Genocide in the Old Testament

[Reuben_J]

Time out.
God did not do the killing throughout these Old Testament conquests. The Israelites did the killing. The Israelite author of Joshua etc…ascribed the motivation and justification for the killing to God’s will and command. The question is, does the Church read that in a literalist way? I don’t see why this is such a hard issue to understand.

I am not too sure in how to respond to this. If you are talking to a non-Christian, it appears to be dishonest to say that ‘God did not do the killing’. The buck stops at God when he ordered Ai or Jericho to be taken and vanquished. To the bystanders it makes no different whether God did the actual killing or not. It was pretty much about ‘them’ and ‘us’ (the chosen people) in the OT.

I would not apologize for the killing in the OT but rather to try to see the bigger picture – God’s plan of Salvation for mankind.

Why is all this important? Because frankly some of the fundamentalist and literalist ideas on this thread are frightening. It is a short jump from assuming God commanded slaughter in the OT to believing he commands it now. I find it interesting that some Christians criticize fundamentalist Muslims for believing God commands the slaughter of unbelievers while believing they know God’s will in the same way.

Of course if it is but frankly I don’t see any Christians (with uncommon exception) that really believe that the slaughter of the OT to be done now. If that is so, how? It was the past and a history of God’s action to bring about the coming of Christ to save the world. There is no parallel to them now.

As for Islam, definitely there is a differentiation in the Quran and the Bible. The Quran verses to command the killing of the infidels are open-ended while in the Bible it was a narration what God and the Israelites did.

The Quran verses are better likened to the moral commandments of the OT whereby they are true (to be followed) until eternity and not a one-off thing.

 

[cornbread_r2]

Citing a Wikipedia entry on a supposedly relevant logical fallacy does not obviate the double standard advanced by many atheists or hypocrisy of their moral stance, and it is reasonable that one should consider the motives of those advancing an argument based on morality when they themselves may hold a position that does not honor the virtues of morality or integrity. (I am NOT including you in this group, cornbread_r2, as I have no idea if you are an atheist, or what your views are on abortion or the unjust termination of human life, and for all I know, you may be an active crusader against the evil of abortion. Some atheists oppose abortion, as did Christopher Hitchens and George Orwell, and their position should be commended as honorable. I am describing here the hypocritical views of those who decry OT accounts of the deaths of children in warfare but still avidly defend “a woman’s right to choose” to end a child’s life.)

Arguments based on a logical inconsistency ("It is okay to terminate a child’s life in an abortion clinic, but it was wrong for the Israelite army to kill children in warfare) can be reasonably discarded as without merit.

It’s fallacious, IMO, because focusing on a pro-choice advocate’s alleged hypocrisy not only does not address the topic under discussion – the morality of the OT stories of genocide – it disqualifies them from even entering the discussion. Just because their views on abortion may be logically inconsistent and just because they may be hypocrits, doesn’t mean that they can’t advance a logically consistent argument demonstrating that the OT genocide command was immoral.

As this is usually used as a wedge issue by atheists who deny the validity or historicity of the Bible, it is always worth asking if the person advancing the argument is anti-abortion, as an issue of moral consistency.

Obviously, an argument against historicity has nothing to do with the moral argument against the OT stories so I have no idea why a-historist’s view on abortion would be of any use – except as a red herring.

Yet you seem to be arguing that they did, and that if they did, it was a moral wrong. If you are attempting to argue that they did not conduct such operations, what is the problem you have with the issue? Are you trying to argue that something is immoral that never happened?

If you are trying to argue that it never happened but that Christians are wrong in claiming divine justification for something that never happened, your argument is essentially pointless.

