen Jay Gould admitted that racism increased significantly after and because of the advent of Darwinian theory.

I find that extremely hard to believe, given the racism that accompanied, guided, and justified the European colonization of Africa and the Americas, and the enslavement of the peoples indigenous to those continents, starting in the FIFTEENTH century. (Ever heard of Columbus? Spain? Conquistadors? Missionaries?)

Could that be one reason why you had plenty of time to post here, but suddenly no time at all to hear our responses?

You will be happy to know, however, that I am currently preparing some more grist for your mill, since I’m on leave this coming academic year to write a book entitled “Hitler’s Ethic,” where I will prove that evolutionary ethics was a central part of Hitler’s worldview.

And I'll bet Richard will be strangely silent about Martin Luther's virulent antisemitism, and the effect it had on European Christianity.

And I'm sure it's just an accident that Mein Kampf mentioned Jesus and God as such as it did but never evolution or Darwin.

Hitler, of course, was a creationist, at least as far as human beings were concerned.

Hitler explicity rejected Darwinism and the evolution of man.

From Hitler's Tischgespraeche for 1942 'Woher nehmen wir das Recht zu glauben, der Mensch sei nicht von Uranfaengen das gewesen , was er heute ist? Der Blick in die Natur zeigt uns, dass im Bereich der Pflanzen und Tiere Veraenderungen und Weiterbildungen vorkommen. Aber nirgends zeigt sich innherhalb einer Gattung eine Entwicklung von der Weite des Sprungs, den der Mensch gemacht haben muesste, sollte er sich aus einem affenartigen Zustand zu dem, was er ist, fortgebildet haben.'

I shall translate :-

'From where do we get the right to believe that man was not from the very beginning what he is today.

A glance in Nature shows us , that changes and developments happen in the realm of plants and animals. But nthing shows inside a kind, a development of the size of the leap that Man must have made, if he supposedly has advanced from an ape-like condition to what he is now

And in the entry for 27 February 1942 , Hitler says 'Das, was der Mensch von dem Tier voraushat, der veilleicht wunderbarste Beweis fuer die Ueberlegenheit des Menschen ist, dass er begriffen hat, dass es eine Schoepferkraft geben muss.'

Hitler also wrote 'Die zehn Gebote sind Ordnungsgesetze, die absolut lobenswert sind.'

'The 10 commandments are laws, which are absolutely praiseworthy'

If Weikart cares to glance at Craig's essay, he will see leading Christian scholars of today claiming that it was morally acceptable to kill whole groups of people,men, women and children.

Hitler was far more influenced by the views of the Reverend Thomas Malthus than by 'evolutionary ethics' , something which no more exists than 'gravitational ethucs'

WEIKART
'What I find remarkable about it is that he ignores the historical context about which I am writing in my book. My book is about the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and shifts in thinking that occurred during the period of approximately 1859-1914.'

CARR
Weikart writes a book called 'From Darwin to Hitler' and complains that people are ignoring the fact that it never covers any part of the Hitler regime. Remarkable!

Why didn't he say earlier that the historical context of the book had nothing whatever to do with the time when Hitler came to power? It would have saved a lot of confusion on the part of reviewers.

I am not convinced that Weikart distinguishes between "evolution" and "Darwin".

A great many people, including creationists, accept the reality of evolution, when it is restricted to "micro"evolution - evolution within a "kind" (sometimes called a "baramin"), such as within "mankind" - or when it is "de"volution - "downward" evolution. There is a whole subgenre of creationist writing about "baraminology".

Among the important ways in which "darwinism" differs from creationism, there is the idea that nature, left to its own devices, by such means as natural selection, is productive; and there is no direction to evolutionary change, no "upward" or "downward". The creationists all seem to agree that nature requires a "helping hand", such as "intelligent design" in order to "progress" (or, at least, not to deteriorate).

It seems to me to be critical for eugenics also to deny the efficacy of "undirected evolution".

Another important feature of "darwinism" is the idea that large-scale variation in life, including the origin of species, is also a natural event: Macro-evolution. I cannot imagine how macro-evolution has any relationship at all to any of those social/political campaigns.

In brief, the only way that evolution can be involved in these social/political campaigns is only in a way that goes counter to Darwin, and counter to modern evolutionary biology; but in agreement with creationist understanding of evolution.

