Total Posts:2|Showing Posts:1-2
Jump to topic:

Reconciling William Lane Craig

Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 6:26:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
William Lane Craig, famous christian apologist and debater, was asked about the barbarity of murdering the Canaanites, in order to possess their land, and how he could reconcile the brutal murder of the innocent children and infants. After a long-winded "perspective" and "context" contortionist act, he finally arrives at the following:

"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.

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. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing."


Now, if WLC is even remotely serious, here, how does one reconcile that with objecting to an abortion clinic? If, as christians believe, life begins at conception, and the soul is created at that time, would not an abortion clinic doctor actually be helping the "baby" to completely bypass the gruesome layover on planet earth, and fast-tracking them into "heaven?" Is the creature that murders and abortion clinic doctor "interfering in gawd's plan?" In how many different directions can the viciousness of the Judeo-christian gawd be reconciled with that which humans accept as "morality?"

Let's further this discussion, as well:

From that same web site and page:

"I"ve often heard popularizers raise this issue as a refutation of the moral argument for God"s existence. But that"s plainly incorrect. The claim that God could not have issued such a command doesn"t falsify or undercut either of the two premises in the moral argument as I have defended it:

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

2. Objective moral values do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists."

The problem, first off, is that P2 is nothing short of an assertion, and has ZERO foundation. How does Craig "know" that objective morality exists? How did he come to find this out? What is the evidence that objective morality exists? If objective morality exists, what is it? Why is this "objective morality" not "universal," across all cultures?

Objective morality must be:

1) Unchanging.
2) Clear and unquestionable.
3) True, irrespective of anyone's (human) opinion or perspective.

Within such a context, how does one HONESTLY go about reconciling the above with:

1) Slavery
2) Genocide
3) Human Trafficking
4) Incest
5) Human Sacrifice
6) Murder
7) Polygamy
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
Posts: 61
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 9:32:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Ajabi's debate addresses this issue if I'm not mistaken.

" will not be possible to be and not to be the same thing, except in virtue of an ambiguity,...""Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book IV, Part 4

with Slavery, Genocide, Human Trafficking, Incest, Human Sacrifice, Murder and Polygamy being the ambiguity present in moral objectivity.

Mathew 7:2 being the objective moral and our subjective placement under that Law being the ambiguity, if I am correct.