Respected Theologian Defends Genocide and Infanticide

[cleanhippie]

One More Reason Religion Is So Messed Up: Respected Theologian Defends Genocide and Infanticide

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.


http://www.alternet.org/belief/150742/one_more_reason_religion_is_so_messed_up:_respected_theologian_defends_genocide_and_infanticide/



---------------------------------------------


:eyes: :shrug: :wtf:

[Ian David]

1. What if god tells someone to kill William Lane Craig? n/t

[cleanhippie]

4. That would just be another loon on the loose, I guess.

[roguevalley]

15. he's another old testament asshole who is trying to tie the historical

record of ancient Israel into the more modern new testament Jesus movement. You have to ask yourself, (after what would Jesus take) who would Jesus genocide? Also, God didn't and doesn't make genocide. Asshole humans do.

[trotsky]

28. What was the flood story, then?

God killed everyone but Noah's family. Surely there were many races and tribes and groups that got completely obliterated. Genocide.

[roguevalley]

31. surely you jest. God did nothing. That is a flood that happened

to prehistoric people in Europe and the Mediterranean that is being studied around the black sea that stuck in memory and because people try to make sense of their world and did then, they used the ideas and terminology they had.

I find your marks humorous. I will try and not believe that you mean them literally. If that is so, then what's happening in Japan is God's will for the Japanese to be irradiated and die eventually as a people. Not the fault of men who are cheap and greedy.

There was no 'Noah's flood'. There was a flood that was used to tell the story of Noah. The bible is not intended to be literal. Asshats use it for literal reasons and to make God look like he supports their love of murder and genocide.

given your moniker, if you believe what you wrote then perhaps Pat Robinson would be a better one.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

32. "The bible is not intended to be literal."

{{Citation needed.}}

[roguevalley]

35. see gnosticism

[trotsky]

34. I like that quote too. "The bible is not intended to be literal."

So did Jesus literally exist or not?

You wouldn't be one of those Christians, like Pat Robertson, who pick & choose which PARTS of the bible they want to be literal, would you?

[roguevalley]

36. first of all, to assume that the supernatural parts of the bible

are true is to be a bit incredulous. walking on water? the intentions of that story was to tell about how love and belief can calm the stormy waters of your soul. The bible is a book of deeper ideas and teachings but the literal interpreters won and so everyone imagines that one time in the history of all things a man could walk on water.

I am not a Pat Robinson Christian and your hostility to religon, especially mine doesn't define or declare Christianity for me. You choose the parts of Christianity you use in mocking simplistic arguments and you chose the stupid side of Christianity -the Pat Robinsons- to define a very intricate and deep philosophical belief system.

I don't chose which parts are literal. I use my head and read for the deeper meaning of the odd stuff and its there. It was always there and was the intention of the Rabbi. Walking out of Egypt can be a literal act of history. Walking on water is a point being made about the soul that has been taken as an actual act. I can differentiate. You on the other hand like to club me with literalism because you hate religion and think religious people are rubes. Go ahead. If you want to argue literalism help yourself. But it will make you look the fool not me. I can actually read for the intended meaning of the supernatural stuff.

One of the THOSE Christians? No. One of those who hate religion and like to think you make simplistic arguments to make religious people look like rubes? Yes, you are.

Oh, and have a nice day.

[trotsky]

37. Alright then, was Jesus literally resurrected?

I am sorry this makes you angry to analyze where your faith comes from and to discover that the methodology really is indistinguishable from what the Pat Robertsons of the world use, but you really don't need to be attacking me out of frustration.

May the peace of Jesus be with you.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

42. Jesus is not known to have existed outside the bible.

No independent record of him. Gospels were written many years later.
Jesus has no distinguishing characteristics that make him any different from other gods like Apollo, Mithra and Osiris.

They all were coincidentally born of a virgin on December 25th, and supernovas were in the sky when they were born, and they worked miracles.

Who'da thunk???? :shrug:

[cleanhippie]

2. .