If you are trying to argue that it happened but that God doesn’t exist so the Israelites were wrong to argue that they had divine sanction, you haven’t even begun to try to establish your presupposition. This is a classic logical fallacy known as petitio principi as defined by Aristotle in his Prior Analytics. classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/prior.html

If you are trying to argue that it happened and that it was wrong, but that it is not wrong when performed in modern times by a secular group whose goals you support, your defense that you are the victim of a tu quoque fallacy does not apply and you are simply making a special pleading. While not itself a logical fallacy, it is a form of spurious argument, as it is arguing for a double standard without providing justification for the use of a double standard.

Could you try to clear up for us exactly what your argument is?

Not a moral argument, just an observation, really…

I think there are good reasons to think that these OT events and others are invented history and that they didn’t happen as described in the bible.

Why do I care? History records some actual nasty incidents when literalists believed themselves to be God’s righteous instruments with a divine warrant to execute his wrathful will. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to think that such literalists may have likely found precedence in the biblical stories of the Canaanite conquest. And while I’m somewhat comforted when some literalists claim that God would never order such actions these days, I know that there are some others who are not so sure about that.

 

[rossum]

You were questioning God’s love then. I explained to you God’s love which surpassed mere killing if it is for a greater purpose.

You justify God’s love by redefining love. That is Humpty Dumpty argumentation, and not likely to convince many people.

The OT God, as described in the Old Testament, kills and causes to be killed a great many people. Morally, He appears at about the same level as the Olympian gods, who killed and caused to be killed a lot of people during the Trojan War.

This is, and has been, an ongoing problem for Christianity to explain: “I love you, so I’ll kill you.”

rossum

 

[Reuben_J]

You justify God’s love by redefining love. That is Humpty Dumpty argumentation, and not likely to convince many people.

The OT God, as described in the Old Testament, kills and causes to be killed a great many people. Morally, He appears at about the same level as the Olympian gods, who killed and caused to be killed a lot of people during the Trojan War.

This is, and has been, an ongoing problem for Christianity to explain: “I love you, so I’ll kill you.”

rossum

Apparently you did not read my post. It helps to read and that’s basic courtesy even if we disagree in many things. As it is, you are more in trying to impose Buddhism thought and ideas on this subject.

This is a Sacred Scripture section and we discuss specifically about Biblical passages. I tried to give you the context of this scripture. You did not acknowledge that but rather to pursue Buddhism into the Biblical passages. I think that’s dishonest and I would say the same to anyone who would dishonestly argue on a given topic.

I am not going to try to convince anybody about a Christian God but at t least you should acknowledge what I said.

You justify God’s love by redefining love. That is Humpty Dumpty argumentation, and not likely to convince many people.

Where did I redefine love, at least ‘Christian love’. Please show me where.

I told you that God created humankind. In the creation narration of the Bible, after he created them he gave them paradise to live in.

He said they would die if they disobeyed. They disobeyed but instead of dropping dead, God gave them a second chance.

We believe all of us are descendants of the first humans. If God did not love us and really was very cruel, we should not be living now but God allowed our forefathers to live, and thus so are we today, exist. But it is more than merely alive physically. God’s love means that we even can live eternally with him in heaven if we believe. You can say a second chance. And for that he gave his only Son, Jesus, to die in our place.

Now that’s the love of God. If you sin, you die. The people of the OT sinned and they should die. Their sin was such that it could be carried to a ‘thousand generations’. Just imagine the curse of the thousand generations – it means these people and their descendants would be condemned unless the cycle is broken.

Which is better, to stop the cycle as in their destruction or to allow their sin to persist to a thousand generations and be condemned to damnation? So this basically is the context of the OT narration.

The OT God, as described in the Old Testament, kills and causes to be killed a great many people. Morally, He appears at about the same level as the Olympian gods, who killed and caused to be killed a lot of people during the Trojan War.

Yes, it was, but it is not God’s fault but man’s. You should read the Bible from the beginning to understand the context.

I don’t know what moral you study. Again probably you are preaching Buddhism here and I am sorry to say, this is Biblical topic. Your Buddhism is inappropriate here unless you really want to discuss Buddhism.

