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]

snip to here...

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

.....and where did you see that, precisely?

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

the dying part is a bummer, but I doubt that BEING dead would be a problem, whether God is, or isn't.

The question I was bringing up wasn't whether it is OK to kill people. It's not, usually. It's never OK to murder people.

The question, of course, is whether God IS 'killing' people when He ends mortal life. That comes down to the definition of 'kill,' and of 'death,' and why I asked about it. What do YOU think happens when someone dies, and why do you think that it is so terrible a prospect? (and please don't pull a Zzyzx on me; I'm not defending the act. I'm asking you why you think it is bad. Such a question does not indicate that I do NOT think it's bad. This is about what you think. Leave me out of it.)

If you define 'killing' and 'death' the way Janx did, then you have a problem; for if God exists, then they don't die according to that definition, do they? They continue to exist. They do so in some other form, or place, or 'state,' but they live on.

If they live on, then they have not been killed OR murdered in the sense that you apply the word, have they?

So, God cannot be said to have killed, or murdered, anybody. Of course, He is the only Being we CAN say that about; humans don't have the absolute knowledge that God does, and as long as there is the most infinitesimal chance that the end of mortal life also means the end of life, period, then ending a mortal life is killing/murder.

So you are correct; killing is usually a bad thing, and murder always is. The question being begged here is whether God IS killing/murdering. If He does not cause those people to cease to exist, but rather simply changes their state of being, or living, then it's neither killing nor murder, is it?

[Deadclown]

Nice point, Deadclown, and since the prooftexts are all from the OT, I'd accept that, except for one wee point: there is no indication from the OP that the God being discussed is the 'OT God." The references to deity are to 'deity' as a whole, and the aspect of whether children are innocent or not. There is no attempt in the OP to restrict 'deity' to 'the deity mentioned in the OT only" Therefore, since we are talking about Deity in general, or at least the deity with which the bible is concerned, then other writings pertaining to that deity are also fair game. You know, stuff like 'Matthew 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

Fair enough. Although it should be noted that it is is *very* strongly implied. New Testament quotations are arguably an okay addition to Old Testament. However insisting that any discussion anyone ever has on 'God' has to take into account any individuals interpretation of that God (ie opinions or a denomination's dogma) when it is not specified, or when it is not present in the text under debate, is just utterly unrealistic.

Let's look at your actual evidence that you present from the NT. Nowhere in that passage does Jesus say that all children who die get to go to heaven. He just says that people should put up with children and shouldn't forbid children to come to him. That this behavior is 'the kingdom of heaven'. So while you present evidence, it does not appear to be very good support for your argument.

If the OP wants to restrict the discussion to the 'God of the OT," fine, but then perhaps it should be more clearly established that, for whatever reason, Christians may not us the NT to help define the idea of God, or that Mormons can't use stuff like, oh, this?

So, we have to include a bunch of fine print at the bottom of each OP so that there aren't loop holes? You can't just read between the lines?

I really do not care what the Book of Mormon says in this context, and will not address scripture from it here and now. Considering it came about in the modern era it is the equivalent of any apologetic after the fact doctrine glazing over all unfortunate scripture. We are studying a literary work and you are attempting to bring in a completely separate literary work written thousands of years after the first. Would you find it acceptable in your class if someone tried to explain an ancient text through a modern one somewhat inspired by it without tackling the ancient text directly? That's even worse than just using Cliff Notes, which at least summarize the prior work. Again, if you want to have a discussion about your religion, start a topic. I'll take part. Really. I've been wanting to talk to you about Mormonism for a while now.

I get that you don't look at the OT like some people do. I think that is a *huge* vote in your favor. Since that is the case, this maybe isn't the thread for you. Because we really probably agree that while the events described are barbaric, they didn't really happen as written literally anyway.

So here's the problem with your statement, Deadclown: if the OP is talking only about the "OT God," then it should have stated so...in which case the whole argument gets thrown out because there are no believers in the 'OT God" who do not have additional scriptures to further understand Him. Therefore it really IS a 'literary' discussion and doesn't belong here.

At the very least, it's the sort of literary discussion that would get you an "F" in "Literary Analysis 350" because it's taking deity completely out of context; quite literally taking one chapter of a book, throwing away the rest, and insisting that only that chapter counts and the rest does not matter.

Or, to bring it closer to the way the bible is established, perhaps deciding that Sherlock Holmes, as a character, must be examined and judged ONLY by "The League of Red-headed men" and every other book about him written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is meaningless in terms of defining the character.

