God and the killing of babies

[RosaryFan]

God, and God alone, is the author of life and death. Every time a person dies, whether it is a baby, a teen, a young adult, or an elderly person, whether it was sickness, accident, or murder, it is God who allows it. God is allowed to allow it because He is the author of life and death. “The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away”. It is not for us to question why He allows these events, but He allows them, and probably for the greater good (since God has the full picture).

If you think that the tenth plague of the killing of the babies was unjust, what do you think about any other death that “unjustly” occurs? God allows all death. And God is incapable of being unjust. He may not always be understood since our minds are too feeble to grasp His concepts, but He is always just. This we know.

 

[Oruwaith]

I am probably wrong about this, so don’t take my response to seriously.

Pharaoh didn’t listen to Moses. Technically speaking, wouldn’t he be the one who actually killed the children? Or am I greatly mistaken?

P.S. Everything that most people have said, in the thread, makes sense. I just thought I would throw that in to see if it held any water.

 

[karebear92]

I am probably wrong about this, so don’t take my response to seriously.

Pharaoh didn’t listen to Moses. Technically speaking, wouldn’t he be the one who actually killed the children? Or am I greatly mistaken?

P.S. Everything that most people have said, in the thread, makes sense. I just thought I would throw that in to see if it held any water.

I’m not the most qualified to respond, but technically he was the cause, but, in my opinion, he did not kill them. For example, if my mom robbed a bank because she needed to feed me, I would be the cause, but you could not say that I stole the money. I can not say that God did not put it on his soul, however. So God could “blame” him for the death of the infants and put it on his soul, but I don’t think you can say that he killed them, per se.

This is just my reasoning. Feel free to correct me.

 

[Della]

The very important fact that everyone has overlooked, as far as I can tell from scanning the posts, is WHEN the plague happened that took the lives of the firstborn, be they 90 years old or 9 months old.

The Bible is divided into two very large sections: the Old Testament and the New Testament. They are called that because of the New Covenant with man made in Christ completes the Old Covenant made with Moses.

Okay, so what does that mean for our scenario? It means that the people of that time were living under a very different covenant with God–the Noahic Covenant, not even (yet) the Mosaic Covenant. And before you begin to ask what does it matter, it matters a whole lot.

God’s covenant with Noah lasted until the one with Abramham, in which he established Jacob and his descendants as his own, and then with Moses. These covenants were limited in scope and purpose. They were not meant to give the whole world’s God grace–that was what happened under the redemption of Christ, but to call men to fidelity to the truth of God.

This means that justice was immediate and deadly for those who violated it and their families because the head of a household was responsible for everything that happened to him and his children. If he made bad decisions, everyone in the family suffered because of his mistakes. This was the system under which they lived–a partiarchal one that had very little room for mercy for one’s enemies.

God chose Abraham and his descendants to be his special people, his family, so anyone who opposed them were enemies of God’s family, not merely of individuals. If they decided to oppose or oppress God’s family theirs suffered for it. This was temporal punishment, not eternal, which is a whole nother topic. By the decisions pharoah made for his people, his family, in defying God, he brought down God’s judgment on himself and his whole nation.

When Christ was born it was the beginning of the New Covenant with man–one in which God poured out his mercy and grace on all man because all man became Christ’s family–his brother, sisters, mother, etc., as Jesus said. In that statement he was declaring the New Covenant in himself that now encompasses the whole of humanity, which is why God does not send punishments upon his enemies now, since all men have been reconciled to him in Christ.

I hope that helps.

 

[Scaun]

Why should this bother you in the least? G-d said “You shall not kill” not “*I *shall not kill”. That old saw of an argument relies on ignoring what G-d actually said.

The issue isn’t with the killing part, but whether it is just or not. Besides, it is more correctly translated as “you shall not murder”, not “you shall not kill”. See here.

Scaun,

This is a big problem I have, too. My thinking always comes back to how do we know that God is good when he does such awful things? Things that most everyone would say is objectivly wrong, ie killing babies, children and men just to show one’s own power? The answers of, “well, you just shouldn’t question God’s morality” is so unsatisfying for me. Why not?

