Babies are not innocent

[Angel]

This topic stems from another discussion topic I started called, Killing kids. There, I basically asked why did God kill kids and order others to do the same. Now to break down that topic further, I wanted to know about the moral status of kids. The reason is if innocent and righteous/good means the samething then based on my reading of the Bible so far, babies aren't innocent. They are only innocent if you take innocent to mean 'harmless'. Now, this is not to say that therefore kids, especially babies, are guilty because they may simply just be in a neutral state as far as their moral standing by God's standards. The reason I am leaning towards this view is because of the passages Genesis 18:20-33 and 1 Samuel 15:1-3.

Genesis 18:20-33 covers the context of God talking about destroying Sodom and Gomorrah because of their wickedness. Abraham repeatedly questions God about that action mainly about if there were righteous people in the city would God still destroy the city. God mentioned that He would not destroy an entire city if righteous people were found in it. So from these passages we can infer the principle that God would not destroy the righteous with the unrighteous. Abraham stated this as a rhetorical question in Genesis 18:23. Despite this, we find the city destroyed in Genesis chapter 19. But let me mention a clearer/explicit example.

In 1 Samuel 15:1-3, we find God ordering the killing of all the inhabitants of a city, and included would be children and infants.
1 Samuel 15:3 "Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’

Conclusion:
So putting all of these passages together, babies aren't righteous or innocent, morally-speaking. In Genesis chapter 18 we find the principle that God would NOT destroy a city if there were righteous people there, or as we learn from NOah's story He could at least destroy ALL of the wicked while preserving the righteous ones only. But yet, we find kids being killed in Sodom and Gomorrah, during Noah's flood, and various battles that Israel faced with enemy nations (e.g. the Amalekites mentioned in 1 Samuel 15:1-3). Am I correct here or is the Bible contradictory on this matter?


Questions for debate:
1. Are babies innocent or do I have a valid viewpoint (babies are neutral in moral standing w/ God)?

2. Would babies not having a moral status or standing with God, like trees or animals, help explain or even justify God killing them?

[dianaiad]

.

I agree that in order to discuss any God, you have to presuppose its existence, since without supposition there is nothing to discuss.

Perhaps we don't discuss "god" but discuss THEORIES about "gods", CLAIMS of knowledge about "gods", and opinion and conjecture about "gods".

"God theories", claims of knowledge, opinions and conjectures abound. Information about "gods" themselves and evidence of their existence is absent. Therefore, "gods" are not discussed for lack of information.

You could do that, but then you would be eternally stuck on proof that any sort of deity exists, thus making any sort of conversation about the specific ideas about any such deity almost impossible.

Don't worry so much, Zzyzx. There is no danger that anybody discussing these issues with you will ever get the idea that you actually believe that deity exists.

Oh....speaking of claims and conjectures....you gonna retract your claim that I was "defending killing?"

[Janx]

Everytime this topic comes up, I feel like banging my head against the wall.

What IS it with you guys, anyway?

Please excuse me for going Socratic on y'all, but I guess it's necessary.
Here's the first question:

Define 'killed" or 'Killing." What makes it so bad? Why is it so horrible when one human kills another, even if s/he does it in a way that the victim feels nothing and isn't aware of any danger?

Answer that one, then we can continue....and yeah, I'm serious.

I'll bite cuz I'm curious

kill·ing/ˈkiliNG/
Noun: An act of causing death, esp. deliberately.

Why is killing so bad?
Personal reason: conscious beings do now wish to die. Life is the most precious commodity we have thus it is the ultimate mortal transgression against another person. Empathy: we feel pain for those that die - sometimes even for creatures that are not self aware. Social reason: we all have a wish to live a long life - it is best for all to avoid choices that lead to premature death.

Cheers!

Thank you, Janx....and I agree.

What is, then, death?

and I'm being serious with this one, too. Really and truly. What does it mean to die?

death/deTH/Noun
1. The action or fact of dying or being killed; the end of the life of a person or organism.

Thank you, Janx, for going along with me on this.

I think we are getting to the question that is being begged here.

Would it be murder; would it be death as in the above definition, if the life of the person or organism did not, after all, END?

We, as mortal beings, can't see beyond our physical deaths. For US, the definitions you have just given must and do apply. It doesn't matter how much faith we might have that life continues past mortal death...we don't KNOW, so we are held to that standard and that definition. Anytime that physical life is ended at the hands of a mortal human being, that definition applies.

