How to murder children: bible style

[MNathaniel]

Trent Horn wrote a great book to help people who struggle with things like this. It’s called ‘Hard Sayings’.

I encourage you to invest the small amount of money involved in buying a copy. You can have it delivered to your door and it’ll suddenly launch you a significant distance past needing to ask this sort of question.

Alternately, you can browse other pre-existing treatments of this topic on CAF threads.

 

[YADA]

One would have to wonder why you would post this - without even reading the passages for yourself - which if you had done so - you would know it was not only not true but something that was created for some hateful purpose …

So - why did you post it? -Clearly it was not to know if it was true or if there was a ‘good’ reason …

 

[TMC]

The ones who were truly innocent would have wound up in Heaven or at least in limbo.

Is this the standard then? Its OK to kill people if you think they will end up in heaven?

I mean, God (though Moses) gave them 10 warnings before it happened.

No, he did not. He warned Pharaoh. Who warned the innocent toddler, or his parents? How could his parents have even saved him?

This is where Faith comes in. To understand what God was doing here, you have to believe in life after death.

I don’t see how believing in life after death is helpful. If the fact that people get their just desserts after dying is sufficient justification for killing them, then anyone could kill anybody at any time.

 

[TMC]

Trent Horn wrote a great book to help people who struggle with things like this. It’s called ‘Hard Sayings’.

I encourage you to invest the small amount of money involved in buying a copy. You can have it delivered to your door and it’ll suddenly launch you a significant distance past needing to ask this sort of question.

Alternately, you can browse other pre-existing treatments of this topic on CAF threads.

I am sure you mean well here, but your post seems to assume that I have not read on this topic or thought deeply on it. Neither are true.

 

[TMC]

Please read @0Scarlett_nidiyilii first post, as I think it goes to the heart of the question.

Death, given by God, it’s not necessarily something bad to the person dying. If God “kills” someone truly innocent, you can be sure that person is in Heaven, as God is Just and Merciful. And if the person is not innocent, God will provide a just framework for that person to be judged.

The real punishment is for the persons that remain on earth, the real sinners in this case.

Yes, yes, that is the gist of this thread - that anything that God does is automatically good. I don’t think that makes sense, and I do not believe it. I do believe God is good, and I do not believe He either murdered a bunch of innocents, or that He ordered Joshua to do so. I think there are other, better, explanations for those passages, but that many Christians do not want to look for those explanations because they conflict with their view of Scripture.

 

[Hodos]

None of that makes any sense to me. At all. So what if the youngest child that was killed was one or two, instead of an infant. That child has no responsibility for the sins of its parents, much less the sins of the Pharaoh.

According to whom?

 

[sealabeag]

“‘See now that I, even I, am he,
and there is no god beside me;
I kill and I make alive;
I wound and I heal;
and there is none that can deliver out of my hand.’"

• Deuteronomy 32:39

 

[Hodos]

But you would agree that significant number of them were babies and children, right?

I would not agree with that statement because it cannot be determined from the text of scripture. I would not eliminate that from the realm of possibility, but I cannot confirm that either.

To be guilty of something one must have actually done something themselves. A long dead ancestor eating a fruit from a tree does not make babies and children worthy of death.

I reject this argument. You are assuming that we do not participate in original sin, and that the concupiscence that we have as a result of original sin is not sinful, which scripture says that it is. Even David says I was sinful from my mother’s womb.

It wasn’t as though Ancient Egypt was a democracy where the people could overthrow the pharaoh. The people were victims of circumstance. God has the power to kill those responsible for crimes and ONLY those people, and yet – surprisingly – Pharaoh was among those NOT killed.

And yet, God will impose justice upon all soul’s, Pharaoh’s included. You are also assuming that Pharaoh’s house did not receive judgment when scripture explicitly says it did. I also reject the idea that the people were not willing participants in the sin of pharaoh.

 

[AlbMagno]

No, the argument isn’t that anything that God does is automatically good, the argument is that innocent people that are part of God’s Plan are rewarded eternally trough Heaven.

It’s not “God gives you something bad and forces you to think it’s good”; it’s a “God gives you something not so bad but compensates with something 100000…% better”.

Of course, anything that God does IS good because He is Wise, but that’s not part of the argument.

 

[Thom18]

Montrose:

So far that is 3 out of 3 you have got wrong.

Doesn’t appear to be a bible problem, but a reading comprehension problem.

And somehow, in the age of reason we’re supposed to be in, this is a bigger problem today than yesterday.

 

[TMC]

According to whom?

According to Catholic teaching. Do you believe you are responsible for the sins of your parents? Or of political leaders?

 

[TMC]

No, the argument isn’t that anything that God does is automatically good, the argument is that innocent people that are part of God’s Plan are rewarded eternally trough Heaven.

It’s not “God gives you something bad and forces you to think it’s good”; it’s a “God gives you something not so bad but compensates with something 100000…% better”.

Of course, anything that God does IS good because He is Wise, but that’s not part of the argument.

This is just another way of saying that everything God does is good.

Put another way, is there objective morality or not? If there is objective morality, is it not possible to say whether God’s actions are good or not? It seems to me that the argument that the killing of innocents in ancient times was moral relies either on the argument that the morality of such acts can change, or that there is no objective morality.

