[jayceeii]

I’d say it’s morally wrong to kill the adult Canaanites indiscriminately as well. So if you can establish the God of the Old Testament is immoral, you can make the proposition that if God exists, the Old Testament reports are false. It might not be surprising, as every primitive culture has been loaded with myths that modern folk generally dismiss easily.

The situation is complicated if children are not as innocent as they seem, yet this whole vision from the Old Testament of “God” reaching out and judging nations then swatting them like flies through the Israelites as instruments, reeks of racial bias and genocide. For God to be real He must look at individual qualities, for evil is individual, not traditional.

Jesus, that I think was the authentic God, came rising out of this but did not repudiate it. Possibly some judgment is due to be meted out to mankind, yet for God to fault a race or nation would show individual merit means nothing to the Creator. That type of attitude seems to appeal to Old Testament enthusiasts, yet the Living God loves the greatest, best.

[Wura]

Hi jaceeii, thanks for your reply.

Okay, so one solution could be as you mentioned that the command was not a real command from god. This in fact could be the case

This seems to me vers unlikely because a) “non guilty” people die all the time b) the argument for individual punishment seems very unlikely to be true. When god f.e. judges the egyptians for their firstborn at the exodus no nt writer thinks that story is a myth. Also the book of Revelation may include the death of children during the plagues and also the judgement of jerusalem in mt 24 where jesus himself says the whole nation is in judgement. And he mentions little children in this passage.

Thanks for your input – are there any other suggestions if we would, just for sake of the argument, assume that god actually gave this command?

[jayceeii]

If you wish to discuss non-guilty people dying, we should look at specific examples. Do you mean like how civilians are being killed in Ukraine every day? Or are you thinking of medical ailments? Or about the victims of crime? I’d suggest that in none of these is God implicated directly. He is only implicated indirectly, as creating the physical locations where these negative events could occur, as well as the people to who whom they occur, innocent or not. However the Biblical accounts attempt to implicate God directly as having issued commands with an intent to commit indiscriminate genocide.

The example of God judging the Egyptians is just a parallel incident of the same kind as the supposed judgment of the Canaanites. So it can rise or fall by the same arguments. The fact no New Testament author (or Jesus Himself) treats these stories as myths can be explained by an intent, conscious or accidental, to build on existing traditions rather than starting anew in the West. You saw the trouble Jesus had with the Pharisees. Obviously it would be double trouble to try to strip away the violent parts of the Old Testament which seem so dear to the heart of man. Also the New Testament authors are ancient to us now.

Is this the verse you mean, Matthew 23:37?

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!”

There is a way of speaking about the general tendencies of a nation, or even of a globe, without necessarily condemning all the inhabitants. God’s creation is empty without people. Not all can be judged. You could think about that, though. Maybe God would destroy all human bodies, then have another ice age and try again. Yet He’d soon be confronting the same issues as confront Him today, so I think it’s safe to say He will be solving them today. Today it seems the tendencies of the human race as a whole are threatening future civilization God may have planned, for instance by global warming.

I find it is not in my heart to posit, even for the sake of argument, that the Living God would give these commands that seem to be from a violent dictator, in the Old Testament.

[Wura]

My previous examples were meant to show that God’s judgment in the New Testament also includes the death of children. I was not thinking of other specific examples.

To explain some stories as myths and not others generally begs the question of whether or not God revealed Himself to man.

I still do not think it is plausible to argue from the Bible that God’s dealings with the people of Israel in the OT were a myth. There is no evidence for it in scripture I think.

I would rather not start a new topic about the inspiration of scripture and gods revelation to men. I would like to seek further the logical consequences for my question above.

My question is also originally addressed to Christians who believe that God himself commanded the judgment and how to deal with the implications and moral issues stated by atheists.

[Johan]

I don’t think you need all the extra premises. The argument could be simplified to:
1) It is morally wrong to kill innocent children.
2) God commanded the killing of innocent children.
3) Therefore God commanded a morally wrong action.

To escape this, you must deny premise 1 or premise 2. I don’t think many people would try to deny premise 1, so premise 2 becomes the one to attack. You can try to argue that the children were not innocent, but I again think that is a hard pill to swallow. I don’t think very many people want to say that a new born baby is not innocent. (except those who are extremely insistent on original sin infecting all people at the moment of conception. In that case, since they are infected, they are no longer innocent).

To escape this horrible conclusion, people must then go back to premise one, and try to argue that it can be morally acceptable to kill innocent children, if there is a sufficient justification for it. This converts morality from absolute morality to a situational or consequential ethic. Like you said, X is justified if the reward outweighs the suffering, and an eternal reward of heaven automatically outweighs any limited amount of suffering no matter how horrific. This is a potential road to walk down, but I think it opens up a massive can of worms, that most theists would rather not open, if you think about the potential consequences of such an ideal for too long. (This would imply that genocide is morally justified in all cases……let that sink in a bit)

[jayceeii]

Good restatement. Personally I don’t think God has slain any children in history, regardless of the innocence question. To me it looks like ancient tribal wars with rank superstition the Invisible God is mixed up in human misdeeds. To me it’s strange there weren’t ideas of a “good God” floating around naturally among the citizens, instead this genocidal fiend as an excuse for their brutal wars. It doesn’t seem like they were happy.