However, God Himself cannot be held to that definition. If there is a deity, then everything that goes with that concept has to also be considered--and one of those things, usually, is that we live on after our mortal deaths; that we continue to exist. In other words, mortal death is NOT the end of life, according to the above definition. We might believe in it, even have great faith in it, but only He KNOWS it.

I think the closest thing we mortals have ever come to this is back when the pioneers would leave the Old World for a new place. The people they left behind will never see, nor hear from, them again. They will never know what happened to them. They are, to the folks they left behind, as dead as if they had been physically buried and mourned.

However, the pioneers knew they were still living, and so did the captains of the ships that took them away from their families. Is it reasonable, then, to charge those captains with murder because they moved the pioneers from one continent to another?

Because that's the only thing that one can charge deity with; moving people. NOT 'murder,' because if HE did the deed, then those whose mortal lives He ended did not actually die, did they?

Indeed, only if He does not exist can those He is blamed for killing have been murdered. But then, if He doesn't exist, how can anybody blame Him?

Either way, I think you can see the question being begged.

Hi Dianaiad,

I'm satisfied with your answer. I think it works.

We've added context to the story by layering on another story. Seems only fair to me because I've conceded to have this discussion within the context of a story. The opinion of God being a murdering with the context of the Sodom story is no weaker or stronger than your opinion of those children being better off dead. We can make whatever story we want out of this.

From a historical perspective this story is framed as a warrior god of a conquering society doing what warriors and conquerors of the bronze age do. There was no mercy for infants back then.

From a modern moral perspective the story shows a lack of empathy for the human condition that we have defined in our discussion about killing and death.

The historic and the modern perspective clash. If this God had modern morality and saved all the infants of the plain the story would have been laughed at by bronze age civilizations because the concepts of nurture, plentiful resources and a social system of assistance are all very new to our species.

Now Dianaiad I wonder if your modern addition to this story is enough to bring God in line with our modern perspective. I am simply not sure here. I'm not versed enough in scripture nor do I have the desire to start digging.

Cheers!

[Autodidact]

This topic stems from another discussion topic I started called, Killing kids. There, I basically asked why did God kill kids and order others to do the same. Now to break down that topic further, I wanted to know about the moral status of kids. The reason is if innocent and righteous/good means the samething then based on my reading of the Bible so far, babies aren't innocent. They are only innocent if you take innocent to mean 'harmless'. Now, this is not to say that therefore kids, especially babies, are guilty because they may simply just be in a neutral state as far as their moral standing by God's standards. The reason I am leaning towards this view is because of the passages Genesis 18:20-33 and 1 Samuel 15:1-3.

Genesis 18:20-33 covers the context of God talking about destroying Sodom and Gomorrah because of their wickedness. Abraham repeatedly questions God about that action mainly about if there were righteous people in the city would God still destroy the city. God mentioned that He would not destroy an entire city if righteous people were found in it. So from these passages we can infer the principle that God would not destroy the righteous with the unrighteous. Abraham stated this as a rhetorical question in Genesis 18:23. Despite this, we find the city destroyed in Genesis chapter 19. But let me mention a clearer/explicit example.

In 1 Samuel 15:1-3, we find God ordering the killing of all the inhabitants of a city, and included would be children and infants.
1 Samuel 15:3 "Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’

Conclusion:
So putting all of these passages together, babies aren't righteous or innocent, morally-speaking. In Genesis chapter 18 we find the principle that God would NOT destroy a city if there were righteous people there, or as we learn from NOah's story He could at least destroy ALL of the wicked while preserving the righteous ones only. But yet, we find kids being killed in Sodom and Gomorrah, during Noah's flood, and various battles that Israel faced with enemy nations (e.g. the Amalekites mentioned in 1 Samuel 15:1-3). Am I correct here or is the Bible contradictory on this matter?


Questions for debate:
1. Are babies innocent or do I have a valid viewpoint (babies are neutral in moral standing w/ God)?

2. Would babies not having a moral status or standing with God, like trees or animals, help explain or even justify God killing them?

So if Christianity is true, babies are evil and it's o.k. to kill them?