Well, there is only one God who is the Creator of humankind as opposed to Olympian gods and goddesses unless you insinuate that Christians are polytheists.

This is, and has been, an ongoing problem for Christianity to explain: “I love you, so I’ll kill you.”

rossum

It is not a problem except for you, a Buddhist, who consider it is. Well, that is understandable since you have very different belief from us.

And what you say is absolute nonsense. The love of God is to give life. Probably this a little too much for you to take but that is what it really means – to give life and life in abundance.

Read my posts again. Man is given free will and it is up to him whether to accept God’s love or not. Death is being unable to accept this love because on our own we are nothing but a sure victim of the Evil One who really wants us to suffer eternal damnation together with him.

 

[Reuben_J]

Morally, He appears at about the same level as the Olympian gods, who killed and caused to be killed a lot of people during the Trojan War.

I object to this and as been said, there is only One God. It is a blasphemy to compare God’s morality to the Olympian gods who has multiple wives, impregnated humans, having half brothers and sisters, committing incest, and sibling jealousy and adultery.

And they made man as their pawns in their own respective personal interest to be killed or saved.

 

[rossum]

I object to this and as been said, there is only One God. It is a blasphemy to compare God’s morality to the Olympian gods who has multiple wives, impregnated humans, having half brothers and sisters, committing incest, and sibling jealousy and adultery.

And they made man as their pawns in their own respective personal interest to be killed or saved.

Are gods subject to the rules of morality? If they are, then gods are wrong to kill, commit adultery etc. If gods are not subject to the rules of morality, then they can kill, commit adultery etc. without breaking the rules.

You appear to be making excuses for your God, while disallowing the same excuses for other gods.

As I am not Christian, I do not see a big difference between YHWH and other gods. There are many gods in Buddhism, and all are treated equally.

rossum

 

[Reuben_J]

Are gods subject to the rules of morality? If they are, then gods are wrong to kill, commit adultery etc. If gods are not subject to the rules of morality, then they can kill, commit adultery etc. without breaking the rules.

You appear to be making excuses for your God, while disallowing the same excuses for other gods.

How did I make excuse? You must have confused me with other posters here.

I thought you brought up the morality thing in the first place (in replying to my post).

My objection to the comparison is because they are altogether not the same and their purpose for doing so is different. I know you don’t believe in Christianity but at least give us some respect in talking about our God.

As I am not Christian, I do not see a big difference between YHWH and other gods. There are many gods in Buddhism, and all are treated equally.

rossum

Fair enough in view that you are not Christian. But at least rebut us from what we believe not what you believe and then to juxtapose it into the said Biblical passages. Since that is what being discussed on.

I have no problem in different belief systems and as I said, I am not imposing my belief on you or anybody but at least discuss the fact of the subject of the discussion. I appreciate if you refer to what I said instead of attacking me by merely giving personal opinions without any basis.

 

[Reuben_J]

Are gods subject to the rules of morality? If they are, then gods are wrong to kill, commit adultery etc. If gods are not subject to the rules of morality, then they can kill, commit adultery etc. without breaking the rules.

The problem here is you are making premises with disregards to the context of the action of the Biblical God. I have tried to tell you that which you completely ignored. I am not familiar with how you Buddhists dialogue in an inter-religious topic, though this is hardly inter-religious as the topic is specific Biblical passages, but I thought it is always important to take the context (of anything) into account before making a reasonable comment. You then can disagree therein.

 

[TimothyH]

Not to speak for Clem, but the Old Testament, although inspired by God and inerrant in matters relating to salvation, should be understood as an anthology of texts, which are written in a variety of styles and genres by different authors, and in styles that were accepted by the readers of the times in which they were written. Not everything in there is literal truth, although it can be… Such varied styles include prayer in the form of spiritual verse (recounting passion, sorrow, anger, joy, rage, the entire panoply of human feeling), family trees, prophetic visions, parables, legal codes, and so forth. Accounts of battles, then and now, are often written in hyperbolic terms by the victors (“We wiped them out;” “Not a stone was left unturned;” “we had to destroy the village in order to save it,” and so forth.) That the “genocide” of these peoples did not actually occur seems to have been recognized by the authors, as members of these tribes are referred to later in the narratives - so obviously, they were not wiped out to the last man, woman, and child, and most would have fled, as people tend to do when an invading army approaches.