But I think the theists today would try to keep the Old Testament view of God, therefore they would deny 1) above. This is Craig’s view and that of others here at the forum, as we have discussed before. The Christian story depends on the Invisible God being a tyrant and the Son bringing gentle relief. They like to think of an evolving covenant, like God is evolving too and wasn’t ever the same, today and every day. The Old Testament works into the New by slamming the Invisible God, but Swedenborg wrote Jesus was this God.

[Johan]

I also agree that I don’t think God has slain any children in history, but that is because I don’t believe God exists and a non-existent being cannot slay anyone. Apart from that though, in the exodus story it literally says that the lord killed all the first born:

Exodus 12:29<sup style=”font-family: inherit; color: var(–bb-body-text-color);”> </sup>And it came to pass, that at midnight the Lord smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle.

So, unless someone is willing to say that the accounts of the Bible are false, then God directly killed thousands+ children. So, anyone who believes the account must either admit that sometimes killing innocent children is just fine, or they have to argue that no Egyptian child was innocent. Either way, I can’t imagine many Christians would want to step on that mine field.

On a side note, it sounds like you don’t accept the words of the Bible as accurate when it comes to God, so I feel compelled to ask you where you get your information about the nature of God from?

[jayceeii]

The question becomes what kinds of minds a story like that would appeal to. That God is going to just shock through the lands, slaying children mainly just to curb a Pharaoh. That’s a lot of cruelty just to jolt a ruler out of his complacency. The Bible is very big on kings, like “small people” don’t matter. They can be tossed around, it is kings that count.

So one of the faithful is reading his Bible, and it says God did this, and he says, “Sure, that sounds like a reasonable action.” Then the Christians come and add, “But wait, that was just the early God, now He has matured and changed His ways, bringing love aplenty.” How can ideas of a cruel God come into a mind, if it is free of cruelty itself?

I think the facts are the Jews and Christians believe all these events and say that under some circumstances the slaying of presumed innocents is justified. So they are all stepping onto that minefield, as you put it. There have been no substantial revelations to refute the Old Testament accounts, these religions untouched by prophets for 2000 years.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion of what God is like, aren’t they? Whoever I am, I list mine alongside the rest. Largely I would support the contention of God’s goodness from goodness that is in the world, but not always on display. These bodies, through which we debate, are excellent, for instance. A cruel or violent Entity would not have made these.

[Johan]

“Everyone is entitled to their opinion of what God is like, aren’t they? Whoever I am, I list mine alongside the rest. Largely I would support the contention of God’s goodness from goodness that is in the world, but not always on display. These bodies, through which we debate, are excellent, for instance. A cruel or violent Entity would not have made these.”

Sure, people are entitled to their opinion, but opinions are not the same as facts. I care about what is true, not what people think.

So, you think that God is good because you see goodness in our bodies? Do you also think god is bad because of the bad in our bodies too? Why would you think a cruel or violent Entity would not have made humans as we are? Humans are the most capable of cruelty and violence of any of the animals upon this planet. If a crewel or violent God wanted to maximize the cruelty or violence they could witness, I think humanity was a great creation from their point of view. Sure we are capable of great goodness too, but it would be cherry picking to only accept one part of our nature and not the other.

I don’t believe we were created by either a good, nor an evil god, but by a mindless indifferent process of slow change over time.

[jayceeii]

The Creator is not 100% successful with the bodies. But it’s not like anyone can turn to another or better Creator. Evidently creating bodies is a challenge, even for the great God.

My point would be the threads or chasms of evil propelled through the human realm, are occurring in fantastic bodies on a great planet. The goodness is here when you look for it.

The Buddha addressed the impurities of the heart, promising a way to end self-will and its attendant suffering. Surely the Buddha knew bliss and goodness, even if no others do.

Your faith is in randomness and vast time. I don’t share that faith. One thing is all the algorithms attempting to show randomness is constructive, do not allow for repetitions.

[Johan]

Don’t you see that it is a problem to say that anything is a challenge for God? If the creator is that challenged, then they don’t deserve the title of God, they are just another limited being like us, although they are more technologically advanced than we are.

I don’t understand your later points. I don’t have faith in randomness and vast time. I recognize that there is a vast time and that random things happen though. There is no faith at all there. I follow the evidence and that is what the evidence shows.

Also, our bodies, while good, are far, far from fantastic. We are limited creatures that are well adapted to our environment, but we are far from fantastic.

[jayceeii]

Well, I think my body is fantastic. It allows many quantum leaps over what an animal body offers. And I have bliss I can access when I want, so that life is an enjoyable ride.

