William Lane Craig Justifies Genocide.

[Kuroikaze]

Has anyone seen this?

 

http://www.reasonabl...Article&id=5767

 

He is justifying the Jewish slaughter of the Canaanites.

 

 

here are a few highlights for people who do not want to read this entire abortion of rational thought. (bold added for emphasis)

 

According to the version of divine command ethics which I’ve defended,our moral duties are constituted by the commands of a holy and lovingGod. Since God doesn’t issue commands to Himself, He has no moralduties to fulfill. He is certainly not subject to the same moralobligations and prohibitions that we are.

 

How exactly is morality objective if it does not apply to all beings? The answer? It isn't and Craig is an idiot.

 

So the problem isn’t that God ended the Canaanites’ lives. The problemis that He commanded the Israeli soldiers to end them. Isn’t that likecommanding someone to commit murder? No, it’s not. Rather, since our moral duties are determined by God’s commands, it iscommanding someone to do something which, in the absence of a divinecommand, would have been murder. The act was morallyobligatory for the Israeli soldiers in virtue of God’s command, eventhough, had they undertaken it on their on initiative, it would havebeen wrong.

 

So murder and torture are ok as long as god orders it.....lets hope I never live next door to a follower of Craig.

 

So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of theCanaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt anddeserving of judgement. Not the children, for they inherit eternallife. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult partof this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiersthemselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to breakinto some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? Thebrutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing.

 

does he even engage his brain before speaking?

 

The problem with Islam, then, is not that it has got the wrong moraltheory; it’s that it has got the wrong God. If the Muslim thinks thatour moral duties are constituted by God’s commands, then I agree withhim. But Muslims and Christians differ radically over God’s nature. Christians believe that God is all-loving, while Muslims believe thatGod loves only Muslims.

 

Can you believe this asshat, he claims that it is moral to murder if god commands it, and then says that the muslim version of god is different because it does not teach that god loves everyone? It seems clear by his own reasoning that the Christian god can and does choose to harm people in rather exterme methods and by Craig's argument it is entirely moral for god to do so.

 

I used to have at least a modicum of respect for Craig, but honestly I am appalled at this.

[dagnarus]

But Muslims and Christians differ radically over God’s nature. Christians believe that God is all-loving, while Muslims believe that God loves only Muslims.

 

My first when reading this was "God is all-loving, except to Caananites".

[Shawn Truesdell]

Idiots like this will use any rationale for their sick twisted beliefs. The idea that anyone could say that Christianity is all-loving is full of shit. They don't love us atheists and you ask the average American christian what they think of muslims, hindus and the like and they will tell you that god is sending them straight to hell. All loving my pasty white ass.

[oddbird1963]

Craig is letting his attachment to religious dogma do to him what it has done to people for generations.

 

Craig's commitment to dogma is hardening his heart toward humanity, despite his self-deluding god-love-speak.

 

He cares more for Israeli soldiers who killed so they could possess land inhabited by others than he did for the women and children who were murdered so that the Israelis could have their land.

 

Never mind the fact that these "corrupt" Canaanite adults used to be innocent Canaanite children who knew no differently than the religion they were taught.

 

Enter some convoluted doctrinal assertions about original sin and having to "purge" the land of corrupt influences and how they deserved death anyway and god gets to do what he wants to do.

 

What's that sound? It Craig's humanity and christians' like him being crunched beneath jack boots!

[Ouroboros]

We'll see what LNC has to say about it, since he is a huge fan of W.L. Craig.

 

I find it so fascinating that we have one Christian (NovaPrime) coming here and apologizing for the misdeeds of other Christians, and then tell us that logical people are homicidal maniacs who support genocide. But then we can see that it's the Christians who favor murder and genocide. They point finger to deflect, because they are the ones with the "sins."

 

--edit--

 

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.

 

2. Objective moral values do exist.

 

3. Therefore, God exists.

 

My addition:

 

1. The Bible display God's objective morals

2. God commanded genocide and slaughter of women and babies

C. Genocide and slaughter of women and babies are displays of objective morality

 

It's very simple. It's strange that people who use so much logic in everything they explain can't get such a simple logical syllogism.

