William Lane Craig's dishonesty

Christian Apologist William Lane Craig in 2015 posted to youtube an excerpt from one of his lectures wherein he defends as morally good the ancient Israelites carrying out their belief that God wanted them to slaughter the children of the pagans who were originally living in that land.

As might be expected, comments are disabled for this video, so the reader will have to ask whether the uploader left this alone as the default position solely by accident, or intended to preempt comments.  One this is for sure, whoever posted this surely knew that the biblical commands of God that the Hebrews should slaughter children have horrified many Christians and not just the average unbeliever.

The video at time code 11:55 ff has an audience member ask a 2-part question, 1) if the bible is correct that God is not a respecter of persons, then why did God treat ancient Israelite children better than God treated the Canaanite children, and 2) at time code 12:07 ff, what is Dr. Craig's response to other Christian scholars who have interpreted the genocide texts as non-literal.

Unfortunately, this audience member could not finish the second part of the question after he said "genocide" because at 12:08 ff, Dr. Craig, in screeching voice indicating worry, interrupts him and from there until the end of the video, gives his reasons for saying God did not intend his "slaughter the Canaanite" commands to be taken by the Israelites as permission to subject the Canaanites to "genocide".

Dr. Craig's interruption of this audience member was dishonest, since the video ends after Craig ends his speech about how calling it genocide is incorrect, thus indicating either a) he intentionally avoided explaining why his explanation is rejected by other Christian scholars, or b) he answered that part too, but chose to avoid including it in the portion he chose to upload, which still smacks of dishonesty, since the fact that other Christian scholars of the evangelical persuasion reject Craig's "apologetics" on this issue, indicates that those atheists who likewise reject his apologetics, are not doing so merely because they are spiritually blind and rebellious, but the option remains on the table that they have solid objective reasons to reject Craig's thesis.

Craig's reply was also dishonest because whether ancient Hebrews slaughtering children technically justifies being characterized as "genocide" or something different, is useless semantics.  The biblical texts showing God commanded his people to slaughter children are not a problem merely due to the average person thinking these actions fulfill the definition of "genocide".  We have a problem with them for the same reason we'd have a problem with anybody asserting that God told them to slaughter children.  The problem would exist whether you characterize such divine commands as genocide or Gong Show.

It is clear the audience member had a legitimate question as to how Craig answers other Christian scholars who disagree with Craig, who say these kinds of divine commands were never intended to be fulfilled in an absolute literal sense of exterminating all pagan men woman and children.  Two such scholars the audience member likely had in mind are Paul Copan and Matthew Flanagan, who jointly authored a book in which they make explicit how wrong they think Dr. Craig is to take these slaughter-passages literally.

The fact that Craig has publicly acknowledged elsewhere why he thinks Christian scholars like Copan and Flanagan get this wrong, does not erase the fact that whoever posted the video conveniently ended it with Craig avoiding answering this rather important concern with the fallacious red-herring of "it's not genocide!".

Now beyond the issue of Dr. Craig's dishonest attempt to avoid having to publicly acknowledge that other people equally spiritually alive as himself, do not find his apologetic argument at this point very convincing...

a - The problem of biblical genocide cannot be solved by appeal to a technical definition of "genocide".  It is the average person on the street, whether unbeliever, atheist bible critic, or Christian, not merely the liberal college professor, who finds immoral the general idea that God would ever tell his followers to kill children. So a technical discussion of what genocide is and is not, is nothing but dishonest distraction.

b - at 5:10 ff, Craig absurdly argues that by bringing about the deaths of these Canaanite children, God ensured their eternal salvation.  However this does nothing but rip the door of Pandora's Box off the hinges:

If God likes the idea of giving people a shortcut to heaven (i.e., killing them before they reach the age of accountability) then we have to wonder why God thinks allowing most of mankind to grow past this age and thus endure the horrible risk of eternal hell fire, is supposed to be better than the guarantee of heaven that results from all infanticide.  Some would argue that if we can do anything at all that will motivate God to grant salvation to a person, we should dedicate our lives to doing exactly this, and our motive is the fear of hell that God himself placed in our hearts.  Salvation can never possibly cost too much.

If Craig's theology is correct, every "baby" that is aborted goes directly to heaven, a good result.  This creates another problem because the vast majority of people naturally adopt consequentialism (i.e., whether an act is morally good or bad depends on what kind of effect it produces).  If abortion sends the baby directly to eternal salvation, that is an effect of abortion too, and it is improper for Christians to ignore the higher spiritual reality involved here and simplemindedly focus solely on the fact that abortion is a violation of God's prohibition on murder.

Worse, God himself takes personal responsibility for all murder in general anyway, and for forced abortion-by-sword and infanticide in particular:

 39 'See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me; It is I who put to death and give life. I have wounded and it is I who heal, And there is no one who can deliver from My hand. (Deut. 32:39 NAU) 

 15 Though he flourishes among the reeds, An east wind will come, The wind of the LORD coming up from the wilderness; And his fountain will become dry And his spring will be dried up; It will plunder his treasury of every precious article.
 16 Samaria will be held guilty, For she has rebelled against her God. They will fall by the sword, Their little ones will be dashed in pieces, And their pregnant women will be ripped open. (Hos. 13:15-16 NAU)

So Craig's theology confronts us with the classical conundrum of why God wants us to believe murder and abortion are immoral, when in fact on biblical grounds that logically necessitates the conclusion that what God does is immoral.  How can our murders and abortions be immoral for us, if the biblical truth is that God is causing us to commit these acts?  Isn't that rather like the puppeteer condemning the puppet for doing what the puppeteer wanted?

Craig admits he adopts divine-command theory (i.e., if God commanded it, it is good by definition, end of discussion) and if that is true, then the acts of the pagans in subjecting the Israelites to infanticide and forced abortion-by sword (Hosea 13, supra) is morally good, end of discussion.

Here is my reply to Dr. Craig's article on the subject of atheists, Christian scholars and  the issue of the divine command to slaughter pagan children.