I agree with you.

For us, true. For God, false. Remember, God is Creator, no one dies but by His will (either passive or active). Therefore, God “kills” everyone. It is entirely withing God’s right to “kill” since He created to begin with.

I suppose you are right here.

As an added point, God never actively willed death on us. We were supposed to live eternally body and soul in the Garden of Eden, but we blew that. So now, we must die bodily. But if we remain faithful to Him, we will still live eternally in the soul, and then our body will be resurrected and glorified.

This is true, God cannot commit evil. But you have to remember that God gave us free will. Therefore, He must allow us to choose evil, even though He does not will it. Bodily death came about by our actions, not God’s.

Hope that helps!

Well, I am not concernced with death in general but with the death of the babies. While it is true that death comes from our sin, it was not necessary for God kill those babies, and therefore it could have been avoided.

I know I’m really taking this far out here, but for example, if God commanded me to kill my daughter by torture…lighting her on fire maybe…that would then become a good thing because God can’t do bad?

I say that God won’t command you that because that is not how he’s like. Morality is based on the character and nature of God; in other words, on who he is. Love, mercy, justice, etc. are all part of God’s character, and thus they are morally good. Chaos, injustive, evil, etc. are immoral for they are against God’s character. Given this, God will always act consistently with his own character, therefore he will always do good. If we agree that in your example God would be ordering something bad, then that won’t happen.

I am probably wrong about this, so don’t take my response to seriously.

Pharaoh didn’t listen to Moses. Technically speaking, wouldn’t he be the one who actually killed the children? Or am I greatly mistaken?

P.S. Everything that most people have said, in the thread, makes sense. I just thought I would throw that in to see if it held any water.

Well, one objection I can think of is that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart so that he may have the possibility to show his power.

 

[karebear92]

The very important fact that everyone has overlooked, as far as I can tell from scanning the posts, is WHEN the plague happened that took the lives of the firstborn, be they 90 years old or 9 months old.

The Bible is divided into two very large sections: the Old Testament and the New Testament. They are called that because of the New Covenant with man made in Christ completes the Old Covenant made with Moses.

Okay, so what does that mean for our scenario? It means that the people of that time were living under a very different covenant with God–the Noahic Covenant, not even (yet) the Mosaic Covenant. And before you begin to ask what does it matter, it matters a whole lot.

God’s covenant with Noah lasted until the one with Abramham, in which he established Jacob and his descendants as his own, and then with Moses. These covenants were limited in scope and purpose. They were not meant to give the whole world’s God grace–that was what happened under the redemption of Christ, but to call men to fidelity to the truth of God.

This means that justice was immediate and deadly for those who violated it and their families because the head of a household was responsible for everything that happened to him and his children. If he made bad decisions, everyone in the family suffered because of his mistakes. This was the system under which they lived–a partiarchal one that had very little room for mercy for one’s enemies.

God chose Abraham and his descendants to be his special people, his family, so anyone who opposed them were enemies of God’s family, not merely of individuals. If they decided to oppose or oppress God’s family theirs suffered for it. This was temporal punishment, not eternal, which is a whole nother topic. By the decisions pharoah made for his people, his family, in defying God, he brought down God’s judgment on himself and his whole nation.

When Christ was born it was the beginning of the New Covenant with man–one in which God poured out his mercy and grace on all man because all man became Christ’s family–his brother, sisters, mother, etc., as Jesus said. In that statement he was declaring the New Covenant in himself that now encompasses the whole of humanity, which is why God does not send punishments upon his enemies now, since all men have been reconciled to him in Christ.

I hope that helps.

Great post!

 

[Oruwaith]

I’m not the most qualified to respond, but technically he was the cause, but, in my opinion, he did not kill them. For example, if my mom robbed a bank because she needed to feed me, I would be the cause, but you could not say that I stole the money. I can not say that God did not put it on his soul, however. So God could “blame” him for the death of the infants and put it on his soul, but I don’t think you can say that he killed them, per se.

