Posted on 03/21/2024 9:27:37 PM PDT by Morgana
I’ve talked with him at conferences and have gone to dinner with him several times. I’m surprised that he believes this.
In all three of your examples the people being killed have lived some life, and they may be spiritually dead when they are killed and sent to Hell rather than to Heaven. This would never be the case with the unborn.
Since there was so much death in infancy for quite some time after the Crucifixion of Christ, I can see why so many churches favored infant baptism to remove one potential obstacle to those children going to Heaven.
The Catholic Church came up with the concept of Limbo for those humans, mostly babies, who died before they were baptized. Many non-Catholics believe this is a horrible concept no matter how nice Limbo is imagined to be. This, however, was an attempt to guess at a place for those without sin, but who didn't meet all the requirements for salvation (e.g. they didn't utter the magic words "I accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior" while clicking their heels together three times.)
Unlike most atheists he doesn't treat his guests with derision or assume them to be intellectual idiots. O'Connor and Craig have met several times and had a number of discussions over various topics. He has put Craig on his heels a number of times. Craig seems to want to be philosophically consistent more than in line with the Bible. This may be his defense mechanism against O'Connor who will only accept philosophical arguments.
Craig also doesn't believe in Divine Simplicity. It is a very difficult concept to accept what with the concept of the Trinity and the two natures of Christ. One Simple Being does not seem to equate to three Persons or two Natures. Once again, I think this is Craig being more concerned about being philosophically consistent than in line with traditional Christian thinking based on the Bible, and for those not into Sola Scriptura, tradition.
In his video he appears almost gaunt compared to his previous videos. I wonder if he is ill.
He has appeared a bit wobbly regarding his theology lately.
Maybe the two go together.
By his reasoning , he believes it would confer good to kill the child(all children go to heaven). He should believe that his being murdered would confer good on him also ( since he believes he is going to heaven).
Bizarre. Much learning doth make him mad.
No idea.
Well, that’s enough internet for today.
I’ve followed William Lane Craig for years. He’s a brilliant man but I’ve disagreed with him on a couple of things the last couple of years. He’s also coming across as a little too arrogant in recent years.
John 3:30 He must increase, but I must decrease
Craig is preaching mass confusion, unlike James Tour and John Lennox, for example. The Gospel’s message is simple. Accept Christ as Lord and Savior, repent and follow Him. Craig sounds like he is lost in tall weeds.
There is no scriptural basis for his second and third points.
Well, I think Rev. 21:27, about nothing unclean entering Heaven, would support his third point, but the second point seemed obscure!
Using that logic, murder doesn’t harm drug addicts and thieves and adulterers and, frankly, every human being on the planet.
Still, I’m not going to murder anyone because I think it does do them a great harm. And more importantly, our creator tells us simply not to do that.
He didn’t. He merely said death is not the ultimate evil, disobedience to God is. The reason one shouldn’t murder isn’t just because it’s “bad” for the victim, but that it contradicts the will of God.
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.