How can God be against abortion when he ordered the deaths of Amalekite infants/children?

  • Thread starter Thread starter NowHereThis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Debora123 said:
I don’t like/understand this at all.

I also don’t like the answer some gave of “God is God… he can do what He wants.”

Yes, obviously He can. But the God we know is a loving and merciful God. Most importantly, God is LOVE and God is GOOD. Killing innocent children is not a good, loving thing to do. And it’s impossible for God to do anything that isn’t loving because God IS love Himself.

Normally I just brush off whatever the OT says as symbolism or parody. I don’t think the OT is a good reflection of Christian principles and the Christian perception of God. I don’t like it at all.
Click to expand...
How exactly is it unloving for God to take a life, it happens regularly?
 
devoutchristian said:
How exactly is it unloving for God to take a life, it happens regularly?
Click to expand...
There’s a difference between a person dying as a result of injury, or sickness, or violence, or whatever… and the story in the OT where God supposedly actually ordered a whole societal group of babies to be killed.

I don’t think murdering innocent babies is a loving thing to do. And since God is love, I refuse to believe the story in the OT happened the way it is explained in the bible.
 
Debora123 said:
There’s a difference between a person dying as a result of injury, or sickness, or violence, or whatever… and the story in the OT where God ordered a whole societal group of babies to be killed.
Click to expand...
Whole groups can die from illness, yet we don’t say that that is contrary to God’s love.
Debora123 said:
I don’t think murdering innocent babies is a loving thing to do. So shoot me. 🤷
Click to expand...
And I don’t believe that 2+2=5 . We’re both right, and we’re both off topic, since God is incapable of murder.
 
devoutchristian said:
Whole groups can die from illness, yet we don’t say that that is contrary to God’s love.
Click to expand...
As I have JUST said, I don’t believe babies dying of illness is the same as babies dying as a result of God ordering other people to murder them. The God I worship, as a Christian, would never do that.
And I don’t believe that 2+2=5 . We’re both right, and we’re both off topic, since God is incapable of murder.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you mean, but ok. I don’t believe God is capable of ORDERING anyone to murder a whole group of innocent babies.
 
Debora123 said:
As I have JUST said, I don’t believe babies dying of illness is the same as babies dying as a result of God ordering other people to murder them. The God I worship, as a Christian, would never do that.
Click to expand...
It’s not murder. What does it matter how God kills someone? And he did do that.
Debora123 said:
Not sure what you mean, but ok. I don’t believe God is capable of ORDERING anyone to murder a whole group of innocent babies.
Click to expand...
Killing someone under the direct order of God isn’t murder, so your mention of murder was irrelevant.
 
devoutchristian said:
It’s not murder. What does it matter how God kills someone? And he did do that.
Click to expand...
Wow. I disagree entirely. On both counts. Not much else to say.
Killing someone under the direct order of God isn’t murder, so your mention of murder was irrelevant.
Click to expand...
For sake of not playing this silly game, let me reword then:

“I don’t believe God is capable of ORDERING anyone to slaughter a whole group of innocent babies.”

I hope that helps you understand what I’m saying.
 
Debora123 said:
“I don’t believe God is capable of ORDERING anyone to slaughter a whole group of innocent babies.”
Click to expand...
This probably isn’t an accurate statement of your beliefs. A more accurate statement would be something along the lines of “I don’t believe God is capable of ORDERING any humans to slaughter a whole group of innocent babies.”. Am I right? So, assuming that what I just said was accurate, why would God be capable of causing bacteria to kill someone, yet incapable of causing humans to kill someone?
 
devoutchristian said:
This probably isn’t an accurate statement of your beliefs. A more accurate statement would be something along the lines of “I don’t believe God is capable of ORDERING any humans to slaughter a whole group of innocent babies.”. Am I right?
Click to expand...
By saying “anyone” I thought it’d be pretty obvious that I was referring to humans. So to clarify, yes, I am referring to humans.
So, assuming that what I just said was accurate, why would God be capable of causing bacteria to kill someone, yet incapable of causing humans to kill someone?
Click to expand...
For the 3rd time, I believe there is a difference between God ordering people to kill babies, and God allowing babies to die due to illness. Perhaps you don’t see the difference or you don’t even believe there is a difference. But I do, and I don’t believe God would ever order a human person to kill human babies.