Human strife is another challenge of God, over which He is barely riding herd at this point. Now is the worst time to look, to justify that God is good based upon the planet.

It is a challenging thing to make a solar system and a biosphere, then to sustain it all for billions of years. This does not mean God or His activities are commensurate with yours.

[Johan]

I am happy for you that you have a body that is fantastic, however I hope you recognize that not every human is as lucky as you are in that regard. Also, there are many animals who have features that far surpass what we are capable of. Our only thing that surpasses them is our minds and ability to project far into the future. (other apes and monkeys are pretty good at this stuff too, we are just better).

Also, now is probably one of the best time in history to justify good based on what we experience, not the worst. As humans, we are the best off we have ever been. (if you take out the fact that we have destroyed the ecosystem).

It is only challenging to create a biosphere if you are a limited being. Is God a limited being? If God is maximal, then it would be no harder for God to create a biosphere than for me to wave my hand. Again, is God really as limited as that?

[jayceeii]

This is a very interesting piece, where you reverse almost all of my conclusions! I’ll keep it as a memento. I think it’s a Pretty Good World. Needs work in the Human Department.

[Wura]

<div>Thanks Johan for your reply.
</div><div>

I agreed that the case has to be made for “sufficient justification”.

Also I would argue that god has not the same moral duties and obligations as humans have. By commanding judgement to a nation he is not committing a sin, because he is not a human. He is god, in his position he is allowed to give and take life.

Do you have some points in mind what “sufficient justification” could be?

I can absolutely understand your reference to the can of worms. People conclude that this would be the same dangerous doctrine as today’s Muslims who justify jihad. Whereas I would say that God’s judicial action with Israel is a salvation-historical closed thing that can only refer to the people of Israel, and certainly cannot be applied universally.

It is an emotional question and not a purely rational one, which makes talking about it more difficult, I guess.

</div>

[Johan]

Personally, I think there are many cases where you could hypothetically create a “sufficient justification” to warrant an action that is immoral. I guess the trick though is that sometimes these actions, even though they are now justified, are still immoral actions.

Imagine there was a plane crash and 30 people were starving to death. Killing one of them could potentially sustain the other 29 for long enough to be rescued. In that case, killing the one could be justified, but it would still not be a moral action. (the true moral action would be for everyone to starve, which, while horrible, does not violate the consent of anyone). Above and beyond that, if someone volunteered to be killed to sustain the others, they would be morally virtuous.

All of this goes out the window with God though, because God is never limited by the scenario. God could just make mana for the people to eat, or duplicate the bread that they have to feed them all infinitely.

I have never understood the argument that “Killing is immoral for humans, but God can take life as he sees fit”. Even if I granted that God gave life, that doesn’t mean he has the ultimate authority to do with it as he sees fit. If I give you a gift, I don’t get to tell you how to use it, or have the right to take it back whenever I want to, right? Unless you are arguing that God did not give us life, but rather just lent it to us for a while. That would solve the issues, but make God a little stingy, given they have infinite resources. It would like a billionaire simply lending a pair of shoes to someone, and then holding it over them that they could take them back at any time for any reason. Or worse still, a billionaire offering to pay for the medical treatment for a poor person, but also holding the same level of at whim revocability.

[Wura]

I believe he must have this right, as he himself is God and owes nothing to anyone. Assuming we have a right where did we get that right from? The problem seems to be here that God appears unloving and cold, which goes against our beliefs. Indeed, God would be stingy if there were no eternal life. But the gift of life is not all that man receives. Therefore, the writers of the New Testament do not doubt God’s goodness in their suffering, as they believe that God will give them his eternal measure of glory.

I would like to return to the question I got also: Sufficient Reason for commanding Judgement on the caananites including children being killed.

[Johan]

Where did we get that right from? It is inherent in being a sentient sapient creature. As soon as you create something like that, you no longer have the right to do with such a being as you please. To say that God owes nothing is to ignore what it means to be a self aware creature. If God can merely act with impunity and disregard consent, then I cannot see such a being as omnibenevolent, or good at all. At that point they literally are a celestial dictator. A child with an ant farm that regularly squishes or burns ants with a magnifying glass merely because they can.

Apart from appealing to Gods authority to act as awfully as he deems fit, there isn’t much that you can use to justify God’s command for the genocide. If God were a limited being, a case could be made that leaving survivors alive after you just slaughtered their families breeds the potential for revenge, but that wouldn’t apply to God. (God can surely overcome that, right?) Also, there are other ways that this could be combated without slaughtering the children too. You could, for example, I don’t know, maybe not slaughter literally everyone, and only kill the enemy combatants that are actively resisting?

Also, if God wanted them to die, why not do the deed himself like he did in Egypt, why make the army do it? God mercifully Thanos snapping them out of existence, while still bad, is miles ahead of them slowly being slaughtered by a foreign army where the “young girls who have not known a man may be kept for yourselves”……yuck.

• This reply was modified 1 year ago by  Johan.