 

And we, the Western Secular World who refuse to accept genocide or murdering women and children as moral, consider the conclusion of this syllogism to be evidence that God's objective moral clash with our moral. We have a higher standard than God. If objective moral is rotten and evil, then we should get rid of it.

 

His explanation is to resort to the amoral version of God. But then, that's the problem there. If God is amoral, then how can God's nature be "good" or "objectively moral"? It can't be that God's nature is absolutely good and objectively moral if he at the same time is not! They have to pick side. Either God is amoral and morality does not come from God, or moral comes from the nature of God and God is moral and act morally. They do a bait-n-switch every time this is brought up. Pick side. Don't jump between.

[Shyone]

Has anyone seen this?

 

http://www.reasonabl...Article&id=5767

 

I used to have at least a modicum of respect for Craig, but honestly I am appalled at this.

It is no more appalling than the bible itself. And that's saying a lot.

 

I want to puke.

[Neon Genesis]

According to the version of divine command ethics which I’ve defended,our moral duties are constituted by the commands of a holy and lovingGod. Since God doesn’t issue commands to Himself, He has no moralduties to fulfill. He is certainly not subject to the same moralobligations and prohibitions that we are.

Where in the bible does it say that God is amoral?

 

 

So the problem isn’t that God ended the Canaanites’ lives. The problemis that He commanded the Israeli soldiers to end them. Isn’t that likecommanding someone to commit murder? No, it’s not. Rather, since our moral duties are determined by God’s commands, it iscommanding someone to do something which, in the absence of a divinecommand, would have been murder. The act was morallyobligatory for the Israeli soldiers in virtue of God’s command, eventhough, had they undertaken it on their on initiative, it would havebeen wrong.

 

How is not murdering children murder? That doesn't even make any sense.

 

So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of theCanaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt anddeserving of judgement. Not the children, for they inherit eternallife. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult partof this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiersthemselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to breakinto some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? Thebrutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing.

 

How can he say that it's not the women and children who suffer the most? That's like saying it wasn't the victims of 9/11 who suffered the most; it's the Islamic terrorists who do. Craig might as well join al-Qaeda at this point since his rationalization is no different. And why is he calling God good or amoral if he contradicts himself by admitting God is was brutal? Isn't that contradicting his claim that God is above human morality? And I thought Christians argued God became Jesus in the flesh so that we can relate to him better, so doesn't that mean God's morality is on the same level as ours if God became human? Christians hold God to double standards. They want God to be human but they want him to not be at the same time. So, if Jesus is God and God is above humans but Jesus is a human, what does that make Jesus? Superman?

 

 

 

The problem with Islam, then, is not that it has got the wrong moraltheory; it’s that it has got the wrong God. If the Muslim thinks thatour moral duties are constituted by God’s commands, then I agree withhim. But Muslims and Christians differ radically over God’s nature. Christians believe that God is all-loving, while Muslims believe thatGod loves only Muslims.

 

So does Craig think Christians should murder everyone then?

 

His explanation is to resort to the amoral version of God. But then, that's the problem there. If God is amoral, then how can God's nature be "good" or "objectively moral"? It can't be that God's nature is absolutely good and objectively moral if he at the same time is not! They have to pick side. Either God is amoral and morality does not come from God, or moral comes from the nature of God and God is moral and act morally. They do a bait-n-switch every time this is brought up. Pick side. Don't jump between.

Not to mention that this belief that God is amoral is not found anywhere in the scriptures and Craig isn't following the scriptures correctly, so he's apparently going to hell.

[Ouroboros]

Where in the bible does it say that God is amoral?

And I still can't wrap my head about the idea that objective morality is in God's nature, while God is amoral and can do whatever he deems necessary (even evil) to complete his own ends.

 

Amazing how contrived their arguments are to "prove" the existence of an imaginary being.

 

So does Craig think Christians should murder everyone then?

I think they believe this:

1) A Christian who just murders someone for their own ends, is doing evil

2) A Christian who murders in the name of God, or by God's command, is doing good.

