Oh dear, dear, dear, going after William Lane Craig is going after a straw man rather than going after Jesus. Jesus's mind, not William Lane Craig's, is the mind of Christianity.
I am answering the following linked blog post:.
Look, first of all, there is a faulty premise upon which that whole blog post is based. It's that all the faithful must cherry pick to avoid defending God committing genocide of the type humans have committed. Nowhere in Jesus's words does Jesus state that God does commit or has committed genocide of the type humans have committed, of the type Greta Christina is referring to (understandably referring to from her limited knowledge of the Gospel of Jesus).
The first rule of understanding Jesus is to hold Jesus to his own standard that hypocrisy is critical to avoid. Jesus has to avoid it, and Jesus's Father God has to avoid it in order to be perfectly good. You can start raising questions about whether or not God is all powerful if God can't do evil, but that's a different theological issue and is loaded with semantical requirements (semantical understanding) to answer. It can be done.
The biggest hurdle for people in my view is coming to grips with that Jesus held up Mosaic Law as being hypocritical. He didn't blame Moses but rather the hard-heartedness of those who couldn't grasp, accept, and live in accordance with the non-hypocritical understanding Jesus does teach and did live.
Contrary to the cherry-picking idea, there is a full-context reading of the whole of the Bible where one comes to realize that Jesus came and enhanced the understanding of the law and the prophets beyond anything any of the prior prophets received or imparted. Therefore, Jesus was not defending the Yahweh of the pre-enhanced understanding but rather the Yahweh Jesus knew and knows.
The Yahweh of Jesus did not and does not command any people to commit genocide. Mixed up, more hard-hearted people get the signals wrong and commit genocide and think God ordered it.
Does this mean then that one is to throw out the whole Old Testament? Well, what understanding would be gained by that? Would one be able to understand Jesus's enhancement that way? No, one would not. It would be a move backwards in understanding.
Is one to disbelieve everything on account of any human less-than-perfection aspect showing through in the Bible? Of course not. One is to use the words and deeds of Jesus to look back upon the Old Testament and to look upon the time Jesus walked the Earth and all the intervening time to the present and into the future to come to better discern the true nature of God and God's relationship to humans collectively and individually.
Here's what I know about God from Jesus. God is not Satan. It is Satan who is the destroyer. It is Satan who is the spirit of wrath. It is Satan who tempts people do commit child sacrifice and even eat the burned flesh of one's own offspring to please Satan and then turns around and points the finger saying, "See, I told you they (humans) are wicked. Look how they fall so easily to temptations to do utter evil. They should be wiped out."
I also have learned that, that spirit of Satan is the spirit of the "God" of this world — the wrong God — not the God of Jesus.
This has a ring of Gnosticism to it, but I assure you it is not Gnosticism. Gnosticism masks humanism apart from the God of Jesus, apart from ultimate, objective, absolute righteousness that does transcend the flesh and certainly doesn't have a place for atheism in the highest Heaven.
Listen to Greta Christina's foul mouth. She throws out the nearly obligatory f-word, as if there's no harm in it but rather a release from bondage under evil. What a lack of understanding she shows doing that even while she claims moral superiority or at least the equal of Jesus Christ. Greta's position, as Ayn Rand's, is who needs Jesus to learn or know what's good and right? Well Greta, you know what's good and right up to the limited point you do for the same reason that you have air to breathe and that's God.
God is the creator. Satan is the polluter. God is the light of truth. Satan is the darkness descending upon the minds and hearts of human beings pushing and pulling them away from the spirit who is the God of Jesus.
In William Lane Craig's partial defense, I will say that he is right that innocent souls do not go the way of the flesh. Men and women may kill the flesh, but the souls of the innocent are not "killed" in Hell. Where William goes wrong is in ever imagining that God is the spirit that orders any men or women to take the life of the innocent in flesh or spirit. A full-context, non-cherry-picking reading of the Bible makes that clear. Greta Christina has it exactly wrong. She hedged a bit but took it away in the rest of her post.
Greta is wrong that atheists feel the love of the type and degree Jesus has. It's not possible. Greta is speaking out of ignorance about that love. In the absence of belief in God the Father of Jesus, there is no understanding even the beginning of that love Jesus showed going to the cross. It can't be done. It's like a colorblind person claiming to appreciate the color red every bit as much as someone who can actually see the color. Of course there are "proofs" for the colorblind that red exists. Try explaining to the atheist that God can instantly heal the colorblind though. What God? Try explaining the nature of testing versus God and Jesus's revelation, etc., and watch the mental eyes gloss over.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)