I added my own in the blue to reflect which POV I kind of line up with in this issue.
Exegesis is not solely to debate whether this war or that war historically took place. People have been warring with one another since the beginning, it’s a given in the history of the OT that wars took place. We try to find the truth in all of that, which is larger than just the historical facts.

Some believe that if we cannot take everything in the bible literally, then it cannot be inspired. That is not true. God has inspired the authors to write what they wrote, The question is, what is God trying to communicate to us? That the sky is actually a solid dome holding back the waters? Of course not. That God created the sky and brings the rains to help us live? Yes. The Israelite expressed who God is to the best of their understanding. Same with ascribing to God his command to kill every last woman and child. The author is a human being inspired by God, with human viewpoints, biases, misunderstandings, etc…

It becomes difficult when the authors assign the direct knowledge of God’s will and command, especially commands to slaughter innocents that, given the whole context of scripture and revelation, are inconsistent with who God has revealed himself to be (especially through Jesus).
I am going to try and email you a word file.

I appreciate your responses. I’m not convinced that herem warfare did not take place, or at a minimum, was not attempted. I’m not convinced that the literal sense does not have a basis in actual history, that the spiritual senses are not rooted in actual events. But I do appreciate your responses.

-Tim-

 

[clem456]

I appreciate your responses. I’m not convinced that herem warfare did not take place, or at a minimum, was not attempted. I’m not convinced that the literal sense does not have a basis in actual history, that the spiritual senses are not rooted in actual events. But I do appreciate your responses.

-Tim-

I also believe that herem took place. I have no reason to believe it did not take place in all it’s entirety as described. We simply have no way of knowing historically what actually happened.
I’ll take the author’s word that the Israelites killed many innocent people repeatedly. It’s consistent with the whole of revelation that human beings have been killing each other all along.
This is the concept of God and the morality that the Israelites lived with.

The author’s attempt to explain God’s “thinking” in this matter needs also to be taken in the whole context of scripture, especially the Word himself, Jesus. In that context, it is difficult to assign these motivations and command to kill every last woman and child to God . This is not how God has revealed himself to us (God cannot change, he is “I AM”, same God in the OT as now. Jesus is God, these motivations are utterly inconsistent with who He is.) .

As you say the spiritual sense is rooted in the literal sense. If I am not mistaken, all the senses flow from the literal. (not the same as literalist)

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Are gods subject to the rules of morality? If they are, then gods are wrong to kill, commit adultery etc. If gods are not subject to the rules of morality, then they can kill, commit adultery etc. without breaking the rules.

You appear to be making excuses for your God, while disallowing the same excuses for other gods.

As I am not Christian, I do not see a big difference between YHWH and other gods. There are many gods in Buddhism, and all are treated equally.

rossum

With respect, the Christian conception of God is indeed qualitatively different than a polytheistic conception, which is why the Euthypro “dilemma” you obliquely reference was intended to be used to argue against the morality of the pagan Greek pantheon of Gods, and doesn’t work well with a monotheistic concept of God. If God is not just good, but is literally Goodness - the yardstick we use to measure goodness, He has to be omnibeneficient, omnipotent, and omniscient - traits that are only possible with a monotheistic conception of God.

