William Lane Craig on why children should be killed for their own good
Craig continues with his systematic campaign of saying why children should be killed.
It is now for their own good.
Craig in Oxford
'If you believe in the salvation, as I do, of children, who die, what that meant is that the death of these children meant their salvation. People look at this [genocide] and think life ends at the grave but in fact this was the salvation of these children, who were far better dead…than being raised in this Canaanite culture. '
It is now for their own good.
Craig in Oxford
'If you believe in the salvation, as I do, of children, who die, what that meant is that the death of these children meant their salvation. People look at this [genocide] and think life ends at the grave but in fact this was the salvation of these children, who were far better dead…than being raised in this Canaanite culture. '
posted by Steven Carr at 9:04 PM
7 Comments:
I guess he's consistent. Reminds me of Nehemiah mandating that all Canaanite wives, and children born of mixed marriage, be banished from Jerusalem.
where does Craig say that children should be killed?
In the cartoon series , Scooby Doo, the villain would always have succeeded in his plans, if it wasn't for meddling kids.
The famous Christian apologist, William Lane Craig, thinks his God is like a villain in a cartoon series. A few children can easily wreck his plans.
I quote Craig in Slaughter of the Canaanites God knew that if these Canaanite children were allowed to live, they would spell the undoing of Israel. The killing of the Canaanite children not only served to prevent assimilation to Canaanite identity but also served as a shattering, tangible illustration of Israel’s being set exclusively apart for God.
Craig's solution is for his alleged god to have all the children killed.
Then they wouldn't be able to wreck his plans.
Saying that the killing of Canaanite children is justified is not the same as saying (Or “making a systematic Campaign”) that children should be killed.
“Craig thinks his God is like a villain in a cartoon series, A few children can easily wreck his plans.”
Nowhere does Craig that the command for killing Canaanites was absolutely necessary to carry his plans. If Craig did say that god *had to* act the way he did then you would have a case that Craig’s god is not omnipotent, but, Craig does not say that. In fact, I’m sure Craig would argue that God’s command to kill Canaanites is due his being omnipotent in the first place.
"The killing of the Canaanite children not only served to prevent assimilation to Canaanite identity but also served as a shattering..."
in the link provided Craig does not even say that God commanded to kill them all, but rather to drive them out.
To say that it is within the power of god to command killing someone is not the same as actually commanding someone to kill.
More excuses for genocide.
Craig says outright that if these children had been allowed to grow up they would have interfered with his god's plans.
So his god had them killed, but it didn't do them any harm , as they went straight to Heaven.
1 Samuel 15
Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’
Joshua 11:20
For it was the LORD himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the LORD had commanded Moses.
Let's cut to the chase:
1-I'll assume that you believe ethics are relative to the place and time (correct me if wrong), Craig believes that God can command different things depending the place and time. peter singer, Craig, Dawkins and you are moral relativists...what's the problem exactly?
Why should your subjective, time oriented, place dependent emotions about killing children matter at all?
2- Why is it impossible for God to command, say, killing Canaanites?
Post a Comment
<< Home