God and the killing of children

[Pete_1]

In the book of samuel God orders the death of Children:

from the NIV

1 Samuel 15
This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy a] everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’ "

I can understand why God has the right to take away life (even the life of infants) as he is the author of it.

I can also understand why God would punish the warrior class that attacked Israel and the sinners in the city.

However in this passage the impression given is that God is punishing the whole civilisation including the infants and animals with a painfull death.

St Aquinas, if I remember correctly said the infants and the animals were punished because they were the property of those who had attacked Israel (the men). I am looking for an explanation of St. Aquinas’s logic or a more satifactory answer to why the infants were punished.

I don’t believe saying that God killed the infants to spare them a more painfull death (a death of starvation in the desert after the sinners had been killed) is in any way satifactory as God is omnipotent and could have ensured they were never born or had a peacefull death/

In addition I do not believe saying God punished the children because he new they would sin later in life is a satifactory answer because God knew he would punish(kill) them and ensure they would never sin.

Furthermore I do not believe saying that God killed the infants to prevent them from sinning in the future is a satisfactory answer. The passage implies the whole Amalekite civilization (including the infants) is being punished. If God killed the infants to prevent them from sinning in the future this would not be a punishment (as at the time there were no sins to punish) and therefore the painfull death would be unnessecary. God is omnipotent and could have ensured the infants were never born or had a peacefull death.

Does anyone have an answer to this question?

 

[VociMike]

If God ensured they were never born then they could never exist to be with him in heaven. That is certainly not a better fate for anybody.

These discussions about the killing of children really should be refocused towards why God allows the death of any child or innocent, and why God allows the death of every single human being at some point.

 

[Pete_1]

If God ensured they were never born then they could never exist to be with him in heaven. That is certainly not a better fate for anybody.

He could have ensured a peacefull death why did he ensure a violent and painfull one. The fact God ordered a painfull death implies punishement as does the context of the passage.

These discussions about the killing of children really should be refocused towards why God allows the death of any child or innocent, and why God allows the death of every single human being at some point.

God did not merely allow the killing of children he ordered it.

 

[toaslan]

I expect the killing of the enemy babies and animals has more to do with the fact that they belonged to a pagan and idol-worshipping nation. That idol-worship had to be removed from the land so that Israel would not be tempted through idol-worship to break covenant with God.

The total annihilation of the idol-worshippers would be a message to the Jews of how important God took His covenant with them, and how far He would have them go to commit and preserve themselves to Him alone.

It’s hard on the babies and animals, yes. But each pagan baby would have its own private relationship with his Eternal Father, and the Father would take care of that baby’s eternal destination, we can trust that.

We can hope their deaths were not painful but quick, and that these innocent babies are safe with their Father, gloriously happy.

But you see how the message to the Chosen People would read: I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other gods beside Me? The message is, I mean this absolutely, completely, without anything held back–not even the lives of babies innocent of any actual sin, and of the purely dependent animals.

The key is the role Israel was called upon by God to fulfill. All that God does in the OT is about calling Israel to belong unconditionally to Him alone.

 

[Pete_1]

I expect the killing of the enemy babies and animals has more to do with the fact that they belonged to a pagan and idol-worshipping nation. That idol-worship had to be removed from the land so that Israel would not be tempted through idol-worship to break covenant with God.

The total annihilation of the idol-worshippers would be a message to the Jews of how important God took His covenant with them, and how far He would have them go to commit and preserve themselves to Him alone.

It’s hard on the babies and animals, yes. But each pagan baby would have its own private relationship with his Eternal Father, and the Father would take care of that baby’s eternal destination, we can trust that.

We can hope their deaths were not painful but quick, and that these innocent babies are safe with their Father, gloriously happy.

But you see how the message to the Chosen People would read: I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other gods beside Me? The message is, I mean this absolutely, completely, without anything held back–not even the lives of innocent babies and animals.

What do you think?

I understand what you are saying but the context of the passage implies God is punishing the infants. He could have ensured they died a peacefull pain-free death.

My question is why did he punish them?

 

[VociMike]

He could have ensured a peacefull death why did he ensure a violent and painfull one. This implies punishement as does the context of the passage.

No, pain does not imply punishment, any more than comfort and success implies being right with God. Catholic teaching is very clear on this matter.

God did not merely allow the killing of children he ordered it.

OK, I’ve offered my opinion that the focus of your question is too narrow, and that you should rather try and understand why God allows anybody to die, including many, many innocents to die a painful death. But I guess you’re rejecting that notion, so I don’t have anything more to offer you.

 

[Pete_1]

No, pain does not imply punishment, any more than comfort and success implies being right with God. Catholic teaching is very clear on this matter.

I understand why God may allow pain to bring about a greater good in that person, but why would he order it. Ordering a painfull death in my opinion implies punishment.