If there is to be a cautionary tale to be derived from these social/political movements, it ought to be that an incoherent, pseudo-scientific social/poltical movement is not to be trusted.

Here is one of the places where Weikart shows the influence of the Reverend Thomas Malthus on eugenics.

From page 185 of 'From Darwin to Hitler' 'Malthus's view that organisms have a biological tendency toward overpopulation, causing most organisms to perish before reproducing. Thus, the mass destruction of organisms , including humans, was, according to Darwin and Malthus, inevtiable.'

From page 185 of ‘From Darwin to Hitler’ ‘Malthus’s view that organisms have a biological tendency toward overpopulation, causing most organisms to perish before reproducing. Thus, the mass destruction of organisms , including humans, was, according to Darwin and Malthus, inevtiable.’

Fire away, but know that my lack of response is simply because I’m gone.

However, Dr. Avalos sidesteps a key issue in my book: under the influence of Christianity for centuries infanticide and killing the disabled were forbidden by all European societies. Darwinian-inspired thinkers of the late nineteenth century began to endorse infanticide and involuntary euthanasia.

When we look at the wider length of Christian history, we see that the advent of Christianity did not end infanticide, despite repeated claims to the contrary. In fact, some researchers think that Christian theology sometimes may have encouraged infanticide. Keith Wrightson remarks:

It also raises the disturbing possibility that if Christian social morality had done much to overcome the practice of infanticide motivated by considerations of communal or familial interest, it may have exacerbated resort to it to avoid the stigma of illegitimacy.

[Reference removed.]

I must say I find Mr. O Brien's assertion that most Christians are profoundly unorthodox, not to say heretical, in their view of the Old Testament, to be profoundly implausible. It is also contradicted by this survey

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27682

As regards Levine: I learned quantum mechanics in a physics department, largely from Roy Glauber. Oddly enough, chemists and physicists approach q.m. very differently, and even more oddly, I've never taught what we call 'quantum I' at the graduate level. So I really don't have an opinion on Levine, never having looked at it.

Avalos has a far greater grasp of history than the people that he was trying to talk to on the Culture Watch site...at leasts he's not the only one to try to teach some real history...http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8176

With regard to infanticide, from the Middle Ages through the 19th century the practice in Italy was that unwanted newborns (malformed, illegitimate, etc) were dropped off anonymously at religious institutions using special revolving "wheels" mounted through walls or doors. (It is commonly said that anyone in Italy who carries the family name Esposti/Esposito/etc, meaning "exposed", is likely the descendant of one of these children, because that was the last name they were given.) I am not sure whether the practice or something similar existed elsewhere in Europe, but I suspect it did.

Once under charge of the religious orders, the care these children received was often minimal, and mortality among them was rampant, apparently reaching as high as 98% in some places, because of malnutrition, disease, and whatever else these kids endured. For practical purposes, therefore, infanticide had not been eliminated as much as it had become an institutional and impersonal practice, made palatable via the anonymous "wheel" mechanism and the disconnect from what happened afterwards. It's similar to the hypocrisy that makes the death penalty acceptable to many US citizens today by pretending the killing is "humane" and hiding it from view. The barbarism is the same, but it's less offensive to the public.

With regard to infanticide, from the Middle Ages through the 19th century the practice in Italy was that unwanted newborns (malformed, illegitimate, etc) were dropped off anonymously at religious institutions using special revolving "wheels" mounted through walls or doors. (It is commonly said that anyone in Italy who carries the family name Esposti/Esposito/etc, meaning "exposed", is likely the descendant of one of these children, because that was the last name they were given.) I am not sure whether the practice or something similar existed elsewhere in Europe, but I suspect it did.

Once under charge of the religious orders, the care these children received was often minimal, and mortality among them was rampant, apparently reaching as high as 98% in some places, because of malnutrition, disease, and whatever else these kids endured. For practical purposes, therefore, infanticide had not been eliminated as much as it had become an institutional and impersonal practice, made palatable via the anonymous "wheel" mechanism and the disconnect from what happened afterwards. It's similar to the hypocrisy that makes the death penalty acceptable to many US citizens today by pretending the killing is "humane" and hiding it from view. The barbarism is the same, but it's less offensive to the public.

