Of course i know that Huxley was called Darwins Bulldog , have you even ever read any of the Huxley's or their writings ? No i thought not which is absolutely typical of you .
The point of the post little rodent was about how apologists like Craig bend over backwords to blow themselves with absolute nonsense like justification of killing innoncents. And its no wonder that Prof Craig doesn't break his spinless back in the exercise because its made of such soft gelatinous material just like the squishy brain matter in his head just like a Ted Haggard , well meaning fools that believe in fairytale nonsense of absolute fantasy .
Prof Craig shows he is a total moron incapable of any rational thought here , why would any thoughtful person agreee too ? (except to be nice & polite which Dawkins has done and others as well numerous times)
"But why take the lives of innocent children?
The terrible totality of the destruction was undoubtedly related to the prohibition of assimilation to pagan nations on Israel's part. In commanding complete destruction of the Canaanites, the Lord says, 'You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons, or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods' (Deut 7.3-4). […] God knew that if these Canaanite children were allowed to live, they would spell the undoing of Israel. […] Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God's grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven's incomparable joy.
Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives." |