[exboyfil]

3. The reason I have heard is that God needed to set up

a hedge around Israel so that Jesus would be born to save everyone. I did not like the explanation then, and I still do not now. This is the primary reason why I do not accept any of the precepts/commands/laws of the Old Testament. I view the Old Testament as a book of stories that help us understand the formation of the covenant relationship with the tribe of Israel. The stories also serve as useful guidelines/information as to how we live our lives (like polygamy leads to trouble, injustice/sin leads to more trouble, that you can comfort in your relationship with the Lord and so forth). The stories themselves also have entertainment value.

If God decides to wipe out children, then I really have no way comprehend it or see the justice in it. Given his omnipotence I just have to accept it.

If some so called prophet tells me to slay infants because God has commanded it, I not only will not do that - I will do everything in my power to stop it.

If I hear a voice from God telling me to slay infants, then I think I need to check myself into a mental health hospital.

Frankly I don't think God told the Israelis to kill infants. I am not entirely sure he really set aside Canaan as a Promised Land for the Israelis. I do know that it is B.S. to use those promises/commands in the Old Testament to justify behavior now (for example Manifest Destiny etc).

[KaoriMitsubishi]

33. "If I hear a voice from God telling me to slay infants,..."

"...then I think I need to check myself into a mental health hospital."

Perhaps you should do that anyway. There are religions which do not share the sociopathic underpinnings of the Abrahamic faiths. If you cannot help yourself - if you must believe in gods - pick a different religion for crying out loud. If you needed a piece of meat you wouldn't pick one crawling with maggots would you?

[PDJane]

5. yet another reason to believe that

God is merely a concept invented by man, with all of man's weaknesses. Any man who can condone the slaughter of innocents is merely a man with an incredibly vile moral code.

There is no excuse.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FiveGoodMen]

7. Take one part horrible crime that no one should commit ... add faith ...

Abracadabra: Crimes against humanity are A-okay.

This is why faith is unacceptable.

[humblebum]

21. so then it was a strong religious faith that caused the extermination of

130 million or so in the 20th century in the USSR, China, and Eastern Europe? I've been wondering what caused that.

[cleanhippie]

38. I see you pulled out that old phonograph with your one broken record.

[humblebum]

40. Like they say, if the shoe fits... besides

its nothing like that pile of broken records you keep replaying. I haven't checked your numbers lately.

[cleanhippie]

41. You certainly seem to have found one that fits quite well then.

[LeftishBrit]

39. Yes in a way

That ancient religious faith of Emperor Worship, in a very slightly new guise.

[Evoman]

45. That was god's will.

He made atheists so that we could transform into commies and kill babies.

He works in mysterious ways, or so I hear.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cleanhippie]

10. Whats obvious is that you are breaking DU rules.

[humblebum]

12. But you and I both know the truth, don't we?

When Hitchens exhorted his groupies to treat religion with "hatred, ridicule, and contempt", do you also condone such a statement?

[cleanhippie]

13. Yes, we do know that you are unable to stay within the DU rules, so your posts get deleted.

Have a nice day. :hi:

[Permanut]

9. If I claim to have God's approval

I can do absolutely anything, no limits. This is what makes fanatics so dangerous, and it's not limited to Christians. The 9/11 hijackers were fanatics.

[Silent3]

11. That also destroys any argument about atheists lacking a moral foundation...

...that theists gain by believing in a God or gods. When you can convince yourself there's a God out who can order you to commit, or give you special dispensation for, any atrocity imaginable, I think that makes you potentially more of threat to your fellow man than the typical atheist, certainly no worse a threat.

[TalkingDog]

14. So..... using that logic... he's defending abortion?

I mean, if "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."... then aborting a blastocyte/fetus/baby is merely sending it to heaven, right?

[cleanhippie]

16. Sure, I guess that makes about the same amount of sense.

[onager]

17. Craig vs. Sam Harris earlier this month...

Debate at Notre Dame.

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/4486/debating_god%3A_atheist_and_evangelical_face_off_at_notre_dame/

[dimbear]

18. Another horrible story of infanticide: The Pied Piper of Hamelin. Main difference is

there's a possibility the Pied Piper had a real antecedent of some sort. We know the other story doesn't. Keep in mind the OT stories antecedent to the return from Babylon are just propaganda, not history.