With regard to infanticide, from the Middle Ages through the 19th century the practice in Italy was that unwanted newborns (malformed, illegitimate, etc) were dropped off anonymously at religious institutions using special revolving "wheels" mounted through walls or doors. (It is commonly said that anyone in Italy who carries the family name Esposti/Esposito/etc, meaning "exposed", is likely the descendant of one of these children, because that was the last name they were given.) I am not sure whether the practice or something similar existed elsewhere in Europe, but I suspect it did.

Once under charge of the religious orders, the care these children received was often minimal, and mortality among them was rampant, apparently reaching as high as 98% in some places, because of malnutrition, disease, and whatever else these kids endured. For practical purposes, therefore, infanticide had not been eliminated as much as it had become an institutional and impersonal practice, made palatable via the anonymous "wheel" mechanism and the disconnect from what happened afterwards. It's similar to the hypocrisy that makes the death penalty acceptable to many US citizens today by pretending the killing is "humane" and hiding it from view. The barbarism is the same, but it's less offensive to the public.

Sorry about the multipost. I kept getting a Movable Type error message.

...infanticide had not been eliminated as much as it had become an institutional and impersonal practice, made palatable via the anonymous “wheel” mechanism and the disconnect from what happened afterwards.

...infanticide had not been eliminated as much as it had become an institutional and impersonal practice, made palatable via the anonymous “wheel” mechanism and the disconnect from what happened afterwards.

This is an absolutely awful thread. Once again we are treated to uninformed distortions of the Hebrew Bible by a "scholar" with an agenda and dangerous little knowledge.

All of these "blood libels" against the Hebrew Bible have been debunked by myself in this forum and by many others. I will therefore not bother getting into details yet again here.

Suffice it to add, as I have reminded folks on many other occasions, that the Hebrew Bible was written by the Jews and for the Jews and was passed on by them (very meticulously, I might add)from generation to generation, over the course of thousands of years, together with an oral tradition which gave meaning to the words and their context. And we have extensive records of these traditions going back many centuries in the form of the Talmud, Midrash and others. The suggestion that the Hebrew Bible at any point demanded human sacrifices or endorsed genocide of the Cannanites would be laughed out of town by any Jew familiar with his religion, irrespective of the silly and ignorant word games played by Savalos and his ilk. And of course neither of these notions was ever actually performed, for good reason - they were never advocated.

'The suggestion that the Hebrew Bible at any point demanded human sacrifices or endorsed genocide of the Cannanites would be laughed out of town by any Jew familiar with his religion, irrespective of the silly and ignorant word games played by Savalos and his ilk.'

Numbers 31:17-18 'Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.'

Comment #202197
Regarding: Posted by Carol Clouser on August 31, 2007 2:57 AM (e):"All of these “blood libels” against the Hebrew Bible have been debunked by myself in this forum and by many others. I will therefore not bother getting into details yet again here."

Ms. Clouser appears to be outside of her area of expertise, and she provides no credentials of training in biblical studies from any secular academic institution. I have failed to find her listed as a member of the Society of Biblical Literature, the largest organization of academic biblical scholars in the world.

The persons I have quoted concerning child sacrifice/genocide in the Bible include Jon Levenson of Harvard Divinity School, and Moshe Greenberg, both recognized Jewish biblical scholars. My own Ph.D. is in Hebrew Bible. I don't know of many academic biblical scholars, Jewish, Christian, or secular who do not agree that the biblical authors were endorsing the idea of genocide, even if historically they may have questions about its actual implementation.

Her statement that " we have extensive records of these traditions going back many centuries in the form of the Talmud..." is also quite misleading. The earliest Hebrew manuscripts for the Bible are the Dead Sea Scrolls which date no earlier than about the third century BCE, and so about 1000 years after the supposed events related in Deuteronomy. There is also the inscription from Ketef Hinnom, but that is of disputed date. For a standard treatment of biblical manuscript traditions, see See Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Ausburg: Fortress, 2001).

Re: Comment #202197 Posted by Carol Clouser on August 31, 2007 2:57 AM (e)
“All of these ‘blood libels’ against the Hebrew Bible have been debunked by myself in this forum and by many others. I will therefore not bother getting into details yet again here.”