If you have multiple gods, obviously not all can be omnipotent, at most only one could be, and the rest would be lesser gods - perhaps something on the nature of spiritual beings analogous to angels - so you would really have one “king” god. I guess you could argue that one god is the “most” powerful but they are all treated with equal reverence by humans, but to say that is to acknowledge that your conception of the Buddhist panoply of gods is a big difference. To claim that all your gods are omnipotent would be like the logical fallacy of arguing for a contradiction, similar to arguing that God can’t exist because he wouldn’t be able to make a rock so big that he couldn’t lift it. You can’t possess unlimited scope to do things if there are competing entities with the same capacity. I suppose you could argue that all the Buddhist gods are different persona of the same single God, like a vastly extended version of the Trinity, but I don’t know if that is what you intend.

Your other option would be to claim a panoply of spirits, none of whom possess the attributes of the Christian God, which would make your conception of gods quite different from our conception of God, and which would be quite a big difference, indeed.

An additional problem is that If your gods are equally powerful, as I said they they cannot all have the property of omnipotence. A deity could be omniscient without omnipotence, perhaps, but could not be omnipotent without omniscience, as such a deity would need the capacity of total knowledge to be able to act with foreknowledge of the good and just ends of all actions - thus to be omnibeneficient, one would need both omnipotence and omniscience, attributes that are found in a monotheist God but cannot exist in co-equal pagan gods.

 

[rossum]

With respect, the Christian conception of God is indeed qualitatively different than a polytheistic conception, which is why the Euthypro “dilemma” you obliquely reference was intended to be used to argue against the morality of the pagan Greek pantheon of Gods, and doesn’t work well with a monotheistic concept of God. If God is not just good, but is literally Goodness - the yardstick we use to measure goodness, He has to be omnibeneficient, omnipotent, and omniscient - traits that are only possible with a monotheistic conception of God.

Which gets us straight back to the problem of why an omnibeneficient God orders innocents killed, and sometimes does the killing himself. As far as I can see, it can only be done be redefining the meaning of “benevolent”, or of “innocent”, so that the word no longer means what it originally did.

You are correct that I was referencing the Euthyphro dilemma. I have not, so far, seen a satisfactory answer from the Abrahamic side. If there were a satisfactory answer, then I would think that the dilemma would no longer be a live source of discussion.

If you have multiple gods, obviously not all can be omnipotent, at most only one could be, and the rest would be lesser gods - perhaps something on the nature of spiritual beings analogous to angels - so you would really have one “king” god.

There are many gods, none omnipotent, none immortal, though there are differences in power between them. None are of any real importance. Their main function in Buddhist scripture is to applaud at the right places when the Buddha is speaking.

rossum

 

[Reuben_J]

Which gets us straight back to the problem of why an omnibeneficient God orders innocents killed, and sometimes does the killing himself. As far as I can see, it can only be done be redefining the meaning of “benevolent”, or of “innocent”, so that the word no longer means what it originally did.

You are correct that I was referencing the Euthyphro dilemma. I have not, so far, seen a satisfactory answer from the Abrahamic side. If there were a satisfactory answer, then I would think that the dilemma would no longer be a live source of discussion.

You have completely ignored the fact that:

(1) There is eternal life as opposed to Buddhism’ incarnation.

(2) God’s justice is that the innocents would not be condemned but always be rewarded where it matter most; the reward which is much better than they can ever imagine.

(3) God is the Creator. He gives and he takes away life. Believers are confident of facing death because of the promises it bring. Thus they look forward to death as life on earth is just a temporary journey.

(4) God’s love is such that even though we should not have lived because we sinned, He gives us a second chance so that we can live forever with Him in heaven, if we believe.

(5) Some practices of sins are curses and if done in a society or individually they can be carried on for a ‘thousand generations’ unless the cycle is broken which means before the cycle is broken these people would suffer death in damnation. A good God sees far ahead and does what is good for mankind which we mere humans may not understand unless we are told.

(6) The ‘killing’ in the OT is for a greater good because eventually it paved a way for the coming of human Savior, Jesus Christ. There was no injustice inflicted as sinners would be judged accordingly and the innocents would be rewarded. In any case, all will face God’s judgement ultimately.