[Autodidact]

Angel: I appreciate what you're trying to do here. You're a decent person, you've actually read the Bible (unlike most Christians) and you're wrestling with the moral dilemma of worshiping a God who reportedly does things we consider evil. It's a difficult problem. As you can see, attempting to justify these evil actions leads you to odd conclusions, such as that babies are evil. You may want to go back and start from the beginning: Does this God exist? Because I assure you--there's no way out of this dilemma. You worship Jesus who is supposedly also YHWH, and YHWH does evil things. What does that make you?

[Autodidact]

One assertion that I will make is that babies should not be held morally responsible for their actions no more than trees should. I haven't drawn any conclusions from this assertation but rather I've asked if this opens any door to their being justification for God killing them. You've clearly repeated no in so many posts so I already know your view. Now I leave the door open to anyone who can offer a justifiable reason for the infanticide in the Bible or even if anything in post #1 can be used as a springboard to reach a justified reason.

While you're at it, why don't you find justifications for Jeffrey Dahmer's murderous actions?

It's off-topic.

Why would you want to find justifications for your god's killing of children?

God is suppose to be all-good, has moral standards to not kill the righteous, and wants faithful followers, unlike Jeffrey Dahmer, so that creates a unique circumstance. I know you've already made up your mind but it doesn't hurt to give theists (or anyone really) a chance to answer the questions in topic post.

Why should we give your god a break when we wouldn't give Jeffrey Dahmer a free pass?

If God and/or Dahmer have morally justifiable reasons for their actions, then I'm open for giving them a free pass.

Jeffrey Dahmer didn't kill children, but his crimes are equivalent to your Bible god's crimes, so Jeffrey Dahmer is not off topic.

How are god's children killing sprees different from any modern serial children murderer's spree?

You want to claim that perhaps god's victims were paying for an earlier existence, well, where is reincarnation part of Christian dogma?

You want to make a claim of foreknowledge, well how does that reconcile with "free will".

You are so desperate for justification of god's infant killing tendencies that you will grasp at anything, regardless of how unchristian they may be. Why don't you simply accept that killing infants is unchristian and ungodlike. There's only one way to save your god's image, and that's by abandoning a literal interpretation of the Bible. Other Christians have done this without damaging their faith in god and Jesus.

Everytime this topic comes up, I feel like banging my head against the wall.

What IS it with you guys, anyway?

Please excuse me for going Socratic on y'all, but I guess it's necessary.
Here's the first question:

Define 'killed" or 'Killing." What makes it so bad? Why is it so horrible when one human kills another, even if s/he does it in a way that the victim feels nothing and isn't aware of any danger?

Answer that one, then we can continue....and yeah, I'm serious.

Or it will lead you into moral absurdities such as this: suddenly being unable to recognize that killing people is wrong.

Well diana, you persuaded me. Killing people is right. So I guess you wouldn't mind being killed then? Really?

[Autodidact]

Everytime this topic comes up, I feel like banging my head against the wall.

What IS it with you guys, anyway?

Please excuse me for going Socratic on y'all, but I guess it's necessary.
Here's the first question:

Define 'killed" or 'Killing." What makes it so bad? Why is it so horrible when one human kills another, even if s/he does it in a way that the victim feels nothing and isn't aware of any danger?

Answer that one, then we can continue....and yeah, I'm serious.

Sorry, but I don't get involved in word definition discussions. I assume everybody understands what is meant by "kill". Any attempt to define the word is an attempt to deflect this discussion from the killing of innocent children issue.

I didn't start this thread, so my question to you is, what is it with you guys?

In this case the definition is the problem. In fact, without that very clear definition, the entire discussion of what God does, or does not, do regarding human life is begging a HUGE question.


So humor me. What does 'kill' mean, precisely?

"Kill" means to cause the death of a living organism.

[Autodidact]

Angel,

I can understand why you don't want to associate your god with Jeffrey Dahmer, but murder is murder and it's not pretty....

Unless, of course, it's not murder.

So, what makes murder 'murder," and what makes killing 'killing?'

Biblically, if God commands it, it's not murder. That's why the Bible is evil. Legally, it's murder if it's a deliberate killing not otherwise justified, as say in self-defense.

For example, when God ordered His soldiers to be sure to stab each and every one of the Amalekite babies to death, Biblically, it was not murder. Morally and legally, we would see it as murder. That is because, as I say, Biblical morality is evil.

