William Lane Craig seems to spend most of his time debating atheists over the existence of God and other subjects. But when confronted with arguments about the barbarism of God in the Old Testament, he has nothing to offer but terrible arguments like this:
“I think it’s just dishonest when people like Richard Dawkins portray Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament, as this moral monster. These highly singular commands need to be read against the background of the whole of the Old Testament which includes the great moral law that is given by God which is head and shoulders above other ancient near eastern moral and legal codes…”
Isn’t it interesting how God gets graded on a curve here? It isn’t that the commands for slaughter and genocide in the Old Testament are good and moral, it’s that they’re (allegedly) a little better than some of the other local deities in the area. And what exactly is so great and moral about the law given by God in the Old Testament? Stoning a woman to death for not being a virgin on her wedding day is great and moral? Forcing a woman to marry her rapist is great and moral?
“It’s against the backdrop of the prophets which explain God’s compassion for the poor and the oppressed and the orphans and widows.”
Let’s call this the Adolf Hitler argument. It’s like arguing that because Hitler was a vegetarian and loved animals, that somehow mitigates the fact that he committed genocide. It all reminds me of this meme that’s going around on Facebook:
Like Dispatches on Facebook: