(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.