[centauri]

I once read a tedious apologetic by Christian Glenn Miller that attempts to sanitize God, much like this does.

If Craig is a Trinitarian, he's also trying to sanitize Jesus since Jesus is supposed to be God.

 

WLC:

According to the version of divine command ethics which I’ve defended,our moral duties are constituted by the commands of a holy and lovingGod. Since God doesn’t issue commands to Himself, He has no moralduties to fulfill. He is certainly not subject to the same moralobligations and prohibitions that we are.

That makes a mockery of God's instructions to "be holy for I am holy".

God is supposed to set the standard, not degrade it.

God does issue commands to himself, for God the Father issued commands and has authority over Jesus, who is also supposed to be God.

 

WLC:

So the problem isn’t that God ended the Canaanites’ lives. The problemis that He commanded the Israeli soldiers to end them. Isn’t that likecommanding someone to commit murder? No, it’s not. Rather, since our moral duties are determined by God’s commands, it iscommanding someone to do something which, in the absence of a divinecommand, would have been murder. The act was morallyobligatory for the Israeli soldiers in virtue of God’s command, eventhough, had they undertaken it on their on initiative, it would havebeen wrong.

 

So murder and torture are ok as long as god orders it.....lets hope I never live next door to a follower of Craig.

Yup, that's what it boils down to.

Reality for all others is determined by Craig's whims and rationalizations.

 

WLC:

So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of theCanaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt anddeserving of judgement. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life.

Classic wishful thinking.

The murdered children inherit eternal life by decree of Craig.

The Bible itself says nothing about them inheriting eternal life.

Craig should also have no problem with abortion as it gives children eternal life.

 

WLC:

The problem with Islam, then, is not that it has got the wrong moraltheory; it’s that it has got the wrong God. If the Muslim thinks thatour moral duties are constituted by God’s commands, then I agree withhim. But Muslims and Christians differ radically over God’s nature. Christians believe that God is all-loving, while Muslims believe thatGod loves only Muslims.

But the Christian God is not all-loving.

Craig ignores the very Bible that he defends.

Typical.

[RationalOkie]

By the time of their destruction, Canaanite culture was, in fact, debauched and cruel, embracing such practices as ritual prostitution and even child sacrifice. The Canaanites are to be destroyed “that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices that they have done for their gods, and so you sin against the Lord your God” (Deut. 20.18). God had morally sufficient reasons for His judgement upon Canaan, and Israel was merely the instrument of His justice

 

O.K., so let me get this straight....small children and infants need to be killed because they are going to "TEACH" someone someday about 'abominable' practices. How is an infant going to teach anybody anything? If you killed all of the adults and even teen age children wouldn't you at least give the infants and small children a pass? I mean you can teach them whatever they hell you believe so that they won't become 'abominable'.

 

Weak...weak...weak...pathetic and disgusting. So, this is different from what Islamic extremists believe how? Religion of peace my ass! Christianity is a religion of war mongering hypocrites.

[Ouroboros]

The same rhetoric is used by the Fundamentalist Islamist terrorists. They act in the name of God (Allah), and therefore they believe they are doing a good thing. WLC is promoting an evil and violent God, and call it good. Black is white. True is false. Sophism at its best.

[Kuroikaze]

I think they believe this:

1) A Christian who just murders someone for their own ends, is doing evil

2) A Christian who murders in the name of God, or by God's command, is doing good.

 

Of course one major problem with this is that there is no qualitatively objective way for us to determine who has actually been commanded by god.

 

That woman from Texas a few years ago killed her kids and said "god told her to do it," the state declared her insane and locked her up, so how does a christian from this mind set know that was the correct action?

 

Maybe she was told by god, since god speaks directly into ones mind the experience is totally subjective and we cannot tell the difference between someone who is insane and someone who is legitimately speaking to god. Unless, of course, there is no god, then we can be certain they are all crazy.

[Ouroboros]

I think they believe this:

1) A Christian who just murders someone for their own ends, is doing evil

2) A Christian who murders in the name of God, or by God's command, is doing good.

 

Of course one major problem with this is that there is no qualitatively objective way for us to determine who has actually been commanded by god.

