Respected Theologian Defends Genocide and Infanticide

[Alex]

One More Reason Religion Is So Messed Up: Respected Theologian Defends Genocide and Infanticide
A respected, mainstream theologian is seriously arguing that as long as God gives the thumbs-up, it's okay to kill pretty much anybody 
By Greta Christina
April 25, 2011
http://www.alternet.org/story/150742/one_more_reason_religion_is_so_messed_up%3A_respected_theologian_defends_genocide_and_infanticide

Why did this story not make headlines?

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.

and:

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.

I want to make something very clear before I go on: William Lane Craig is not some drooling wingnut. He's not some extremist Fred Phelps type, ranting about how God's hateful vengeance is upon us for tolerating homosexuality. He's not some itinerant street preacher, railing on college campuses about premarital holding hands. He's an extensively educated, widely published, widely read theological scholar and debater. When believers accuse atheists of ignoring sophisticated modern theology, Craig is one of the people they're talking about.

And he 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."

So why did this story not make headlines? Why was there not an appalled outcry from the Christian world? Why didn't Christian leaders from all sects take to the pulpits to disavow Craig, and to express their utter repugnance with his views, and to explain in no uncertain terms that their religion does not, and will not, defend the extermination of races or the slaughter of children?

Because the things he said are not that unusual.

Because lots of people share his views.

Because these kinds of contortions are far too common in religious morality. Because all too often, religion twists even the most fundamental human morality into positions that, in any other circumstance, most people would see as repulsive, monstrous, and entirely indefensible.  

Step One: Admit Your Mistakes

See, here's the thing. When faced with horrors in our past -- our personal history, or our human history -- non-believers don't have any need to defend them. When non-believers look at a human history full of genocide, infanticide, slavery, forced marriage, etc. etc. etc., we're entirely free to say, "Damn. That was terrible. That was some seriously screwed-up shit we did. We were wrong to do that. Let's not ever do that again."

But for people who believe in a holy book, it's not that simple. When faced with horrors in their religion's history -- horrors that their holy book defends, and even praises -- believers have to do one of two things. They have to either a) cherry-pick the bits they like and ignore the bits they don't; or b) come up with contorted rationalizations for why the most blatant, grotesque, black-and-white evil really isn't all that bad.  ...

...When your holy book says that God ordered his chosen people to slaughter an entire race, down to the babies and children -- and you insist that this book is special and perfect -- you put yourself in the position of defending genocide. You put yourself in the position of defending infanticide.  ...Craig says that...the infanticide of the Canaanite children was defensible and necessary because the Israelites needed to keep their tribal identity pure, and keep their God-given morality untainted by the Canaanite wickedness.  ...



Alex's comment:  One of the best (and honest) articles on Christianity I have ever read!  The author really understands the nature of Christianity--a religion of a "holy" book.  In short, Christianity, represented here by the eminent mainline theologian Craig, not those fundamentalists, is distorting fundamental human morality to defend at all costs immoralities in her holy book---the Bible.  As a result, in biblical Christianity, evil is goodness, murder is salvation, infanticide is necessary to teach morality.  This is plainly immoral.  Christianity is plainly immoral due to her very nature as a religion of a "holy" book.

[Alex]

William Lane Craig refutes Dawkins genocide claim 
October 29, 2011
Christian Today

Craig said: "I would say that God has the right to give and take life as He sees fit. Children die all the time! 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."



Alex's comment:  Attempting to defend God's genocide order against the Canaanites, this saying of Craig is plainly heartless and dangerous, legitimizing genocide and murder of children.  An inversion of morality, contorting evil (genocide) as good ("salvation").  Craig, being a high calibre theologian, demonstrates accurately the absurdity and cruelty of Christian thoughts.  神學家克雷格為神命令滅絕迦南人辯護說：「天天都有兒童在死吧！住在迦南的兒童，死了比在迦南文化中長大好得多。」這番話既無情又危險，合理化種族滅絕、屠殺兒童。道德遭顛倒，惡（種族屠殺）被扭曲為善（「救贖」）。克雷格，作為一個德高望重的神學家，忠實準確地反影基督宗教的神學思想。亦因此，清楚顯明了基督宗教思想的荒謬、不道德和冷血。

[Alex]

又一處描寫耶和華下不道德滅族命令的經文：

撒母耳記上 1 Samuel
1 Sa 15:2 萬軍之耶和華如此說、以色列人出埃及的時候、在路上亞瑪力人怎樣待他們、怎樣抵擋他們、我都沒忘。
1 Sa 15:3 現在你要去擊打亞瑪力人、滅盡他們所有的、不可憐惜他們、將男女、孩童、喫奶的、並牛、羊、駱駝、和驢盡行殺死。

這段經文的解釋非常簡單。以色列人出埃及的時候，在路上遇到亞瑪力人敵擋。他們懷恨在心，有機會便以滅族手斷報復，連嬰孩、動物也不放過。他們後來在寫歷史時將滅族行為推捨給耶和華，訛稱是其命令。《聖經》只是一本人寫的書，不是所謂「神的話語」，存在錯誤、醜惡與不道德，以批判之心讀之是正確的讀經態度。

[Alex]

Sam Harris destroys Craig (YouTube 11min)

Sam Harris' simple and effective blow to William Lane Craig's Christian ethics: "If there is a less-moral moral framework than the one Dr. Craig is proposing, I haven't heard of it."

Sam Harris simply destroys catholicism
http://youtu.be/AcO4TnrskE0