 

[Hodos]

According to Catholic teaching. Do you believe you are responsible for the sins of your parents? Or of political leaders?

No, I mean on what basis do you assume that any person, including children are innocent of sin?

“Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.”

“There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”

 

[TMC]

No, I mean on what basis do you assume that any person, including children are innocent of sin?

No one is completely free from sin. So is it your position that anyone who may carry the stain of sin, even little children, can be justly killed?

 

[Hodos]

No one is completely free from sin. So is it your position that anyone who may carry the stain of sin, even little children, can be justly killed?

By God? Yes. God has that authority and right as the Creator and as the righteous judge of all men’s hearts. Just as God has the prerogative to grant us his grace and mercy through Jesus Christ. The wages of sin is death…but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

 

[TMC]

By God? Yes. God has that authority and right as the Creator and as the righteous judge of all men’s hearts. Just as God has the prerogative to grant us his grace and mercy through Jesus Christ. The wages of sin is death…but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

OK, so I take it that your position is that there is no objective morality? That morality is simply whatever we believe God wants on that particular occasion? Would you say that can change over time - for example that God wanted Joshua to kill women and children in his conquest of the promised land, but that God no longer condones that type of behavior?

 

[Hodos]

OK, so I take it that your position is that there is no objective morality?

Not at all. Morality is defined by God, not by me. You are the one trying to put a subjective morality into practice by saying some sin is worthy of judgment but not all sin.

Would you say that can change over time - for example that God wanted Joshua to kill women and children in his conquest of the promised land, but that God no longer condones that type of behavior?

I think God was just in condemning the Canaanites for condoning such behaviors such as sex slavery in the fertility cults, child sacrifice, and the like. And I think he was just to use the Israelites to execute the judgment, just as I think he was just to send the Assyrians and the Babylonians in judgment on unfaithful Israel and Judah. Likewise, I think it was just for him to use the Allied Armies to defeat the Axis powers in World War II.

 

[TMC]

Not at all. Morality is defined by God, not by me. You are the one trying to put a subjective morality into practice by saying some sin is worthy of judgment but not all sin.

When did I say that? I am taking the opposite position.

I think God was just in condemning the Canaanites for condoning such behaviors such as sex slavery in the fertility cults, child sacrifice, and the like. And I think he was just to use the Israelites to execute the judgment, just as I think he was just to send the Assyrians and the Babylonians in judgment on unfaithful Israel and Judah. Likewise, I think it was just for him to use the Allied Armies to defeat the Axis powers in World War II.

Just in condemning Canaanite children who had nothing to do with those things?

Would such an action be just today? If the US were to learn definitively that a country was committing sex slavery or human sacrifice, would it be moral to kill every single inhabitant of that country (including by the way, the very victims of those practices)? If it would not be moral today, why was it moral for Joshua to do it?

 

[Hodos]

When did I say that? I am taking the opposite position.

No you aren’t, you said it quite directly above.

No one is completely free from sin.

And yet you denied that God has the right to execute judgment upon that sin.

Just in condemning Canaanite children who had nothing to do with those things?

Who said they didn’t have anything to do with those things? Did they believe in Canaanite religion? Do you have any evidence they rejected the Canaanite gods? Also, you ignore the fact that it was actually the exception rather than the rule that children were killed. If you read Joshua, there are a few cities which were completely dedicated to destruction, but not all.

Would such an action be just today? If the US were to learn definitively that a country was committing sex slavery or human sacrifice, would it be moral to kill every single inhabitant of that country (including by the way, the very victims of those practices)? If it would not be moral today, why was it moral for Joshua to do it?

Is it moral for ME to make that determination, being one who is equally condemned by sin? Absolutely not. But it wasn’t ME, nor was it Joshua who made that determination. It was God. And yes, God has the right to execute his righteous judgment upon sin.

Also, I reject your assertion that the Israelites did so. It is quite apparent they didn’t because if you read Judges, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, and the prophets, they ended up adopting the practices of the Canaanites still living among them. Something that would entrap them for centuries and bring judgment upon themselves because of their abhorrent practices.

 

[TMC]

No you aren’t, you said it quite directly above.

You mean the part where I suggested that original sin does not justify killing babies. Ok, I did say that.

And yet you denied that God has the right to execute judgment upon that sin.

This I never said. I said I do not believe that God murdered babies as described in Exodus. He could do it, sure.

Who said they didn’t have anything to do with those things? Did they believe in Canaanite religion? Do you have any evidence they rejected the Canaanite gods? Also, you ignore the fact that it was actually the exception rather than the rule that children were killed. If you read Joshua, there are a few cities which were completely dedicated to destruction, but not all.

Really. The babies were part of the sex cult?

Is it moral for ME to make that determination, being one who is equally condemned by sin? Absolutely not. But it wasn’t ME, nor was it Joshua who made that determination. It was God. And yes, God has the right to execute his righteous judgment upon sin.

So you are agreeing that morality can change, but adding that not only God can order such a change, but also political leaders like Joshua?

Also, I reject your assertion that the Israelites did so. It is quite apparent they didn’t because if you read Judges, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, and the prophets, they ended up adopting the practices of the Canaanites still living among them. Something that would entrap them for centuries and bring judgment upon themselves because of their abhorrent practices.

OK, so are you now agreeing with me that the reports in Scripture of these killings is not historical? Because that was my starting point, as you may recall.