Exactly. That's why Christianity promotes a corrupt morality and give it names like objective and good.

[Neon Genesis]

 

I think they believe this:

1) A Christian who just murders someone for their own ends, is doing evil

2) A Christian who murders in the name of God, or by God's command, is doing good.

That's what the fundies at my parents' church said. When I was debating the morality of God's actions in Exodus in bible class, the teacher flat out said in these same specific words that God can murder whoever he wants because God is perfect. When I asked them if that meant Christians could practice abortion, they said they couldn't because God didn't command it and that was the only excuse given.

[Shyone]

 

I think they believe this:

1) A Christian who just murders someone for their own ends, is doing evil

2) A Christian who murders in the name of God, or by God's command, is doing good.

That's what the fundies at my parents' church said. When I was debating the morality of God's actions in Exodus in bible class, the teacher flat out said in these same specific words that God can murder whoever he wants because God is perfect. When I asked them if that meant Christians could practice abortion, they said they couldn't because God didn't command it and that was the only excuse given.

The question I would have would be, "What lesson of morality are we to take from the execution of children or the sexual slavery of virgins captured from the Cananites? Is this how we are to behave?"

 

It wouldn't matter because they would come full circle. I would expect something like "Do what God says to do, not as he does."

[Antlerman]

And this is precisely why all these arguments of LNC to validate his religion, has a dangerous philosophy at its heart. It's a mythic-worldview that uses neither reason nor spirit as its guide. The minute you say God is justified in doing what is against our morality, then you open the door for bad human behavior justified by the name of a god, using all the same, exact same sorts of justifications for the belief that LNC is spending his human existence trying to get a Master's Degree in. To say, the difference between the Joshua myth and the 9/11 terrorists is not that one had the right god! The difference between them is - ZERO!

 

LNC, defend this person. Then tell me how you dare talk to us about objective morals when you empty yourself of rational thought in defense of the irrational, such as what we just read above?

 

"By their fruits you shall know them."

 

Screw your apologetics, if in the end this is how we should think! You are so lost.

[dagnarus]

I think the problem here is that William Lane Craig is not allowed to form his own opinion. You'll notice this whenever you present the example of God ordered Genocide to Christians. Most of the time you'll get something like "who are you to judge God". The point is that if you were to hear the actual opinion of most Christians on this they would probably tell you it is wrong, the problem is as Christians they are not allowed an opinion. There opinion has been already assigned to them by Bible, and the Church and that is what they must hold. To hold a different opinion is to risk hellfire. So here Craig has to justify his opinion which really isn't even his opinion at all. I think this can probably apply to most apologetics. For example I wouldn't be shocked if LNC would have very different conclusions if he was actually allowed to have his own opinions on scripture.

[Neon Genesis]

 

LNC, defend this person. Then tell me how you dare talk to us about objective morals when you empty yourself of rational thought in defense of the irrational, such as what we just read above?

 

I predict LNC will probably use the argument that without God, we can't have an objective morality and that if morals are subjective, then our morals are only our personal preference. So, that somehow means we have no right to complain when God murders us, thus God has the right to murder us, even though this would contradict Craig's claim God is amoral and thus has nothing to do with whether or not morality is objective.

[GraphicsGuy]

Has anyone seen this?

 

http://www.reasonabl...Article&id=5767

 

He is justifying the Jewish slaughter of the Canaanites.

 

So is it okay to justify the Nazi slaughter of the Jews at this point? What goes around comes around...

[Astreja]

A man who attempts to rationalize genocide is not fit to teach humanity anything. Mr. Craig, you disgust Me. I hope that your career crashes and burns in spectacular fashion.

[Franko47]

Craig

God’s judgement is anything but capricious.

 

 

That's enough to make a cat laugh. Everything OT God did was capricious.

 

 

From genocide by water to turning a woman into a pillar of salt. Right, that's just so on a higher level. I hope some day that I achieve such an elevated consciousness. At every turn, OT God must assert his superiority. Oh, and nuking Sodom and G spot; Yeah, that cleared up the gay problem for a while. And slaughtering children (see Passover) is frequent methodology with this guy... "Dash the babies heads against the rocks" I like that one. He's even telling professional soldiers a good technique on child-slaughter now. This guy really gets into it. Blood-soaked, punishment city, suffering guaranteed. But never even a hint on useful irrigation techniques, or medical treatment of wounds. Nope. Again, nothing useful in the OT. Not one thing.