Now as for defending them, that's another story.

[humblebum]

20. So you mean it's only myth that the Assyrians destroyed Israel around 722 BC?nt

[dimbear]

25. The point is that the 'history' in the Bible isn't reliable, not that everything

is necessarily false. It's a mix of recollections of legends, fantasies, tribal lore and a bit of reality. With a healthy proportion of propaganda.

It rapidly gets more realistic after the return from Babylon.

Just like the story of the Pied Piper, whatever event it does or does not reflect, it was retold for entertainment and for the purpose of making a point about the danger of breaking bargains. Is that story actually a remembrance of the Black Plague? Some think so, others not. No trustworthy history in the Pied Piper.

Maybe the best Bible example is the book of Esther. For many decades historians have recognized that nothing whatever resembling the events of that book ever took place. It's nevertheless a very flattering story for the people who tell it.

The OP discusses events which supposedly take place in the conquest of the 'promised land.' Actual archaeology shows that in fact the Israelites came from right there, never left. Never did any of that stuff in Egypt. Reality and the Bible don't meet much in the early books.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

19. "Famed"?

Never heard of him, at least not in my mainstream circles.

[laconicsax]

22. How are you defining "mainstream?"

Born-agains, Evangelicals, and creationsists are the majority of Christians in this country and I seem to recall that your not a nut like them, so what would make your minority denomination (and those like it) mainstream?

...unless you do follow the fundigelical nuttery...in which case I'd have to ask if you're a masochist.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

24. The growth in evangelical churches is a recent phenomenon outside the South

and up here in Minnesota, more traditional churches are still the norm, although the megachurches seem to be growing in the outer suburbs.

[trotsky]

27. Just about every Christian thinks THEIR church is "mainstream."

To believe otherwise would be admitting that all the other people they DON'T think are Christians, outnumber them.

[laconicsax]

23. I seem to recall him once proudly saying that he'd gladly kill...

any Amalekite he met because God commands it in the Bible.

I could of course be mistaken, it was a few years ago and I haven't been able to find the transcript of the debate I saw.

[struggle4progress]

26. He's on staff at the fundie BIOLA and is associated with the anti-evo Discovery Institute,

To read most of the articles on his website, it's necessary to register, and frankly I'm not interested enough to do that

The murder of innocents is common enough in warfare. Countless children must have died in WWII, and in the Vietnam War, for example; and the people, who dropped bombs on them, seem to found all manner of justifications for their actions. Anyone, who naturally finds such indifference to human life atrocious, can probably find ongoing instances today -- and so has an opportunity to stop contemporary murders

[Sadena Meti]

29. Kill them all and let God sort them out.

"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."

Blow up a school and you're doing God and the children a favor.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

30. Craig has here eliminated the argument agianst murder.

This guy says the only legitimate morality is that which comes from god, but he can't even get murder right? Is this the set of absolute morals he was pitching two weeks ago in his debate with Sam Harris? This bankrupt Bronze Age tribalism? If he can't assert the fundamental right of all people to live, he has no credibility as a moral thinker or judge.

This is the ultimate formulation of "might makes right." Their god is not the supreme moral force because of his wisdom, insight, or perspective - it's simply his brutal destructive force. This is not sound morality.

[Thats my opinion]

43. WHO?

Whoever this person is, he is not a "respected theologian," he is a kook. Many anti-religious people who write in this forum hate the same kind of religion most of liberal Christians hate. What you all ridicule has nothing to do with what goes on in any reputable seminary or church. We will not be stuffed back into the box fundamentalist use to distort what religion is all about. If you all want to argue with religion, argue with what authentic theologians hold.

[darkstar3]

44. I guess he doesn't put sugar on his porridge, huh?

[Evoman]

46. Nonsense. Nobody really respects theologians, right?

You started the article with a lie.

Theologians are like hotdogs.....they've got no real meat in them, just lips and assholes. They look somewhat like penises, you get sick of them quick, and have little nutritional value. Although, they taste pretty good if you put mustard on them. Also, corn dogs taste good, especially at the fair.

Wait, what were we talking about?