There are many gods, none omnipotent, none immortal, though there are differences in power between them. None are of any real importance. Their main function in Buddhist scripture is to applaud at the right places when the Buddha is speaking.

rossum

Unlike Islam, Christianity sees Buddhism in perhaps a different light as a religion. Candidness may not be prudent here as it may be unpalatable to a Buddhist but if you want to, you can refer to what Pope John Paul II said about it in his book, The Threshold of Hope. It was nevertheless got unfavourable response from Buddhist leaders then who thought the Pope was demeaning their religion.
**
There is only One true God who is the Creator. Others are simply His creations** and those fallen away are simply His anti-thesis which purpose is to undo what He has done. I can understand why Buddhists object to this unflattering view of their religion.

 

[Reuben_J]

*Unlike Islam, Christianity sees Buddhism in perhaps a different light as a religion.

Edit: * Unlike how the Catholic Church views Muslims, it sees Buddhism in perhaps a different light as a religion.

 

[rossum]

(2) God’s justice is that the innocents would not be condemned but always be rewarded where it matter most; the reward which is much better than they can ever imagine.

That is a horrible argument. It justifies the action of people like Andrea Yates who killed her children before they could sin. It also justifies any number of massacres: “Kill them all, God will know his own” - Abbot Amalric at Béziers.

There is only One true God who is the Creator. Others are simply His creations

That is standard Christianity, which I am aware of. That argument has no impact on me because I am not a Christian.

rossum

 

[Reuben_J]

That is a horrible argument. It justifies the action of people like Andrea Yates who killed her children before they could sin. It also justifies any number of massacres: “Kill them all, God will know his own” - Abbot Amalric at Béziers.

It still does not address the justice/love of God that wants good things for his creations. The concept of eternal life which you conveniently ignored.

And killing is sinful since life is God’s and God alone. You cannot take take the law into your own hand. And what good does people like Andrea Yates do? Unlike God, what does he can offer people after the earthly life? So your example is moot.

That is standard Christianity, which I am aware of. That argument has no impact on me because I am not a Christian.

rossum

Then why bother commenting at all. You know that we are discussing a Bible exegesis for Christians who want to learn and getting deeper insight from their Holy Scripture. Buddhism is irrelevant in this topic especially if your intention is not to learn but to introduce Buddhism on the discussion.

If you want to be so much as to be heard, you can always go to the non-Catholic section and start a thread like ask a Buddhist or something. If people are interested they may dialogue with you.

I have listed some six points in my posts and I suppose you agree with the other five since you are silent on them or you don’t have anything to say about them.

 

[cornbread_r2]

…]

And killing is sinful since life is God’s and God alone. You cannot take take the law into your own hand. And what good does people like Andrea Yates do? Unlike God, what does he can offer people after the earthly life? So your example is moot.

…]

As I pointed out previously in regards to Jimmy Akin’s piece:

…]

If we assume, as he does, that the finite Earthly suffering of innocent children is outweighed by the infinite joy they will experience in Heaven , then what would stop anyone from killing innocent children for the same reasons? I understand that God might still fault the murderer and condemn them, but if the innocent child ultimately benefits in any case, then some people might be willing to take that chance.

It seems Andrea Yates was willing to take that chance.

 

[Reuben_J]

As I pointed out previously in regards to Jimmy Akin’s piece:

I am not sure what was the argument then. I came a bit later to this discussion. Perhaps you can refresh me.

It seems Andrea Yates was willing to take that chance.

Then it is her loss. From my perspective, it is really a convoluted thought borders on near madness.

First of all by committing a sin of murder, Andrea Yates would be condemned to eternal hell. No parents, let alone people would do that kind of thing in normal circumstance. Eternal damnation is not to be taken lightly. It is not like you are serving a jail sentence and would get a parole later but it is eternity. To do what Yates did was utter foolishness and makes no sense from the Christian perspective, so frankly I do not understand why this argument should be used here.