This is just my reasoning. Feel free to correct me.

I understand, while it was the pharaoh’s choice that caused this to happen, in the end, it was God, or the angel of death, who actually killed the children.

Don’t worry, I was merely guessing.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Who is responsible for bringing babies into the world? A man and woman provide the physical means but without God creating a new soul, it just wouldn’t work. Every life is created by God. Our soul is our life. God never destroyed any of the babies soul’s. Therefore to me it doesn’t make sense to say that God killed the babies. He ended their Earthly lives and I’m sure they were given a heavenly life with God forever, which is something I can’t be sad about no matter how hard I try

Excellent point.

 

[EasterJoy]

We do have to remember that, unlike a human being, God really does rightly have both ultimate authorship and ultimate control over not only over every single human person but over every single creature and every single physical feature of the universe, concerning when they are come into being and when they die, whether they are transitory or immortal, and every other aspect of what they are, what they can become, and when. He is not the Federal Government of the Universe. He is God, the eternal Being without whom nothing exists or can continue being for so much as a fraction of a second.

We can demand nothing from God. We have no “rights” before God. Rather, our rights before other humans are a reflection of God’s unique right to be the decison-maker in our lives. As such, God uniquely has the right to be the instrument of our deaths, for reasons that God is not compelled to divulge to us. God is uniquely in the position to assure that such deaths do not violate justice, which exists as a real thing and not an artificial construct only because justice flows from God’s very nature.

IOW, if God is not justice itself, then justice is only something we made up, a theoretical construct and an infantile demand that means nothing. We had better hope that God is love and that God is just. If God were not these things, then we are in the position the Greeks believed themselves to be in: that is just the way things are, and there’s not a thing we can do about it, save to curry favor with God and hold our breath so that we may escape the notice of the Fates.

*What then are we to say? Is there injustice on the part of God? Of course not! For he says to Moses: “I will show mercy to whom I will, I will take pity on whom I will.” So it depends not upon a person’s will or exertion, but upon God, who shows mercy.

For the scripture says to Pharaoh, “This is why I have raised you up, to show my power through you that my name may be proclaimed throughout the earth.” Consequently, he has mercy upon whom he wills, and he hardens whom he wills.

You will say to me then, “Why (then) does he still find fault? For who can oppose his will?” But who indeed are you, a human being, to talk back to God? Will what is made say to its maker,“Why have you created me so?” Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for a noble purpose and another for an ignoble one?

What if God, wishing to show his wrath and make known his power, has endured with much patience the vessels of wrath made for destruction? This was to make known the riches of his glory to the vessels of mercy, which he has prepared previously for glory, namely, us whom he has called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles. As indeed he says in Hosea: “Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’ and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’ And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they shall be called children of the living God.” And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, “Though the number of the Israelites were like the sand of the sea, only a remnant will be saved; for decisively and quickly will the Lord execute sentence upon the earth.” And as Isaiah predicted: “Unless the Lord of hosts had left us descendants, we would have become like Sodom and have been made like Gomorrah.”

What then shall we say? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have achieved it, that is, righteousness that comes from faith; but that Israel, who pursued the law of righteousness, did not attain to that law? Why not? Because they did it not by faith, but as if it could be done by works. They stumbled over the stone that causes stumbling, as it is written: “Behold, I am laying a stone in Zion that will make people stumble and a rock that will make them fall, and whoever believes in him shall not be put to shame.” *
**
Rom 9:14-33**

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…Even ignoring all of that, the idea that whatever God does is good because he is God is very hard for me to accept. God does a lot of awful things in the Bible.

By accusing G-d you place yourself in judgement over G-d. What do you know about good and evil that G-d didn’t tell you? On what basis can you claim that G-d did something awful? Where is there any moral rule that G-d did not give, to which He is subject? If one did exist, than how could any being that was subject to a higher law be called a god? There are a lot of problems with the idea that our acceptance of G-d depends on our understanding of Him.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…but whether it is just or not…

just/jəst/
Adjective: Based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair:

Is there a difference?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

We do have to remember that, unlike a human being, God really does rightly have both ultimate authorship and ultimate control over not only over every single human person but over every single creature and every single physical feature of the universe, concerning when they are come into being and when they die, whether they are transitory or immortal, and every other aspect of what they are, what they can become, and when. He is not the Federal Government of the Universe. He is God, the eternal Being without whom nothing exists or can continue being for so much as a fraction of a second.