Ms. Clouser appears to be outside of her area of expertise, and she provides no credentials of training in biblical studies from any secular academic institution. I have failed to find her listed as a member of the Society of Biblical Literature, the largest organization of academic biblical scholars in the world.

The persons I have quoted concerning child sacrifice/genocide in the Bible include Jon Levenson of Harvard Divinity School, and Moshe Greenberg, both recognized Jewish biblical scholars. My own Ph.D. is in Hebrew Bible. I don't know of many academic biblical scholars, Jewish, Christian, or secular who do not agree that the biblical authors were endorsing the idea of genocide, even if historically they may have questions about its actual implementation.

Her statement that " we have extensive records of these traditions going back many centuries in the form of the Talmud..." is also quite misleading. The earliest Hebrew manuscripts for the Bible are the Dead Sea Scrolls which date no earlier than about the third century BCE, and so about 1000 years after the supposed events related in Deuteronomy. There is also the inscription from Ketef Hinnom, but that is of disputed date. For a standard treatment of biblical manuscript traditions, see See Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001).

If Weikart cannot find evidence of modern Christians justifying the killing of entire groups of people, men, women and children, I am willing to help him out.

Try http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2007/08/internet-atheists-and-rhetoric-addendum.html

Regarding the genocide of the Midianites: it was endorsed within the last three years by no less a personage than the Religion Moderator of the right-wing US website Free Republic. She went on to argue that the modern equivalent of the Midianites were 'proselytizing atheists' such as Richard Dawkins.

Mr. Avalos states, "Gill offers nothing much beyond theological say-so. I see nothing based on lexicography, grammar and exegesis of the Hebrew terms huqim and mishpatim. For example, where does Gill show an example where the combination of huqim-mishpatim is applied only to laws that were not 'the moral law.' How do you read Leviticus 26:46, then? Are huqim-mishpatim related ony to the non-moral law there?"

As I have stated, I do not know Hebrew, and so I may be completely off base in my criticism. You seem to suggest that because I do not know Hebrew, I may as well suspend my judgement until I have acquired the proper tools of assessment myself. But this may very well be an absurd requirement. Do you have the proper background in molecular biology, geo- and biochemistry to assess the claims that the early earth's atmosphere was condusive to the production of organic molecules, and that a self-replicating entity could arise from this mixture? How about the mathematical knowledge to judge the validity of Godel's famous incompleteness theorems? Chances are that you do not, but you believe the judgements of people you trust in the field who have studied the matter extensively. In this case, I hold to both John Gill's and John Calvin's interpretation of Ezekial, both of whom were Biblical scholars who knew Hebrew, which is that the 'statutes'
and 'laws' referenced in Ezekial 20 is referring to those laws imposed when the people of Israel led themselves into various idolatries via the sovereign will of God. These are not (or at very least do not have to refer to) the statutes of Lev. 26: 26, which "the LORD made between him and the children of Israel in mount Sinai by the hand of Moses." Do draw on Calvinism, this is the distinction between God's revealed will and his sovereign will. He 'gave' the children of Israel the moral statutes in Lev. 26 as his revealed will, but He also 'gave' or led the children of Israel over to immoral statutes via his sovereign will, such as in Jer. 7 when the children of Israel practiced child sacrifices. To believe that God gave the children of Israel the command to sacrifice infants would be to directly contradict his commands in Exodus 13 and 34, which directly states that children are /not/ to be sacrificed but redeemed with a rixed price. It seems that Mr. Avalos suggests that there is NO and CANNOT BE a distinction between the statutes that God commands, whether they arise as the result of His direct revelation (revealed will) or his sovereign action in making the hearts of his people go astray from his commands to various idolatries (sovereing will). Is this just an assumption you are making, or could Gill's and Calvin's explanations work?

By the way, Mr. Avalos never addressed my commets about Exodus 13 and 22 in Comment #200842. If my assessment (which is Gill's and Calvin's assessment) is correct, then whatever the statutes that God is referring to in Ezekial 20 /cannot/ be referencing child sacrifice, assuming that the Bible is consistent. You may find Calvin's interpretation implausible, but is it possible? Is it consistent?

