Christian Apologist Defends Genocide and Infanticide
Greta Christina slammed William Lane Craig a couple of days ago on his insane defense of Biblical atrocities.
And he [Craig] 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.”
You can and should read the whole blog post. I’ve never seen an argument so bad and intellectually suicidal since… the last time I heard this argument (at an SSA debate).
Before my secular readers go into “WTF” mode, I say we have to show some sympathy for people like Craig. You see, we atheists don’t know what it is like to have to kiss up to a book at all costs, despite all the evidence in the world that the characters in the book are fictional (cannot possibly be good or divine).
Like I mentioned in the previous post, Christians usually go through all kinds of obstacles to make up desperate rationalizations for things that don’t normally make sense. They reinterpret Genesis to fit evolutionary theory. They think the Flood was a metaphor. And in this case, they come up with some morally bankrupt defense for atrocities in the Bible.
Posted on May 19, 2011, in Religion and tagged atrocities in Bible, atrocity, Christianity, Greta Christina, William Lane Craig. Bookmark the permalink. 3 Comments.
Inspirational Freethought 
Hello Mike my name is Larry and I can tell you some facts about history. “You see, we atheists don’t know what it is like to have to kiss up to a book at all costs, despite all the evidence in the world that the characters in the book are fictional (cannot possibly be good or divine).” Mike, 100% of credible historians & theologians agree the characters in the Christian Bible are all real people that lived in the times that were specified in historical documents. Having said that please note most of the Historians and theologians are not believers that assert these historical claims. If you want outside Bible references then please search for the writings of Josephus (ancient respected historian) he also did not believe that Jesus was the Christ. Here is a quote from the worlds leading apologist on the Christian faith named William Lane Craig, “Jesus is mentioned twice by Josephus that cant be explained as Jesus knowing only Christian sources because in his antiquity of the Jews chapter 20 section 200 he gives information about Jesus and about the church not contained in the New Testament. He tells about the martyrdom of Jesus’s brother James. He couldn’t of gotten it out of the New Testament because James is still alive in the book of Acts and therefore he is obviously in contact with authentic and historical information. Its not an interpolation either because it doesn’t intrude the other passages connected with two incidents which are confirmed by Suetonius and Tacitus. Also Josephus stylistic traits are present in that passage. There was definitely I think a Jesus passage in Josephus even if it was maybe subsequently dressed up a little but by Christian copyist. R. T. France says its safe to assume Josephus spoke of Jesus’s wisdom and teachings, some people called him the Messiah and I think this is a consensus of scholarship.”
Moreover according to science goodness, evil, beauty, ugliness, the knowledge of other minds, the fact the outside world is real, and many other things that we all agree are real science cannot prove with the scientific method used today that explains all of our known facts.
Mentioned by you MIke, “Like I mentioned in the previous post, Christians usually go through all kinds of obstacles to make up desperate rationalizations for things that don’t normally make sense. They reinterpret Genesis to fit evolutionary theory. They think the Flood was a metaphor. And in this case, they come up with some morally bankrupt defense for atrocities in the Bible.” I will begin to refute this by saying things that make sense just make sense. No one can make something that normally doesn’t makes sense and make it actually make sense. Either it makes sense or it does not, so if it makes sense to all these scholars, historians and theologians many of which do not believe then its safe to say it is at the very least possible and that makes the “sense” argument nullified. Genesis is very clear about its assertions and at least I as a Christian don’t make things fit to evolutionary theory, they just do. This is similar to the previous statement I refuted. I personally don’t think the flood was a metaphor and don’t know any other Christians that believe that also. Now coming up with morally bankrupt defense for atrocities in the Bible is self refuting. Atheists do not believe in objective moral values to even begin speaking of. I am not saying they do not have them but I am saying from an Atheistic view morals are nothing but an evolution of social rules made by the majority for survival but there really is nothing actually wrong with a child being raped on the atheist view, its just not socially accepted. I will end this particular refute by saying so long as an omnipotent being is even possible then we must concede His mind is more knowledgeable about morality, and judgement than we are since our entire logic, reasoning and argumentative power comes from the ultimate being so to argue with Him is to think its logical for a stream to flow above its source without gravity to explain for it.
Last comment before I wash your post of all credibility is that taking a quote out of context without having its prior explanation to sway the masses is an elementary move that proves nothing.
Larry,
First, and most importantly, you must really take care to carefully read what is written and not simply project what you perceive to be favorite atheist talking points. You even quoted Mike when he wrote, “You see, we atheists don’t know what it is like to have to kiss up to a book at all costs, despite all the evidence in the world that the characters in the book are fictional (cannot possibly be good or divine).” This does not mean that characters did not actually exist in the temporal sense, but rather that they were merely not divine. So, there really isn’t a need to address the rest of your first paragraph since it’s merely a straw-man, but that wouldn’t be fun. Secondly, and still contra your first “refutation”, you said:
Really? Even a cursory perusal of wikipedia would quickly dispel this quite vapid assertion. Here, I’ll even help you out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_history
Anyway, regarding your second “refutation”, you said:
Ironically, this makes no sense. ‘Sense’, properly understood, is predicated on subjective experiences and, normally, is not dependent on reality. One need only look at those who believe in astrology to affirm this. Simple because something makes ‘sense’ to someone does not mean that that something actually is. More importantly, however, what exactly are you referring to, Larry, when you say , “…so if it makes sense to all these scholars…”? You yourself, in the very next sentence no less, affirm that…whatever it is you’re talking about…isn’t believed by all these scholars, so why would you say that ‘it’ “makes sense” to them? If they don’t believe ‘it’ then, by definition, ‘it’ doesn’t make sense to them. Honestly, if you’re going to be as confrontational as you were, at least try to be coherent with your responses…
Pingback: Mother Tries to Kill Her Own Children Before Rapture « Inspirational Freethought