It is more like taking the first Harry Potter book and someone showing up thousands of years later and insisting they know better than the original text because they have read a recent Harry Potter fanfic. Then trying to apply the fanfic as proof that Harry and a fling with Hermoine. Considering the complete separation between the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Book of Mormon, they are obviously three wholly separate works (actually way worse than *that* even, since it is not like the OT and the NT are even individual single books) written in vastly different time periods by vastly different people. So, unless you want to offer evidence right here and now to the extent that they cannot be studied individually, kindly go start your own thread that specifically tackles them all at once.

Christians (and Jews, too) do not restrict themselves to the OT, nor do they restrict the defining of deity to the OP.

This is news to me. Judaism doesn't restrict itself to the Old Testament?

Since that was not done, any theist who does use the OT in the definition of deity should be allowed to bring in all other sources used to define Him in order to prove the point of what their beliefs regarding Him actually are, and why.

I would say that your options appear to be as follows. You can show that the Book of Mormon is a factual resource and applicable to the discussion, in an equal and inseparable manner to the Old Testament (for those who are not Mormon). You can accept that we aren't talking about 'your god' and you thus have no reason to take part, and so leave the subject alone for other people to engage in. You could even declare victory in this respect, I suppose. Lastly, you can put to one side all of your religious baggage and have a mature conversation about the topic at hand without having to involve the extraneous details that have nothing to do with what everyone else is talking about.

Now, there are two things I notice you didn't address.

You accused me of being a hypocrite, and ignored a challenge.

The bible is pretty clear on his motivations for it. How often do we give people we hate a (comparable) slap on the wrist and then reward them lavishly? Does that somehow make sense to you as a plausible outcome? Please explain your logic or present your evidence.

Ask a biblical literalist. You just criticized me for not reading the entire post before you began to reply. Perhaps...you should try that yourself? I answered that one.

No, you STILL haven't answered the darn questions asked. You just fall back on your same old same old tactics of dodging them like Neo with bullets. In THIS post you actually mention the 'age of accountability' but don't even bother to support it. I challenge you to provide quotations from Post 37 where you answered the above questions.

So I guess that this is the second challenge, or I humbly request you apologize for your statement.

Also, you committed the ad hominem tu quoque fallacy, refused to own up to it, and apologize. I'd let this one slide if you didn't have a habit of committing the fallacy, and I am tired of it.

[Autodidact]

snip to here...

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

.....and where did you see that, precisely?

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

the dying part is a bummer, but I doubt that BEING dead would be a problem, whether God is, or isn't.

The question I was bringing up wasn't whether it is OK to kill people. It's not, usually. It's never OK to murder people.

The question, of course, is whether God IS 'killing' people when He ends mortal life. That comes down to the definition of 'kill,' and of 'death,' and why I asked about it. What do YOU think happens when someone dies, and why do you think that it is so terrible a prospect? (and please don't pull a Zzyzx on me; I'm not defending the act. I'm asking you why you think it is bad. Such a question does not indicate that I do NOT think it's bad. This is about what you think. Leave me out of it.)

If you define 'killing' and 'death' the way Janx did, then you have a problem; for if God exists, then they don't die according to that definition, do they? They continue to exist. They do so in some other form, or place, or 'state,' but they live on.

If they live on, then they have not been killed OR murdered in the sense that you apply the word, have they?

So, God cannot be said to have killed, or murdered, anybody. Of course, He is the only Being we CAN say that about; humans don't have the absolute knowledge that God does, and as long as there is the most infinitesimal chance that the end of mortal life also means the end of life, period, then ending a mortal life is killing/murder.

So you are correct; killing is usually a bad thing, and murder always is. The question being begged here is whether God IS killing/murdering. If He does not cause those people to cease to exist, but rather simply changes their state of being, or living, then it's neither killing nor murder, is it?

You have now persuaded us that it's o.k. to kill people, because they're not really dead, they just changed their state of being. Obviously, it makes no difference whether it's God or Charley Manson--the former individual in question is in the precise same position, or rather lack of position.

Of course, there is a remote possibility that diana is mistaken, and the person is really dead. That would be horrible.

btw, under the same belief system, isn't these people's next state of being burning in eternal torment? Which would make it even worse?

So to justify God's actions, you have to redefine killing someone as simply changing their state of being? And, as I say, you would have no problem with someone "changing your child's state of being?"

To a thinking person, what differentiates murder from justified homicide is the circumstances. To a religionist, like say a 9/11 suicide terrorist, it's whether God commanded it or not. And of course, they have exactly as much chance of being right about that as you do, being exactly as filled with the holy spirit as you are.