 

 

Mr Craig thinks like a child. I call it "child mode" thinking, or the inability to separate political and cultural propoganda from discussions of actual philosophical wisdom. A lot of this OT business is largely Israelite/Hebrew propoganda. Anybody can see that.

 

It's amazing as others have pointed out to have your thinking so controlled, that you are terrified to question obvious incongruities and obvious bullshit. Or even admit that parts of your enormous religious book might be erroneous, or likely contrived. Sad, really. I wouldn't really expect a God to think that I would "be alright" with some of this stuff in the first place.

[oddbird1963]

Blood-soaked, punishment city, suffering guaranteed. But never even a hint on useful irrigation techniques, or medical treatment of wounds. Nope. Again, nothing useful in the OT. Not one thing.

 

 

 

Or, how about the recipe for a poultice that cures leprosy? Instead of wasting verbiage on what to do about lepers, why not cure their disease?

 

Or, maybe the formula for a general cure for cancer?

 

You are on to something Franko47! The Pentateuch is human-originated collection of books because it reads like just what a humanity originated set of books would read.

[hereticzero]

Has anyone seen this?

 

http://www.reasonabl...Article&id=5767

 

He is justifying the Jewish slaughter of the Canaanites.

...

It is in this same manner the early settlers and pioneers of the USA justified the genocidal slaughter of American Indians for the same reason, they were not Christian and they did not know the Hebrew God.

[nightflight]

So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of theCanaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgement. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life.

 

So the children go to heaven and their parents go to hell. Nice. I hope the children have their memories erased of their parents, whom it seems were unfortunate enough to survive their own childhoods and become objects of Christianity's loving God's wrath.

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

Can you believe this asshat, he claims that it is moral to murder if god commands it, and then says that the muslim version of god is different because it does not teach that god loves everyone? It seems clear by his own reasoning that the Christian god can and does choose to harm people in rather exterme methods and by Craig's argument it is entirely moral for god to do so.

 

I used to have at least a modicum of respect for Craig, but honestly I am appalled at this.

 

First, I want to say that in no way am I saying that murdering or genocide are 'okay'. But, I do have a question? What were the Israelite suppose to do? Lets take God out of the equation for a minute, and lets say that Israel just did these things just to do them. So, are they savage people? Are they murderers? I am just wondering on what political level one would view the ancient group of Israel. Also, on the level of that era in time. Were they robust, savage murderers during warfare compared to all the other settlements?

 

Second, the big question. Why did God order ALL of anything in the settlements to be killed or destroyed? I challenge to ask this. If the Bible would've said that an 'angel' came and destroyed all the settlement because of their sin; Would it be different?

 

Thirdly, Who is God? What is God in authority? Surely, a God could not be a God if He couldn't have authority. So, did God abuse His authority here? If God abused His authority, and slayed people out of 'just because'; then God is a murderer. Yes, to us, He would be a murderer, but to Him? Would He be a murderer for simply moving one human from physical to spiritual?

 

IMO, I have always viewed the battles of Israel as just that, wars. In war, things happen. Now, like I said earlier, I don't justify genocide, but in a way, I get why God would've wanted the 'surrounding environment' destroyed. Supposedly, they worshiped other Gods, weren't very holy people etc. Now, Israel was God's HOLY people supposedly, and they had a million rules and laws to follow; not to mention that if things went bad, they would worship anything they found.

 

Back to the genocide part. So God had them slayed, killed, murdered ( as some put it). What if God is just extremely Holy, the Bible is right, and His people needed to be Holy, and nothing in the confines of God could be foreign in that sense?

 

Could a God that demanded Holiness to such a degree live among unholy people of this nature? God in a sense then, was living among Israel, unlike now. He was hovering over a cloud, above the Holy of Hollies were the priests worshiped.

 

Just a thought.