We can demand nothing from God. We have no “rights” before God. Rather, our rights before other humans are a reflection of God’s unique right to be the decison-maker in our lives. As such, God uniquely has the right to be the instrument of our deaths, for reasons that God is not compelled to divulge to us. God is uniquely in the position to assure that such deaths do not violate justice, which exists as a real thing and not an artificial construct only because justice flows from God’s very nature.

IOW, if God is not justice itself, then justice is only something we made up, a theoretical construct and an infantile demand that means nothing. We had better hope that God is love and that God is just. If God were not these things, then we are in the position the Greeks believed themselves to be in: that is just the way things are, and there’s not a thing we can do about it, save to curry favor with God and hold our breath so that we may escape the notice of the Fates.

*What then are we to say? Is there injustice on the part of God? Of course not! For he says to Moses: “I will show mercy to whom I will, I will take pity on whom I will.” So it depends not upon a person’s will or exertion, but upon God, who shows mercy.

For the scripture says to Pharaoh, “This is why I have raised you up, to show my power through you that my name may be proclaimed throughout the earth.” Consequently, he has mercy upon whom he wills, and he hardens whom he wills.

You will say to me then, “Why (then) does he still find fault? For who can oppose his will?” But who indeed are you, a human being, to talk back to God? Will what is made say to its maker,“Why have you created me so?” Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for a noble purpose and another for an ignoble one?

What if God, wishing to show his wrath and make known his power, has endured with much patience the vessels of wrath made for destruction? This was to make known the riches of his glory to the vessels of mercy, which he has prepared previously for glory, namely, us whom he has called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles. As indeed he says in Hosea: “Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’ and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’ And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they shall be called children of the living God.” And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, “Though the number of the Israelites were like the sand of the sea, only a remnant will be saved; for decisively and quickly will the Lord execute sentence upon the earth.” And as Isaiah predicted: “Unless the Lord of hosts had left us descendants, we would have become like Sodom and have been made like Gomorrah.”

What then shall we say? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have achieved it, that is, righteousness that comes from faith; but that Israel, who pursued the law of righteousness, did not attain to that law? Why not? Because they did it not by faith, but as if it could be done by works. They stumbled over the stone that causes stumbling, as it is written: “Behold, I am laying a stone in Zion that will make people stumble and a rock that will make them fall, and whoever believes in him shall not be put to shame.” *
**
Rom 9:14-33**

Beautiful. :clapping:

 

[Sherry_G]

smichhertz and warpspeed,

Thanks for the replies, but I have to say that, to me, you guys just contradicted each other. One says that God is “forced to act so due to our disobedience in the garden.” and the other says that “We have an almighty and powerful G-d who does as He pleases and all of His works are perfectly good.”

So what is it, God does as he pleases, or we force him to act in certain ways by our actions?

Even ignoring all of that, the idea that whatever God does is good because he is God is very hard for me to accept. God does a lot of awful things in the Bible. That means that those things are actually good? But only because God did them? And if a human did them then they would be wrong?

Does that mean that there are situations where God could do something humans would judge as horrible, or command that humans do this horrible thing, and that it would then be considered good?

I know I’m really taking this far out here, but for example, if God commanded me to kill my daughter by torture…lighting her on fire maybe…that would then become a good thing because God can’t do bad?

To continue forward with your line of reasoning, can you explain whom God has “justly killed”? At one time in each life, death will come. As God desires. So, which person is “justly killed” and how do you hope to judge each one. If you are the judge of how God ends each bodily human life in this earthly realm, how can you determine who is and is not “justly” killed? Just wondering, based on your determination that God has sometimes unjustly taken a life or even many lives.