Lucky for me, this is OT stuff. And as a Catholic I have the freedom to believe that certain stories of the OT are symbolic parodies and allegories, and not completely literal, word for word.

Now, we can go back and forth all day long and I can keep repeating myself all day long… or we can just agree to disagree.
 
Debora123 said:
Lucky for me, this is OT stuff. And as a Catholic I have the freedom to believe that certain stories of the OT are symbolic parodies and allegories, and not completely literal, word for word.
Click to expand...
I’m not disagreeing with you but I don’t think parody is the word you are looking for. Parody indicates that you are making fun of something. To save some confusion in the future, allegory is enough.

From merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parody
1: a literary or musical work in which the style of an author or work is closely imitated for comic effect or in ridicule
2
: a feeble or ridiculous imitation
Click to expand...
Personally I think it is an oral tradition of the Israelites that told of their conquest. They believed God to be on their side so they attributed their actions to His orders. A God that would order that is a monster. Not a universal God of Love for all people. Only a tribal god for one people.
 
devoutchristian said:
According to the illogic of the materialists.
Click to expand...
If this God is the loving father of all Men why would he have one group kill another? Would you have one of your kids kill the other because he was a bad influence? Or would you try to change the kid that was being a bad influence? Or separate them? Or maybe, not have them have a war of conquest? It’s a story of a bronze age tribe doing what broze age tribes did. They attributed their “success” to God.
 
Roscoe_Turner said:
If this God is the loving father of all Men why would he have one group kill another? Would you have one of your kids kill the other because he was a bad influence? Or would you try to change the kid that was being a bad influence? Or separate them? Or maybe, not have them have a war of conquest? It’s a story of a bronze age tribe doing what broze age tribes did. They attributed their “success” to God.
Click to expand...
That God had the Isrealites kill certain other groups is non-contradictory to his love because this life is not all that there is. The children that were killed are in Heaven now. Did it occur to you that perhaps God knew that the adults were beyond repentance?
 
devoutchristian said:
That God had the Isrealites kill certain other groups is non-contradictory to his love because this life is not all that there is. The children that were killed are in Heaven now. Did it occur to you that perhaps God knew that the adults were beyond repentance?
Click to expand...
Aren’t we taught no one is beyond repentance?
 
Roscoe_Turner said:
I have seen other support for infanticide outside this story. I don’t have a answer for them.

[BIBLEDRB]Exodus 21:22-23[/BIBLEDRB]

The woman’s death is seen as the taking of a life but the child is not.

[BIBLEDRB]Numbers 3:15-16[/BIBLEDRB]

Any Child less than a month isn’t counted as a person.

It is seems that the idea of “personhood” was different in the O.T.
Click to expand...
My guess is that children often died in childbirth and in infancy. It would be a futile task to take a census of the babies if most of them would die soon.

As for the first quote, most women and children were considered property of their husbands/fathers. It says if the child is killed, the punishment is as the father deems fit. He could indeed order the death penalty for killing his unborn child.
 
Catholic80 said:
My guess is that children often died in childbirth and in infancy. It would be a futile task to take a census of the babies if most of them would die soon.

As for the first quote, most women and children were considered property of their husbands/fathers. It says if the child is killed, the punishment is as the father deems fit. He could indeed order the death penalty for killing his unborn child.
Click to expand...
I don’t know what the infant mortality rate was but obviously not all of them or most of them died.

Property is a person or rather a person isn’t property. So their idea of personhood is different from ours. Woman and Children are people rather than property in our society.

So they were either putting words into God’s mouth or they were justifying their morality by invoking God. Pretty much the same thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top