[Autodidact]

Everytime this topic comes up, I feel like banging my head against the wall.

What IS it with you guys, anyway?

Please excuse me for going Socratic on y'all, but I guess it's necessary.
Here's the first question:

Define 'killed" or 'Killing." What makes it so bad? Why is it so horrible when one human kills another, even if s/he does it in a way that the victim feels nothing and isn't aware of any danger?

Answer that one, then we can continue....and yeah, I'm serious.

I'll bite cuz I'm curious

kill·ing/ˈkiliNG/
Noun: An act of causing death, esp. deliberately.

Why is killing so bad?
Personal reason: conscious beings do now wish to die. Life is the most precious commodity we have thus it is the ultimate mortal transgression against another person. Empathy: we feel pain for those that die - sometimes even for creatures that are not self aware. Social reason: we all have a wish to live a long life - it is best for all to avoid choices that lead to premature death.

Cheers!

Thank you, Janx....and I agree.

What is, then, death?

and I'm being serious with this one, too. Really and truly. What does it mean to die?

It means you're no longer alive. Duh. This is so boring.

[Autodidact]

Everytime this topic comes up, I feel like banging my head against the wall.

What IS it with you guys, anyway?

Please excuse me for going Socratic on y'all, but I guess it's necessary.
Here's the first question:

Define 'killed" or 'Killing." What makes it so bad? Why is it so horrible when one human kills another, even if s/he does it in a way that the victim feels nothing and isn't aware of any danger?

Answer that one, then we can continue....and yeah, I'm serious.

I'll bite cuz I'm curious

kill·ing/ˈkiliNG/
Noun: An act of causing death, esp. deliberately.

Why is killing so bad?
Personal reason: conscious beings do now wish to die. Life is the most precious commodity we have thus it is the ultimate mortal transgression against another person. Empathy: we feel pain for those that die - sometimes even for creatures that are not self aware. Social reason: we all have a wish to live a long life - it is best for all to avoid choices that lead to premature death.

Cheers!

Thank you, Janx....and I agree.

What is, then, death?

and I'm being serious with this one, too. Really and truly. What does it mean to die?

death/deTH/Noun
1. The action or fact of dying or being killed; the end of the life of a person or organism.

Thank you, Janx, for going along with me on this.

I think we are getting to the question that is being begged here.

Would it be murder; would it be death as in the above definition, if the life of the person or organism did not, after all, END?

We, as mortal beings, can't see beyond our physical deaths. For US, the definitions you have just given must and do apply. It doesn't matter how much faith we might have that life continues past mortal death...we don't KNOW, so we are held to that standard and that definition. Anytime that physical life is ended at the hands of a mortal human being, that definition applies.

However, God Himself cannot be held to that definition. If there is a deity, then everything that goes with that concept has to also be considered--and one of those things, usually, is that we live on after our mortal deaths; that we continue to exist. In other words, mortal death is NOT the end of life, according to the above definition. We might believe in it, even have great faith in it, but only He KNOWS it.

I think the closest thing we mortals have ever come to this is back when the pioneers would leave the Old World for a new place. The people they left behind will never see, nor hear from, them again. They will never know what happened to them. They are, to the folks they left behind, as dead as if they had been physically buried and mourned.

However, the pioneers knew they were still living, and so did the captains of the ships that took them away from their families. Is it reasonable, then, to charge those captains with murder because they moved the pioneers from one continent to another?

Because that's the only thing that one can charge deity with; moving people. NOT 'murder,' because if HE did the deed, then those whose mortal lives He ended did not actually die, did they?

Indeed, only if He does not exist can those He is blamed for killing have been murdered. But then, if He doesn't exist, how can anybody blame Him?

Either way, I think you can see the question being begged.

So it would be o.k. to "kill" your baby, because it would just be moving on to eternal life?

This is where religious morality leads you, questioning whether murder is really immoral. Remind me not to have you babysit, diana. I'd like my kids to be actually alive in this world.

[Autodidact]

Angel: So you're not a Christian? You don't believe in or worship that fictional character? Why the problem then. Yes, it would be wrong, but fortunately, that God does not exist. Unfortunately, occasionally someone believes He does and kills her children to appease Him, a la Andrea Yates.