 

[Binary]

By accusing G-d you place yourself in judgement over G-d. What do you know about good and evil that G-d didn’t tell you? On what basis can you claim that G-d did something awful? Where is there any moral rule that G-d did not give, to which He is subject? If one did exist, than how could any being that was subject to a higher law be called a god? There are a lot of problems with the idea that our acceptance of G-d depends on our understanding of Him.

I find it ironic that you would take someone to task for confusion brought about in suffering when you have a quote from Job as your signature. This is not a productive or appropriate response.

Job 15
1 Then Eliphaz the Temanite replied:

2 “Would a wise person answer with empty notions
or fill their belly with the hot east wind?
3 Would they argue with useless words,
with speeches that have no value?
4 But you even undermine piety
and hinder devotion to God.
5 Your sin prompts your mouth;
you adopt the tongue of the crafty.
6 Your own mouth condemns you, not mine;
your own lips testify against you. 7 “Are you the first man ever born?
Were you brought forth before the hills?
8 Do you listen in on God’s council?
Do you have a monopoly on wisdom?
9 What do you know that we do not know?
What insights do you have that we do not have?

Job 42
7 After the LORD had said these things to Job, he said to Eliphaz the Temanite, “I am angry with you and your two friends, because you have not spoken the truth about me, as my servant Job has. 8 So now take seven bulls and seven rams and go to my servant Job and sacrifice a burnt offering for yourselves. My servant Job will pray for you, and I will accept his prayer and not deal with you according to your folly. You have not spoken the truth about me, as my servant Job has.” 9 So Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite did what the LORD told them; and the LORD accepted Job’s prayer.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I find it ironic that you would take someone to task for confusion brought about in suffering when you have a quote from Job as your signature. This is not a productive or appropriate response.

I thought it was mere statement of fact, that you interpret it as taking someone to task seems strange to me. If you think my words are wrong, then surely you can tell me which ones are specifically wrong and why?

Job 15
1 Then Eliphaz the Temanite replied:

2 “Would a wise person answer with empty notions
or fill their belly with the hot east wind?
3 Would they argue with useless words,
with speeches that have no value?
4 But you even undermine piety
and hinder devotion to God.

Which of my words is false?

5 Your sin prompts your mouth;
you adopt the tongue of the crafty.

Which of my words is sinful?

6 Your own mouth condemns you, not mine;
your own lips testify against you. 7 “Are you the first man ever born?
Were you brought forth before the hills?
8 Do you listen in on God’s council?
Do you have a monopoly on wisdom?
9 What do you know that we do not know?
What insights do you have that we do not have?

Isn’t this pretty much the point I was making?

Job 42
7 After the LORD had said these things to Job, he said to Eliphaz the Temanite, “I am angry with you and your two friends, because you have not spoken the truth about me, as my servant Job has. 8 So now take seven bulls and seven rams and go to my servant Job and sacrifice a burnt offering for yourselves. My servant Job will pray for you, and I will accept his prayer and not deal with you according to your folly. You have not spoken the truth about me, as my servant Job has.” 9 So Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite did what the LORD told them; and the LORD accepted Job’s prayer.

So you are implying that I have not spoken the truth about G-d. Please demonstrate which of my words is a lie then.

1. By accusing G-d you place yourself in judgement over G-d.
Is this not a true statement? Is one not attempting to judge G-d when they accuse Him of wrong doing?

2. What do you know about good and evil that G-d didn’t tell you?
Is this one wrong? Can a person have true knowledge of Good and Evil apart from G-d?

**3. On what basis can you claim that G-d did something awful? Where is there any moral rule that G-d did not give, to which He is subject? **
Is there such a thing?

4. If one did exist, than how could any being that was subject to a higher law be called a god? **
Is this one problematic? Would you be willing to worship a being that was something less than G-d, Actus Purus?

I think you didn’t address what I actually said because what I said is obviously true. You interpreted my directness as taking someone to task and you didn’t like it. I think my comments being true made them both appropriate and productive in context. Of course, you can prove me wrong by demonstrating the errors in my statements.

