William Lane Craig Defends Genocide

The following is taken from the US Amazon Religion Forum.

"It is surprising that the mainstream media didn't pick up on this. Not so surprising, given that the media is hardly the "liberal" media of right wing myth.

"Respected Theologian Defends Infanticide."

Why did this story not make headlines?

In a recent post on his Reasonable Faith site, famed Christian apologist and debater William Lane Craig published an explanation for why the genocide and infanticide ordered by God against the Canaanites in the Old Testament was morally defensible. For God, at any rate -- and for people following God's orders. Short version: When guilty people got killed, they deserved it because they were guilty and bad... and when innocent people got killed, even when innocent babies were killed, they went to Heaven, and it was all hunky dory in the end.

No, really.

Here are some choice excerpts:

God had morally sufficient reasons for His judgement upon Canaan, and Israel was merely the instrument of His justice, just as centuries later God would use the pagan nations of Assyria and Babylon to judge Israel.

and:

Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God's grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven's incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives.

and:

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

I want to make something very clear before I go on: William Lane Craig is not some drooling wingnut. He's not some extremist Fred Phelps type, ranting about how God's hateful vengeance is upon us for tolerating homosexuality. He's not some itinerant street preacher, railing on college campuses about premarital holding hands. He's an extensively educated, widely published, widely read theological scholar and debater. When believers accuse atheists of ignoring sophisticated modern theology, Craig is one of the people they're talking about.

And he said that as long as God gives the thumbs-up, it's okay to kill pretty much anybody. It's okay to kill bad people, because they're bad and they deserve it... and it's okay to kill good people, because they wind up in Heaven. As long as God gives the thumbs-up, it's okay to systematically wipe out entire races. As long as God gives the thumbs-up, it's okay to slaughter babies and children. Craig said -- not essentially, not as a paraphrase, but literally, in quotable words -- "the death of these children was actually their salvation."

So why did this story not make headlines? Why was there not an appalled outcry from the Christian world? Why didn't Christian leaders from all sects take to the pulpits to disavow Craig, and to express their utter repugnance with his views, and to explain in no uncertain terms that their religion does not, and will not, defend the extermination of races or the slaughter of children?

Because the things he said are not that unusual.

Because lots of people share his views."

more at http://www.alternet.org/story/150742/one_more_reason_religion_is_so_messed_up:_respected_theologian_defends_genocide_and_infanticide

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

Ryan- cheers for that, great post. I cannot wait to see DB's idiotic defence.

On a lighter note, since WLC sems to think dying and meeting god is such a hoot, it is a shame someone does not move craig closer to god by the obvious means. It would by his own parameters be a good thing and as such immune from prosecution.

[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Hi Ryan,

WLC is unfortuneatley one of those Christians that seem to think that if God commands it moral/immoral for us, he doesn't need to adhear to those same moral obligations himself. It's quite bizarre really, seeing as he is so committed to the idea of objective morals - some things just being wrong or right, no matter if anyone believed them or not. Surely slaughtering children would be one such thing. Apparently not for his God though. It's an embarrassment to modern Christian theology, considering just how big a name Craig has become as a self-proclaimed representative of it.

[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

It's not a logical argument, it's a moral one. It makes God immoral.

[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

The question is not whether God can or can't do it, but whether he should or shouldn't.

[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

It's not a new argument, it's been around for a while (I've read something similar recently, can't think where though).

Rather than going with the 'excerpts', try reading the whole thing - it may make more sense.

Hi DB,

Well, I look at it this way. Strictly speaking, a person's parents are just as responsible for the creation of their child as God would be. We would find it immoral for the parents to kill the child, despite the fact that they are the child's creator. That God would be the initial creator of the universe doesn't change anything. The same logic applies. Killing a living, born child, which you have brought into the world, either as it's parents, or as the conductor of the whole orchestra of life, is still the same. If it's morally wrong for one, why isn't it for the other?

[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Diane,

For someone who is so adamantly anti-abortion you're quick to excuse the slaughter of others.

WDB- it *may* make more sense, but unfortunately does not.

"Rather than going with the 'excerpts', try reading the whole thing - it may make more sense."
It doesn't get any better by expanding it, it only gets worse, that's the problem with Craig's statements, logic and apologetics in general, they are best taken in isolation because sooner or later he always contradicts something he said earlier because it's not about consideration of what is true but making a belief work and if that means making it work from moment to moment then so be it.

As Ben points out above Craig's justification of the genocide do away with his arguments for an objective morality set by God.

[Post righteously slaughtered by Amazon 5 minutes ago]

A prime example of a dellusional christian. What moron thinks they can justify killing inoccent children?
Different when it comes to abortion isnt it? Makes me sick.

But I suppose that alot of christians accept the Bible is just a book which teaches good moral values and is not to be read in its literal sense.

In Old Testament law, sin was passed down through the generations, like debt.

So technically, the children weren't innocent by their ideology.

Jim Guest

"People are so desperate to throw muck at Christianity rather than treat it sensibly."

Can you give examples of any bits of Christianity that can be taken as sensible?