Posted: Jan 30, 2012 4:49 am
Lion IRC wrote:Xeno wrote:He will not debate validity of the bible because he takes any part of it as true but does not wish to get caught explaining that.
For example, genocide is not genocide if god ordered it, besides, those to be killed were told to leave first, besides, not all of them died, besides, the infants who were killed went straight to heaven and the rest deserved what they got.
OK?
Even if God orders it, it's still genocide.
Link already provided by quas.
Where on earth do you get the idea that William Lane Craig is unwilling to defend or debate his views about the validity of the bible?
Here:
Lockon-Stratos wrote:... I watched some random clips of [Craig] saying something like he's not here to debate the validity of the Bible(I think he said it in an interview as well, but not certain)
Taking those words at face value, I responded to them with likely reasons, not making a separate claim
Get out of bed earlier, Lion.