OK, I’ve offered my opinion that the focus of your question is too narrow, and that you should rather try and understand why God allows anybody to die, including many, many innocents to die a painful death. But I guess you’re rejecting that notion, so I don’t have anything more to offer you.

I’d rather focus on why God would order the death of the innocent in this thread.

 

[VociMike]

I understand why God may allow pain to bring about a greater good in that person, but why would he order it. Ordering a painfull death in my opinion implies punishment.

Does pain bring about a greater good in a 1 year old? I doubt it. And when it comes down to it, you have no evidence that the deaths were painful, only violent. For all you know, God prevented the innocents from feeling any pain at all. You just don’t know.

 

[toaslan]

I understand what you are saying but the context of the passage implies God is punishing the infants. He could have ensured they died a peacefull pain-free death.

My question is why did he punish them?

I am not sure the passage says He punished the babies directly. He said, wipe out the whole nation, and to make it clear, he lists, yes, I mean it, even down to the babies and the animals. The passage can be read that way.

He punished the whole Amalekite nation for “what they did to Israel”. I will bet that the Amalekites were also idol-worshippers. So they both threatened Israel’s coming to the Promised Land which was God’s Plan for Israel; and they were also idol-worshippers–and throughout the OT, God has the idol-worshippers wiped out by Israel. Israel wipes them out when she is being obedient and faithful, and she neglects to wipe them out when she is being faithless. When she doesn’t wipe them out, she begins to marry the idol-worshippers, and to please the new pagan wives, the Israelites themselves begin to perform idol worship. And idol worship is the rankest kind of breaking covenant with God.

The babies were Amalekites–so they were involved in the fate of their fathers. My father chose baptism for me, thank God. The Amalekite fathers chose idol-worship for their children. If my parents’ choice for me is valid–if they can truly give me spiritual life by getting me baptised in faith–then why cannot an opposite parental choice be equally valid. These babies were born into idol-worship, were potential idol-worshippers themselves. By God’s providence, they never became that; instead He took them before they ever worshipped false gods, even maybe the devil, rather than Him.

From this point of view, their early death may be seen as a divine parental kindness?

 

[Pete_1]

Does pain bring about a greater good in a 1 year old? I doubt it.

Then did God punished them if they felt pain?

And when it comes down to it, you have no evidence that the deaths were painful, only violent. For all you know, God prevented the innocents from feeling any pain at all. You just don’t know.

You have to add something completley different into the passage if you wish to say they did not feel pain. The context is God’s judgement. Four year olds (free from personal sin) can feel pain (common sense proves this). It follows from this that the infant would feel pain when being slashed by a sword , even if it was for a second.

It follows from this that they were being punished if God *ordered *this to happen to them. As God is just and does not punish the innocent.
The question is what were the children guilty of?

 

[Pete_1]

From this point of view, their early death may be seen as a divine parental kindness?

But God did kill them and they never did become idol worshippers. Therefore God could not punish them for something they would never do.

Why would God consign them to a painfull death if they were innocent. Therefore they must be guilty, but what of?

St. Aquinas if I remember correctly says that they were punished (materially not spiritually) because they were the property of their sinfull fathers, can anyone elaborate on this or provide an alternative explanation.

 

[toaslan]

Why would God consign them to a painfull death if they were innocent. Therefore they must be guilty, but what of?

Their fathers were guilty, and the babies are spoken for by their fathers, as I already tried to explain. As I already said, the whole nation was to be extinguished–that includes babes–and I gave the reasons why, in God’s Plan, that would be necessary.

The guilt is that of their fathers, not of the babies–they are guilty of no actual sin yet. Do you understand that the baby is part of the family, part of the nation? Insofar as you do not view the baby as part of a whole, that far will you be unable to view my point.

Also remember the babes did have sin on their souls–Original Sin, the kind that Christ died to save us from. This kind of sin is real, and outside of Christ this sin kills the soul. Yet we consider as saints the babies that Herod slew trying to kill the infant Christ. There is a way to have the assurance of hope that these Amelekite babies went to heaven upon their deaths, and that is a good ending, not a bad one.

St. Aquinas if I remember correctly says that they were punished (materially not spiritually) because they were the property of their sinfull fathers, can anyone elaborate on this or provide an alternative explanation.

I think I already elaborated on it.

 

[Pete_1]

Their fathers were guilty, and the babies are spoken for by their fathers, as I already tried to explain. As I already said, the whole nation was to be extinguished–that includes babes–and I gave the reasons why, in God’s Plan, that would be necessary.

The guilt is that of their fathers, not of the babies–they are guilty of no actual sin yet. Do you understand that the baby is part of the family, part of the nation? Insofar as you do not view the baby as part of a whole, that far will you be unable to view my point.

Also remember the babes did have sin on their souls–Original Sin, the kind that Christ died to save us from. This kind of sin is real, and outside of Christ this sin kills the soul. Yet we consider as saints the babies that Herod slew trying to kill the infant Christ. There is a way to have the assurance of hope that these Amelekite babies went to heaven upon their deaths, and that is a good ending, not a bad one.