Here is John Calvin's exposition of Ezekial 20: 25 -26

Ezekiel 20:25
25. Wherefore I gave them also statutes that 25. Ego quoque
dedi illis decreta non bona,
were not good, and judgments whereby they et judicia in quibus ton vivent.
should not live;

Here God announces that he had taken vengeance upon people so hard
and obstinate, by
permitting them to endure another yoke, since they would not be ruled
by the doctrine of the law;
for we saw that, when God imposed the law upon the Israelites, they
would have been extremely
happy, had they only considered how honorable it was to be in covenant
with God, who deigned
to bind them to himself in mutual fidelity. This was a remarkable
honor and privilege, since God
not only showed them what was right, but promised them a reward which
he by no means owed
them. But what was the conduct of that unteachable nation? It threw
off the yoke of the law; hence
278 Or, "my burning wrath." — Calvin.
279 Or, "against them." — Calvin.
207
m on Ezekiel (V2)
John Calvin
it deserved to experience a different government. God, therefore,
gave them laws that were not
good, when he suffered them to be miserably subjected to an immense
heap of errors: such laws
as these were not good. Some writers have violently distorted this
passage, by thinking the law
itself, as promulgated by Moses, "not good," since Paul calls it
deadly; but they corrupt the Prophet's
sense, since God is comparing his law with the superstitions of the
Gentiles: others explain it of
the tributes which the people were compelled to pay to foreigners.
But, first of all, God does not
speak here of only one age; nay, during the, time of the
Israelites' freedom his vengeance was
nevertheless severe.
Thus, in the next verse, the Prophet confirms what I have
briefly touched on, namely, that the
laws called not good are all the fictions of men, by which they
harass themselves, while they think
that God is worshipped acceptably in this way: for we know how
miserably men labor and distract
themselves when Satan has fascinated them with his toils, and when
they anxiously invent numerous
rites, because there is no end of their superstitions; hence these
statutes are not good: for when they
have undergone much labor in their idolatry, no other reward awaits
them than God's appearance
against them as an avenger to punish the profanation of his own
lawful worship. They indeed by
no means look for this, but they utterly deceive themselves; hence
they must hope for no reward
but what is founded on the covenant and promise of God; for all
false and vicious forms of worship,
all adventitious rites, which men heap together from all sides,
have no promise from God, and
hence they vainly trust to them for life. God began to show them
this in the wilderness; but in
succeeding ages he did not fail to exercise the same vengeance. We
see how they fell in with the
superstitions of the Moabites; and why so? unless God blinded them
by his just judgments. (Numbers
25:1-3.) He had experienced their untamed dispositions, and so he
set them free from control; and
not only so, but afterwards gave them up to Satan, and so he says
that he gave them laws that were
not good. The Prophet might indeed have said, that they despised
God's law through their own
wisdom, that they foolishly and rashly legislated for themselves:
this was indeed true; but he wished
to express the penalty of which Paul speaks, when he says that the
impious were delivered to a
reprobate mind, and to obedience to a lie, (Romans 1:24-26,) since
they did not submit to the truth,
and did not suffer themselves to be ruled by God, and thus were
given up to the tyranny of Satan
and to the service of mere creatures. Now, therefore, we understand
the Prophet's meaning, I have
given them also, says he, laws not good, as if he had said that the
people so threw themselves into
various idolatries, that God desired in this way to avenge their
incredible obstinacy; for if the Jews
had calmly acquiesced in God's sovereignty, he had not given them
evil laws, that is, he had not
suffered them to be so tormented under Satan's tyranny; but when
they were entangled in his snares,
God openly shows them to be unworthy of his government and care,
since they were too refractory.
It follows —
Ezekiel 20:26
26. And I polluted them in their own gifts, in 26. Et
contaminavi ipsos in suis muneribus,
that they caused to pass through the fire all that trajiciendo
quidquid aperit vulvam, ut perderem
openeth the womb, that I might make them ipsos, ut quod, (sed
supervacuum est,) ut
cognoscant
quod ego Iehovah.
208
m on Ezekiel (V2)
John Calvin
desolate, to the end that they might know that I
am the LORD.

