(April 18, 2020 at 1:28 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: Bad parts of the Bible did influence Christians to look at people of other faiths as lesser humans and therefore we have constant wars and persecutions of people who were non Christians throughout the Christian history. Just as William Lane Craig says about that passage of the Bible where babies were murdered because their parents had "wrong" religion: "It's better for babies to be killed than to live in wrong religion."

But WLC is a "philosopher" so anything he says about religion is correct and should remain unquestioned...

I use to think that WLC was an empty barrel. Now I see he is full of delicious nuts.
I will spread his message to the world, for all to see. LOL. Kill in the name of your god, Yahway.

It's not really for god. It's for the person that they intend to kill.

If a person believes that living in the wrong religion is harmful - when they kill that person, they can absolutely believe that they are doing it to help them. To save them from further harm. It's a mercy. The same reason we'll shoot a dog that gets hit by a truck.

Believing in, or accepting, or even practicing mercy isn't a problem, or at least not this problem. It's only when mercy and harm are defined by a god with a shitlist that this becomes an issue (or, again, the issue). Perceptually and experientially, they are engaging in an act of kindness - it's not their fault that the author of the cosmos is filth.

(April 18, 2020 at 10:25 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: It's not really for god.  It's for the person that they intend to kill.  

If a person believes that living in the wrong religion is harmful - when they kill that person, they can absolutely believe that they are doing it to help them.  To save them from further harm.   It's a mercy.  The same reason we'll shoot a dog that gets hit by a truck.

Believing in, or accepting, or even practicing mercy isn't a problem, or at least not this problem.  It's only when mercy and harm are defined by a god with a shitlist that this becomes an issue (or, again, the issue).  Perceptually and experientially, they are engaging in an act of kindness - it's not their fault that the author of the cosmos is filth.

Actually - unless you are someone with experience in killing people - you cannot understand the justifications such people use to make themselves feel they are just in their actions.

They aren't of course. But the belief that they are is how they continue to suck air - when in truth they would do us all a favor by not.....

I am, but I'm referring to something called ethical warrant, which a person doesn't need to know anything about killing people to understand. Only that it is possible for human beings to do atrocious things with the best of intentions.

The idea that people are better off dead than "in x religion" is a killing motivated by notions of that soon-to-be dead persons well being. We're talking about nutters who believe in hell saving souls. We, as in you and I and other people who wouldn't do that, use the same ethical justification in conceptually equivalent situations.

(April 18, 2020 at 10:25 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: It's not really for god.  It's for the person that they intend to kill.  

If a person believes that living in the wrong religion is harmful - when they kill that person, they can absolutely believe that they are doing it to help them.  To save them from further harm.   It's a mercy.  The same reason we'll shoot a dog that gets hit by a truck.

Believing in, or accepting, or even practicing mercy isn't a problem, or at least not this problem.  It's only when mercy and harm are defined by a god with a shitlist that this becomes an issue (or, again, the issue).  Perceptually and experientially, they are engaging in an act of kindness - it's not their fault that the author of the cosmos is filth.

That person would also have to believe that their priest is directly communicating with their god. I'm assume that was the situation in that Numbers 31:17 line. Also, that person would actually have to believe that for some reason, the god doesn't want to do the job himself. He should ask for a good reason why this god is asking him to kill.
So, he (William Lane Craig) is letting 2 possible viruses enter his brain.
1. The priest.
2. The god not giving him a good reason why he can't do the job himself.

Furthermore:
3. That person is not asking "Why the god has created those children?".
4. That person does not even have a guarantee that that god will respect his word and not throw those children into hell. The god might even throw William Lan Craig into hell.
5. That person (William Lane Craig) has not considered the possibility that some aliens with advanced technology are not just using humans for a source of entertainment.

It is not there fault that the author of the cosmos is filth?
Yes, WLC is not responsible for the behavior of another person.
However, he is responsible for his own words and choices. He chooses to kill children.
He has never seen that god. He has never confirmed that it is a god. But he is ready and set.

Such is the nature of theistic faith. Yeah, some people believe in stuff like that.

We're already primed to use those sorts of justifications-by-harm, and there's nothing obviously (logically) wrong with them. An abusive faith will manipulate that for it's own effect. It's interesting, and it adds to the misery of the whole bit. We imagine it takes a cruel zealot, a mustache twirling villain, to skullfuck the neighbors kid - but it doesn't.

The reason was already offered - they're better off dead than in the wrong religion. We don't have to agree with it, and it doesn't have to be true, for it to be compelling to people who do believe in things like that.