I think I already elaborated on it.

I understand the logic but is it just to punish the son for the faults of the father (collective punishment)? Are their any other explanations for what happened?

 

[Awake]

The problem many of us have with these passages (I’m assuming Pete feels the same way) is not that young children died, but that God commanded the killing of them.

These discussions about the killing of children really should be refocused towards why God allows the death of any child or innocent, and why God allows the death of every single human being at some point.

This is not an accurate assessment. Children die today due to disease, malnutrition, murder, accidents, or similar situations. This happens because of the natural forces of the world or because of free of human beings. God doesn’t command these children to die.

But God commanding the murder of children in the OT, now that’s a different story. It would be one thing for me to give you a gun and you decide on your own that you’re going to use it to kill somebody. It would be another thing for me to give you a gun and instruct you to kill somebody, threatening you if you don’t comply.

I find it funny that some people condemn Islam as an evil religion because some Muslims believe that God is instructing them to murder innocent people. And yet those same people will justify God in the OT doing the same thing.

 

[Pete_1]

The problem many of us have with these passages (I’m assuming Pete feels the same way) is not that young children died, but that God commanded the killing of them.

This is not an accurate assessment. Children die today due to disease, malnutrition, murder, accidents, or similar situations. This happens because of the natural forces of the world or because of free of human beings. God doesn’t command these children to die.

But God commanding the murder of children in the OT, now that’s a different story. It would be one thing for me to give you a gun and you decide on your own that you’re going to use it to kill somebody. It would be another thing for me to give you a gun and instruct you to kill somebody, threatening you if you don’t comply.

I find it funny that some people condemn Islam as an evil religion because some Muslims believe that God is instructing them to murder innocent people. And yet those same people will justify God in the OT doing the same thing.

Yes this is exactly my problem, can anyone help?

 

[Sam_777]

If God ensured they were never born then they could never exist to be with him in heaven. That is certainly not a better fate for anybody.

Does that mean we have certain quota of Souls with God, that are waiting to have their (training period) on earth, and the judgement day won’t come till all those souls have tested good & evil.

 

[inJESUS]

I find it funny that some people condemn Islam as an evil religion because some Muslims believe that God is instructing them to murder innocent people. And yet those same people will justify God in the OT doing the same thing.

the OT was written during a time when people were already at wars, where the mentality of competing about whose “god” is more powerful was rampant…the OT instructions were part of that history, not eternal or univesal teachings. In Islam, Allah orders even the killing of believers in God, Jews and Christians and their submission if they do not sumbit to Muhammad, which is an eternal teaching…nowhere do we read in the OT that God asks Jews to kill gentiles because they do not submit to God or Moses.

as to the OP, well why stop here? what happened during the plagues and flood? who said that innocent people will not have to pay for living among sinful people? whether God commands it or allows it, the result in the same. This is reality, what happens to innocent people killed in heaven is another topic.

 

[Sam_777]

…nowhere do we read in the OT that God asks Jews to kill gentiles because they do not submit to God or Moses.

 

[Pier]

Firstly, I wouldn’t question anything God says or does - He’s God, He can do what He wants. We are all going to die, but when and where is God’s business, not man’s. There are consequences for wrong-doing, and He called these particular deaths a punishment. Unfortunate? Definitely! Note: This was GOD speaking, not man speaking on God’s behalf. I have a much more difficult time trying to understand man’s inhumanity to man, including everything from the blatant violence of abortion, to the more subtle destruction of rumor-mongering.

Secondly, none of us is born innocent, in that we are all born with the stain of ORIGINAL sin - which is sin of man against God, not man against man. That said, it doesn’t mean we should be killing anybody as a result of this (aka: The abomination of abortion - a MAN-MADE decree of death for money-making purposes and convenience sake only). The LORD giveth, and the LORD taketh away - the Lord decides, not man. That’s what “thou shalt not kill” means.

We have to always keep in mind that when the Lord says put** no **other gods before Him, He means it, and that His ways are not our ways. And too, our Lord does not have to answer to us.

 

[Awake]

the OT was written during a time when people were already at wars, where the mentality of competing about whose “god” is more powerful was rampant…the OT instructions were part of that history, not eternal or univesal teachings.

Can you elaborate on this? Are you saying that God never actually commanded genocide or killing of children?

In Islam, Allah orders even the killing of believers in God, Jews and Christians and their submission if they do not sumbit to Muhammad, which is an eternal teaching…nowhere do we read in the OT that God asks Jews to kill gentiles because they do not submit to God or Moses.

What? Then why did God command killing?

as to the OP, well why stop here? what happened during the plagues and flood? who said that innocent people will not have to pay for living among sinful people?

My guess is that the OP is also bothered by these cases.

whether God commands it or allows it, the result in the same.

For the person dead, the result is the same. But for the rest of the world, this makes a huge difference.