Posted on 03/21/2024 9:27:37 PM PDT by Morgana
In a recent discussion with Atheist Alex O’Connor, Christian apologist William Lane Craig’s suggested that abortion is not bad for the babies, but rather confers a great good upon them.
Frequently viewed as evangelicalism’s foremost Christian apologist, William Lane Craig’s name is most often associated with his ministry organization Reasonable Faith, the name of his most famous book and also weekly podcast. We last covered him after he made a number of startling claims about the origin of Adam and the nature of the bible, in our posts:
Apologist William Craig Denies Genesis 1-11: Says Adam was Caveman that Lived 750,000 Years Ago
William Lane Craig Mockingly Laughs at Thought of Talking Snake, Literal Adam
William Lane Craig Says Refusing to Consider Neanderthals the same as Homo Sapiens is ‘Dehumanizing’ and ‘Racist’
During a discussion about whether or not it was loving for God to command the killing of the Canaanite clans who were living in the land (Deut. 7.1-2; 20.16-18) and in particular their babies, Craig offers that it was loving and just to do so.
So the burden here would be to show that in issuing this command God does something that contradicts his perfectly just and loving nature, and my argument is that that’s very difficult to show because he doesn’t wrong anyone I think in this, in particular. The difficult case here is the children and what I would say is first that God has the right to take anyone’s life whenever he wants to. Unfortunately children die all the time in infancy and so if God wants to end the life of these Canaanite children early, prematurely that’s his prerogative.
But then secondly on my theology, these children go immediately to heaven. They go to be with God and therefore come to know a life that is more glorious and more happy than anything conceivable and certainly far better than if they had been allowed to live and be raised in such a corrupt and evil environment as they were in.
So it was actually a tremendous blessing to these children for them to be killed and go to heaven and be with God.”
Alex O’Connor responds to this with skepticism, offering that such a view is morally repugnant and revolting and runs against our intuitions, which Craig challenges him on.
Well does it Alex? I mean I think it runs against our naturalistic worldview where one doesn’t believe in an afterlife. But on a theistic worldview if these children go to a life more glorious and happy than they can imagine, then it is a great blessing. It’s just that modern man doesn’t believe that.
O’Connor brings up the comparison to abortion:
“Take the issue of abortion for example. Now you might think that it’s immoral to have an abortion because God has commanded that you shouldn’t take innocent life, you know, in the absence of some specific Divine command. But a lot of the time in this discussion people do talk in language which points to how this is this is bad for the child. You know, you’re taking away the life of a child, you’re committing some wrong towards the child. This position that you’re advocating here would seem to remove the ability to do that. You can still say that abortion is wrong if you like, but you can’t say that it in any way harms the child. In fact it seems like you’re committed to the view that it confers a great good upon the child when a parent has an abortion.
To which Craig rejoins:
Yes, absolutely. I mean what it would do, it would rob the child of the goods of this finite life that he would have enjoyed had he lived 50, 60 years or so. But in place of that, it gives him an eternal life of incomprehensible joy and and happiness which far outbalances the loss of those finite goods.
So the reason that abortion is wrong is not because it’s bad for the victims. The reason it’s wrong is because it transgresses a divine command. It’s homicide and God has commanded us not to commit homicide in the absence of some overriding moral justification like a policeman or a soldier who needs to take life in order to save life.
****VIDEO ON LINK
Honestly, I “nevah hoid of da bum.”
“War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.”
This is the definition of trolling. Obscene.
The Son Rises: Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus
Frequently viewed as evangelicalism’s foremost Christian apologist, William Lane Craig’s name is most often associated with his ministry organization Reasonable Faith, the name of his most famous book and also weekly podcast.
He's been around quite a while and for the longest time he was the "go-to" philosopher/theologian/apologist for Evangelical Christians when they were looking for rational answers about the Bible. He has seemed to have fallen out of favor of late, especially after he took he took a controversial (and arguably heretical) view of the nature of Christ.
He was a one trick pony in the debates, using a Lincoln-Douglas style point-counterpoint-fall method that gave many the impression that he ‘won’ those debates.
He's a Biblical determinist who has said some other dumb things like “animals don’t feel pain”.
He got pwned in his debate with Shelly Kagan, which was the only time I saw him completely out of his element and unable to respond with his usual tricks.
This guy used to be a famous Protestant apologist— I (a Catholic) had heard of him.
His logic seems unhinged. If one must be baptized or believe in God to be saved, how does he think babies get to go to Heaven? Do people get to go to Heaven if they die before a certain age and then they have to be saved, or how does it work?
Just another heretic. They’re a dime a dozen these days.
He describes himself as a philosopher who practices apologetics. Rarely uses scripture.
He seems to be wobbling further from scripture.
“FReepers who is this guy?”
An idiot. By his logic, every murderer is doing his victim(s) some great favor.
I have four daughters. Had I gone berserk and murdered them as children, I would be considered a hero dad who sent them straight to heaven?
This guy is more a kook than apologist for the faith. Depressing.
I once respected Craig. But this is bonkers.
For apologetics people should stick with Gary Habermas or old time writers such as Arnold Lunn.
Scripture says that a) one must confess that Jesus is the son of God, and place ones life in his hands; 2) for the non-Christian, one must follow the laws/rules of ones own religion; c) one must be free of sin.
For c, the question is at what point one can make a willful choice to disobey God's laws. Only God knows when one becomes responsible for ones own decisions, but I don't think the unborn are capable.
The above is only my opinion, based on my own study.
The man is a collossal idiot.
He just made the case for every kind of murder. He further made the case to murder every child becore its born.
We can always ask how they would feel if we killed them in the same way a baby was killed in an abortion.
They choose between (without anesthesia) being ripped limb from limb, thrown into a vat of caustic material, or having a hole drilled into their heads and having their brains sucked out.
Then they can see what a great good it is for themselves. I’m sure they wouldn’t mind.
Ok, I can understand the logic there.
But now I have another question: regarding your second point, “2) for the non-Christian, one must follow the laws/rules of ones own religion,” seriously? Some religions aren’t so great, like the Aztec religion which required a *lot* of human sacrifice.
Is there a Scdiptural reference for this?
You know the old saying:
If your religion is worth killing for,
please start with yourself.
Alex O’Connor will find himself at the judgement seat and be told, “Alex, where you’re going, it will be hot but, don’t worry, it won’t harm you.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.