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?

[JayDeist]

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?

1. Babies are innocent, neutral, and to me, prove that the actions in the bible, are actions of men, not of God.

2. No, it is just another way for Theists to turn around their arguments and make the bible look justifiably worthy, which it is not, IMO.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

...
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.’

What we actually find is humans saying their god ordered such, with no confirmatory data.

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

I don't dare to know the mind of an entity I can't even show exists.

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

I consider babies a precious commodity, and would not kill them just to appease a bloodthirsty god.

If this god hates babies, let him kill 'em. I ain't!

[sleepyhead]

Hello Angel,

GEN 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto
the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded
thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake;
in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
GEN 3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou
shalt eat the herb of the field;
GEN 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return
unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and
unto dust shalt thou return.

The way I interpret the above is God is sort of a two edged sword. It can be good to be close to God or it could be bad. After Adam ate the fruit he/she decided to distance himself from humanity for our good. Certain individuals chose to draw close to God and these individuals had what we call a green thumb. These people really didn't create problems for the surrounding countries until Moses.

The jews became slaves in Egypt, and God sent Moses as a baby to be raised in the court of Pharoah and to eventually allow the Jews to go free. For good or bad Moses chose to reject the throne of Egypt. God sent him back to Egypt and instead of the hebrews being freed through nutural means they were freed by God's direct intervention. While in the dessert they built the arc of the covenant. God was with them throughout their 40 years in the wilderness and many of them were struck down dead for one reason or another. During there time in the promised land they had the arc with them and for good or bad whereever the arc was God would be. Sometimes the arc caused disasters, plagues, etc. and sometimes blessings.

Much of the killing is the result of their vicinity to the arc.

[SteveC]

Angel,

Have you ever held a baby?

Have you, or anybody you know, been harmed by a baby?

[Angel]

Angel,

Have you ever held a baby?

Have you, or anybody you know, been harmed by a baby?

I don't have kids of my own, but I held my little brothers when they were babies. I've held plenty of other babies, as well.

I've never been harmed by a baby. In fact, I think they are the most adorable bits of life.

I am not saying that my view here is perfect, but just because it would offend people does not mean that it is wrong or that I will hide it. I'm trying to find answers that pertain to the OP, so in the process I'm throwing out ideas that a Christian or anyone else may agree with and even add some ideas to it. Sleepyhead in another thread mentioned reincarnation, which I'd wonder if these babies had bad past lives that finally caught up to them.

[thunderfbolt]

http://www.cracked.com/article_18404_6- ... le-of.html

[Flail]

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?

babies are guiltless/blameless and hence innocent, incapable of forming or having culpable intention....and, so far as we know, no God has ever killed an infant.

[Janx]

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

Yes, babies are incapable of making reasoned choices thus they are amoral.

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

Certainly not from our perspective. We hold the life of children in the highest regard. Such actions from a God demonstrate a lack of empathy for human kind.

[SteveC]

Angel,

Have you ever held a baby?

Have you, or anybody you know, been harmed by a baby?

I don't have kids of my own, but I held my little brothers when they were babies. I've held plenty of other babies, as well.

I've never been harmed by a baby. In fact, I think they are the most adorable bits of life.

I am not saying that my view here is perfect, but just because it would offend people does not mean that it is wrong or that I will hide it. I'm trying to find answers that pertain to the OP, so in the process I'm throwing out ideas that a Christian or anyone else may agree with and even add some ideas to it. Sleepyhead in another thread mentioned reincarnation, which I'd wonder if these babies had bad past lives that finally caught up to them.

That your view here is not perfect is an understatement. Since when is murdering innocent babies perfect? At what point do you abandon the literal interpretation of the Bible?

We have laws against killing newborn infants. What does that say to you? It offends because it is wrong, end of story.

C'mon Angel, how close to perfect are you trying to make killing babies?