 

[sw85]

smichhertz and warpspeed,

Thanks for the replies, but I have to say that, to me, you guys just contradicted each other. One says that God is “forced to act so due to our disobedience in the garden.” and the other says that “We have an almighty and powerful G-d who does as He pleases and all of His works are perfectly good.”

So what is it, God does as he pleases, or we force him to act in certain ways by our actions?

Even ignoring all of that, the idea that whatever God does is good because he is God is very hard for me to accept. God does a lot of awful things in the Bible. That means that those things are actually good? But only because God did them? And if a human did them then they would be wrong?

Hi sadiebelle,

The issue is not that whatever God does is good because God does it. That’s actually called voluntarism, and it is (or should be, if it isn’t) a heresy. In that sense, God could command us to hate Him, and it would therefore be good to hate Him. But we all know that’s not true.

Rather, God’s commands are good because God Himself is goodness – He would never command us to do evil because it’s contrary to His nature.

It helps to ask yourself why it is evil to commit murder. It’s evil because it’s contrary to natural law. But natural law derives from *our own nature *as human beings; it does not apply to God, who has a different nature. It’s not in our nature to take lives, but God’s, because God is the giver and the taker of life and we are not.

I hope that helps.

 

[Della]

All the philosophical ruminations in the world cannot explain God’s actions outside of the history and the covenants under which he gave his commands. God works in and through human history not above it. While he need not answer to us for his actions, we need to understand his actions within his overall plan of salvation. Apart from that it makes no sense whatsoever. So please, people, if you want to really know the truth, you have to stop all the circular arguments about how God treated various peoples down through the ages, and look at his actions in the light of the covenants God made first with Adam, then Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jacob, and finally in Christ. The answer lies there not in mere pie-in-the-sky philosophies divorced from salvation history.

 

[Binary]

I thought it was mere statement of fact, that you interpret it as taking someone to task seems strange to me. If you think my words are wrong, then surely you can tell me which ones are specifically wrong and why?

Which of my words is false?

Which of my words is sinful?

Isn’t this pretty much the point I was making?

So you are implying that I have not spoken the truth about G-d. Please demonstrate which of my words is a lie then.

1. By accusing G-d you place yourself in judgement over G-d.
Is this not a true statement? Is one not attempting to judge G-d when they accuse Him of wrong doing?

2. What do you know about good and evil that G-d didn’t tell you?
Is this one wrong? Can a person have true knowledge of Good and Evil apart from G-d?

**3. On what basis can you claim that G-d did something awful? Where is there any moral rule that G-d did not give, to which He is subject? **
Is there such a thing?

4. If one did exist, than how could any being that was subject to a higher law be called a god? **
Is this one problematic? Would you be willing to worship a being that was something less than G-d, Actus Purus?

I think you didn’t address what I actually said because what I said is obviously true. You interpreted my directness as taking someone to task and you didn’t like it. I think my comments being true made them both appropriate and productive in context. Of course, you can prove me wrong by demonstrating the errors in my statements.

It’s clear from your response that you think I was casting you as Job. I was casting you as Eliphaz who, rather than helping Job, poured scorn on him. What good is being right in a discussion if you fail to be convincing? If you just want to win, to beat someone, you should reconsider what you’re doing and why. If you genuinely want to help, be patient and kind. This person came here gently seeking advice and wisdom. That should be encouraged.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

It’s clear from your response that you think I was casting you as Job. I was casting you as Eliphaz who, rather than helping Job, poured scorn on him.

Since the word scorn doesn’t appear in your quote. I understood the insult to be that I was speaking wrongly about G-d as Eliphaz had.

What good is being right in a discussion if you fail to be convincing? If you just want to win, to beat someone, you should reconsider what you’re doing and why. If you genuinely want to help, be patient and kind. This person came here gently seeking advice and wisdom. That should be encouraged.

I still think it strange that you interpret statements of facts as “taking someone to task”. The emotional content you impart to my statement here is entirely of your own imagination. You are confusing a direct manner for “scorn”.