There is no doubt that God here continues the same doctrine'
hence we gather that injurious
laws were given to the people when they adopted various errors and
worshipped idols of their own
fabrication instead of God: hence it is added, I polluted them in
their gifts. This, then, was added
by the Prophet, lest the Jews should object that they had not
altogether rejected the worship of God;
for they mingled the ceremonies of the laws with the fictions of
the Gentiles, as we saw before,
and the Prophet will shortly repeat: in this way they thought they
discharged their duty to God,
though they added mixtures of their own. Here the Prophet meets
them, and cuts off all occasion
for turning aside, since they were polluted in their gifts, and
nothing was pure or sincere when they
thus corrupted God's precepts by their comments. However, they
daily offered their gifts, and
professed to present them to the true God; yet they obtained no
advantage, because God abominated
mixtures of this kind, as we have previously said; for he cannot
bear to be worshipped by the will
of men, but wishes his children to be simply content with his
commands. Now, we perceive the
meaning of the Prophet — God pollutes them in their gifts; that is,
renders their gifts polluting
whenever they think that they discharge their duty; — but how? why,
he says, when they cause
whatever opens the womb to pass through. 280 Here the Prophet
touches on only one kind of
superstition, but, by a figure of speech, he means all kinds, by
which the Jews vitiated God's pure
worship; for this superstition was very detestable, to pass their
sons through the fire, and to consecrate
them to idols. But in this passage God speaks only of the
first-born, so as greatly to exaggerate the
crime: that ceremony was indeed general; but since God claimed the
first-born as his own, and
wished them to be redeemed at a fixed price, (Exodus 13:2, Exodus
22:29, and Exodus 34:19, 20,)
and by this act wished the remembrance of their redemption to be
kept up, since all the first-born
of Israel, as well as of animals, had escaped, while those of the
Egyptians perished, (Numbers 3:13,
and Numbers 8:16,) was it not monstrous to pass through the fire,
and to offer to idols those who
were specially devoted and sacred to God? We see, then, that the
Prophet does not speak in vain
of the first-born.
That I should destroy thou, says he, and they should know that
I am Jehovah. God here shows
that he had proceeded gradually to the final vengeance; and for
this reason the people were the
more convicted of stupidity, since they never perceived God's
judgments manifest. If God had
suddenly and impetuously issued his vengeance from heaven, men's
astonishment would not have
been wonderful; but when he grants them space of time and a truce
that they may weigh the matter
at leisure, and admonishes them to repentance, not once only, but
often; and then if they remain
always the same and are not effected, they show themselves utterly
desperate by this slothfulness,
as the Prophet now asserts. But when he adds, that they may know
that I am Jehovah, he means
that as he was not acknowledged as a father by the Jews, he would
be their judge, and compel them
whether they would or not to feel the formidable nature of that
power which they despised. Since
we have treated this subject fully before, we now pass it by more
lightly. Yet we must notice this,
that God is recognized by the reprobate, since, when his fatherly
goodness has been for a long time
280 Supply "the fire," as in the authorized version.
209
m on Ezekiel (V2)
John Calvin
despised by them, he at length appears as a judge, and draws them
against their will to his tribunal,
and executes his vengeance, so that they cannot escape. It follows —

RE: Comment #201419 Posted by Richard Weikart on August 28, 2007 7:11 PM (e)
Dr. Weikart’s response unfortunately evades the serious issues raised about his thesis, and overlooks that I did discuss many of the items he said I omitted.

First, Dr. Weikart suggests that my focus on the Bible is irrelevant to a critique of his thesis. However, his book is premised on a dichotomy between “Judeo-Christian values” on the one hand and those of “Darwinism” and Nazi ideology on the other hand. Since the Bible is the basis of Weikart’s definition of Judeo-Christian values, then it is necessary to show that many biblical values sometimes are not that different from those of Nazi ideology on the questions of genocide, ethnocentrism, the value of human life, etc.

The fact that my critique is effective is most evident in his movement of the goal post from “Judeo-Christian” ethics to the Judeo-Christian ethics of 1859-1914. As he now phrases it: “My book is about the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and shifts in thinking that occurred during the period of approximately 1859-1914. Avalos hardly ever says anything about what Christianity was like during that period.”