Secondly, since Andrea Yates is not God and therefore not a judge, there is no guarantee that the children would go to heaven. If they are infants, yes, but why did that, since they can grow up to be people of God and may deserve heaven by their own account. Everything God does is for their salvation - one does not have to do a Yates.

Finally, what mother would do that to her children? None. So this was exceptional circumstance and perhaps not what normal people would do. She deserves our sympathy but if she committed the murder on a mistaken belief that her children can go to heaven or for their own good, then she was very much mistaken. In any case, there is no parallel with God here as the reason and the premises are two different things. God is God and Andrea Yates is human.

 

[cornbread_r2]

I am not sure what was the argument then. I came a bit later to this discussion. Perhaps you can refresh me.

You can access Akin’s article here. The point he makes is that if the OT story is true, then the finite amount of temporal suffering the innocent Canaanite children experienced would be far outweighed by the infinite, eternal joy they would receive in Heaven from a just God by way of making it up to them.

Then it is her loss. From my perspective, it is really a convoluted thought borders on near madness.

No one is arguing that those were the actions of a completely sane person.

First of all by committing a sin of murder, Andrea Yates would be condemned to eternal hell. No parents, let alone people would do that kind of thing in normal circumstance. Eternal damnation is not to be taken lightly. It is not like you are serving a jail sentence and would get a parole later but it is eternity. To do what Yates did was utter foolishness and makes no sense from the Christian perspective, so frankly I do not understand why this argument should be used here.

If she was indeed insane, then there’s no reason to think that she would be held accountable for her actions. If she wasn’t insane, then there’s no reason to think she couldn’t regret and seek forgiveness for her actions later. In either case, eternal punishment in Hell would not be a given for Yates or someone like her. But again, the issue isn’t what happens to the murderer, it’s what happens to the victim.

Secondly, since Andrea Yates is not God and therefore not a judge, there is no guarantee that the children would go to heaven. If they are infants, yes, but why did that, since they can grow up to be people of God and may deserve heaven by their own account. Everything God does is for their salvation - one does not have to do a Yates.

I understand that the Catholic church does not definitively state that innocent children who die automatically go to Heaven (or at least to a state of some limited bliss). It does, however, give grieving parents of such children every reason to hope that they do.

I also understand that some theologians speculate that the souls of the children might have to undergo some kind of test so that their eternal disposition remains a matter of choice for them. It would seem that for such a test to be fair, the children would have to know what they would be turning down. Armed with that knowledge, I find it difficult to believe that any child would choose Hell instead; Hell being the only other option.

Finally, what mother would do that to her children? None. So this was exceptional circumstance and perhaps not what normal people would do. She deserves our sympathy but if she committed the murder on a mistaken belief that her children can go to heaven or for their own good, then she was very much mistaken. In any case, there is no parallel with God here as the reason and the premises are two different things. God is God and Andrea Yates is human.

Here’s a list of some children apparently killed by their parents for just that reason. I have no reason to think that that list is all inclusive.

 

[TheHolyGhost]

Couple of things

1. God is the creator. Only he has the right to give and take life freely. We might see this as unjust, but for God, death is not the end of us. God may have taken the innocents to the bosom of abraham to await Christ and sent the evil to pit of the damned.
2. If the children and women were not also killed, they would have sought revenge for their husbands and fathers which would have made it difficult, if not impossible, for the Israelites to do what God commanded and to go where God wanted them to go.

I definitely agree that God has all authority to take life away as He sees fit and He has demonstrated that He can do these things Himself, i.e. Flood, killing firstborn Egyptians, Sodom and Gomorrah…

What is hard to understand is why he would command humans to kill off other humans when He could have just done it Himself again (not to.mention the commandment of “Thou shall not kill”) and then come later in the person of Jesus and contradict His own commands once again, “love your enemies”, “those who live by the sword, die by the sword”…