Hi David. I worry that I am being unclear. Let me try again. There is a difference between my thinking that slavery is immoral and my condemning people in an ancient society for practicing slavery. In the same way that I think it immoral to physically discipline one of my five children, that does not mean that I would condemn someone in the 1950s for beating their child. However, if someone were to say, "We should get back to raising children like they did it in the 1950s," then I would point out that they beat their children. If that person were to retort, "No, that was just metaphorical", I would point out that children were actually beaten. That would not be a moral statement about beating children (although I think it is immoral to beat one's children).
In the same way, most Christian apologists and Evangelicals agree that genocide and violence against children are both immoral practices. That is why these apologetic arguments arise. When Copan argues that this is hyperbolic language, that only gets him to the Israelite army killing many people, but not all of them. Would that be better according to HIS lights? This is an internal critique. My moral position is irrelevant, in this case. If Copan believes that killing many people and driving the rest from their homes, then he would have to explain why the hyperbole makes the violence okay. So, when I ask the question "Is there no ethical issue that Saul and the Israelite army only killed a LOT of the Amalekites?", that is a question posed to him based on HIS lights, not mine.
As to your second question, I think it is incredibly problematic to view an ancient text as divinely inspired and authoritative, leading people to view it in such a way that they attempt to establish their ethical system from its content. This is especially problematic when they attempt to require others to adhere to that system. Think about it this way: if I were to say, "I believe that the Neo-Assyrian royal inscriptions are divinely inspired and I am going to base my ethical system on them", you would likely not be terribly bothered by my adhering to principles of caring for the weak and providing for those under my care. However, if I were to start arguing that we should bring back slavery because the Neo-Assyrian kings in the inscriptions practiced slavery, you would likely have a problem with that. Perhaps another way to say it would be that the Epic of Gilgamesh is a wonderful story from which we can derive valuable lessons. However, we would not want to take it wholesale. In the same way, there are obviously good things that can be derived from the biblical texts. However, I think it would be misguided to base my morality on its content because it is divinely inspired and authoritative, no matter what the behavior it advocates might be. Instead, just as we might gain insights from ancient (and modern) literature, it is not because it is divinely inspired.
Hi David. I worry that I am being unclear. Let me try again. There is a difference between my thinking that slavery is immoral and my condemning people in an ancient society for practicing slavery. In the same way that I think it immoral to physically discipline one of my five children, that does not mean that I would condemn someone in the 1950s for beating their child. However, if someone were to say, "We should get back to raising children like they did it in the 1950s," then I would point out that they beat their children. If that person were to retort, "No, that was just metaphorical", I would point out that children were actually beaten. That would not be a moral statement about beating children (although I think it is immoral to beat one's children).
In the same way, most Christian apologists and Evangelicals agree that genocide and violence against children are both immoral practices. That is why these apologetic arguments arise. When Copan argues that this is hyperbolic language, that only gets him to the Israelite army killing many people, but not all of them. Would that be better according to HIS lights? This is an internal critique. My moral position is irrelevant, in this case. If Copan believes that killing many people and driving the rest from their homes, then he would have to explain why the hyperbole makes the violence okay. So, when I ask the question "Is there no ethical issue that Saul and the Israelite army only killed a LOT of the Amalekites?", that is a question posed to him based on HIS lights, not mine.
As to your second question, I think it is incredibly problematic to view an ancient text as divinely inspired and authoritative, leading people to view it in such a way that they attempt to establish their ethical system from its content. This is especially problematic when they attempt to require others to adhere to that system. Think about it this way: if I were to say, "I believe that the Neo-Assyrian royal inscriptions are divinely inspired and I am going to base my ethical system on them", you would likely not be terribly bothered by my adhering to principles of caring for the weak and providing for those under my care. However, if I were to start arguing that we should bring back slavery because the Neo-Assyrian kings in the inscriptions practiced slavery, you would likely have a problem with that. Perhaps another way to say it would be that the Epic of Gilgamesh is a wonderful story from which we can derive valuable lessons. However, we would not want to take it wholesale. In the same way, there are obviously good things that can be derived from the biblical texts. However, I think it would be misguided to base my morality on its content because it is divinely inspired and authoritative, no matter what the behavior it advocates might be. Instead, just as we might gain insights from ancient (and modern) literature, it is not because it is divinely inspired.
I hope that makes more sense.