Take a look at this.
William Lane Craig takes his absurdities to even higher levels.
He claims to understand why the genocide and infanticide ordered by "God' against the Canaanites in the Old Testament was morally defensible.
His answer was that 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 everyone was happy ever after.
Quoting Craig: "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."
What a cretin.
By Craig's sick reasoning one could justify the murders by the Nazis of people who behaved "badly." And following this, one could argue that all the people that the Nazis killed went to heaven for eternal incomparable joy. Therefore the Nazis were all benevolent!
This kind of pathological reasoning seems to border on the criminal as possible incitement to or justification of murder and hate crime.
Craig gives us a great opportunity to widely expose the fundamental immorality of religious faith and everyone of us should publicize it as much as possible.
Not that I'm defending Craig...I find his reasoning faulty, at best, and the man himself morally reprehensible. But his argument does state that the reason it was acceptable for the Isrealis to kill the Canaanites is that they were ordered to do so by Yahweh:
So the problem isn’t that God ended the Canaanites’ lives. The problem is that He commanded the Israeli soldiers to end them. Isn’t that like commanding someone to commit murder? No, it’s not. Rather, since our moral duties are determined by God’s commands, it is commanding someone to do something which, in the absence of a divine command, would have been murder. The act was morally obligatory for the Israeli soldiers in virtue of God’s command, even though, had they undertaken it on their on initiative, it would have been wrong.
Now, Craig does not back this up with any evidence as to god's authority, other than that he accepts it himself mind you, so it is certainly arguable that perhaps the Nazi's "accepted" that they were under orders from god as well, but there don't seem to be any claims to that effect. And, as Craig states in closing the above argument, referring specifically to Muslims, it would be acceptable if they were ordered to kill by the "correct" god:
The problem with Islam, then, is not that it has got the wrong moral theory; it’s that it has got the wrong God. If the Muslim thinks that our moral duties are constituted by God’s commands, then I agree with him. 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. Allah has no love for unbelievers and sinners. Therefore, they can be killed indiscriminately. Moreover, in Islam God’s omnipotence trumps everything, even His own nature. He is therefore utterly arbitrary in His dealing with mankind. By contrast Christians hold that God’s holy and loving nature determines what He commands.
The question, then, is not whose moral theory is correct, but which is the true God?
I choose none. They're all monsters.
Very well put Wanda. Craig cements one of the best arguements against "religion" with this article. And that is nailing down the fundamentals of the religion in question. Here of course the desert religions, the big three.
While he continually calls the god of the big three a "loving god", their own words from their holy books refute this assumption, and not only by the standards of the modern western world but also to a lesser degree the standards of ancient Eygpt, Greece, and Rome. Vengence or the putting down of violent rebellion was usually required before the black flag was flown. Even as a young and much dumber mammel who believed, god was always a violent killer waiting for a reason to whack me!!
So does this not become a fundamental tenent of the religion? Even if not stated so directly? The belief that this god will use violence against his creation and will use his creation against itself? This tenent in the wrong heads long enough becomes gods voice commanding the whole sale slaughter of millions. GOT MIT UNES.
Help me out here am i off base?
I'm not sure what the question is here, but it seems to be "is the description "loving god" contradicted by the seemingly unloving actions this god (Yahweh) sanctions?" So that's the question to which I'll respond.
You really should read the entire article at the link I've included above. In it, Craig goes into great detail to justify how he can uphold the morality of such a god as the one he describes. What he never supports with evidence however is the starting premise of his argument: whatever god does is moral because it stems from ultimate good. Nowhere can I find any argument which substantiates his claim that god is the ultimate good other than Craigs belief that it is true. Any argument can be proven if you begin your reasoning at a juncture like this. But if the initial claim is false or unproven, the rest of the argument falls flat.
But yeah, I think Dr. Meaden nails it when he says that believers can't think straight with this kind of rubbish in their brains. When emotions trigger the desire to act, they keep running in to this notion of god inside their heads and the next thing you know "god" tells them what to do about the strong feelings they encounter.