However, Dr. Weikart believes that Judeo-Christian ethics are superior to evolutionary ethics regardless of the time, and so restricting it to 1859-1914 is already a retreat for him. One can also sense this retreat in the final sentences of his post: “I’m on leave this coming academic year to write a book entitled “Hitler’s Ethic,” where I will prove that evolutionary ethics was a central part of Hitler’s worldview.”

This promise an admission that his thesis of Darwinism being such a heavy contributor to Nazism was left “unproved” in the very book that should have proved it, From Darwin to Hitler.

Even so, it is not true that I did not provide much evidence of what Christianity was like between 1859 and 1914. After all, does he think that Germany was full of atheists in this period? Note the following items I referenced from this period:

Reuben A. Torrey (1856-1928), who defended not only genocide but also
broached the possibility that killing children today might be a good
thing if they went to heaven. Torrey was a major Christian evangelical
figure who contributed to the anti-evolutionist tracts, The Fundamentals, which were published in 1910-1915.

Ernest Renan (1823-1892), a well-known biblical scholar, whose work was
used by Alfred Rosenberg. Renan had developed the thesis that Jesus
was an Aryan, not a Jew. This allowed Nazis to claim Jesus
as one of their Aryan heroes, while detesting Judaism.

And, of course, we can gladly oblige Dr. Weikart’s request to show what Christianity was like in the period 1859-1914. One only has to recall that during this entire period, African-Americans were not seen as full citizens of the United States because of racism, which was supported by biblical prooftexts.

I can provide a catalog, but let’s just give one example from 1859, the very year in which The Origin of Species was published. The book is Slavery Ordained of God by Fred. A. Ross (1859; Reprint, New York: Negro University Press, 1969) pages 6-7. Here is short extract:

Let the Northern philanthropist learn from the Bible
that the relation of master and slave is not sin per se.
Let him learn that God says nowhere it is sin...Let him
learn that slavery is simply an evil in certain circumstances.
Let him learn that equality is only the highest form of
social life; that subjection to authority, even slavery,
may, in given conditions, be for a time better than freedom
to the slave of any complexion. Let him learn that slavery
like all evils, has its corresponding greater good; that the
Southern slave, though degraded compared to his master,
is elevated and ennobled compared to his brethren in Africa.

How is this much different from Hitler’s view that he was head of master race that had right to enslave other people? True enough,
Ross thinks that slavery might be eliminated in some future utopia, but only when the master race felt secure enough to eliminate it.

If Weikart believes that there was a Judeo-Christian culture in America between 1859-1914, then he should perhaps also familiarize himself with how genocide and other forms of human devaluation were very much at home in this period in America.

Yes, during the year between 1859 and 1914 is when self-described Christians in America were still killing off the Native populations or moving them into reservations to separate them from the European newcomers. American segregationist policies were so effective that they prompted Hitler himself to comment as follows in Mein Kampf, p. 286 (Manheim translation).

North America, whose population consists in by far the largest
part of Germanic elements who mixed but little with the lower
colored peoples, shows a different humanity and culture
from Central and South America, where the predominantly
Latin immigrants often mixed with the aborigines on a large
scale. By this one example, we can clearly and distinctly
recognize the effect of racial mixture. The Germanic inhabitant
of the American continent, who has remained racially pure
and unmixed rose to be master of the continent; he will remain
the master as long as he does not fall victim to the defilement
of blood.

And before Weikart credits the Judeo-Christian tradition the abolition movement, let him understand abolition, equal rights for women, and many other of those freedoms we hold dear were the result of abandoning biblical principles or abandoning literal interpretations of the Bible.

I hope Dr. Weikart at least integrates the discussions found in the following books that describe the nature of Christianity in part of the period that on which he says he concentrates:

Robert P. Erickson and Susannah Heschel, eds. Betrayal: German
Churches and the Holocaust. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999.

Charles Y. Glock and Rodney Stark. Christian Beliefs and Anti-Semitism.
New York: Harper & Row, 1966.

David E. Stannard, American Holocaust: The Conquest of the
New World. New York: Oxford, 1992.

H. Henrietta Stockel, On the Bloody Road to Jesus: Christianity
and the Chiricahua Apaches. Albuquerque: University of New
Mexico Press, 2004.

So let Dr. Weikart tell us a bit more about Judeo-Christian culture between 1859 and 1914 in his next book. I certainly look forward to reading it.