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?

[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.

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?

Your questions beg the question because if you go by the Bible, babies are not looked at as moral (or even immoral) so innocence and guilt don't apply as far as I can tell. I see babies as being amoral and even in real life since they have no ability (yet) to make informed, reasoned, and moral decisions. I would not hold them accountable for anything any more than I would a tree but the difference is that we love our babies compared to trees.

If you're also going to imply that the stoires in the Bible that have to do with baby killing aren't meant to be taken literally then please provide evidence for that claim. Even in a non-literal interpretation, I'd wonder what message and wisdom could come from destroying every living thing in a city while also saying you would not destroy the righteous with the wicked. If anything, this shows a contradiction and would offend many whether these stories are meant to be taken literally or not.

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

Laws from governments and going by what offends people have no objective value in my view. For now, w/out objective morals then morality to me simply is a set of standards that govern or guides one's behavior; and I don't even go as far as assuming that morals are for the purpose of good although they can be.

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

I was referring to if my reasoning from the bible was correct based on what I've laid out in post #1. I'm also fielding for explanations to this question, mainly apologetic responses that would show why an all-good God would kill and order others to kill babies.

[SteveC]

Angel,

Babies' amoral standing is irrelevant, and is pretty much a red herring. Why are we associating infant morality with whether or not they are considered innocent? There is something wrong with a belief concept that associates infants with anything less than total innocence. Amoral does not assume guilt. How can god judge without a guilt association?

I can't print the words that I would associate with any god that would order the killing of my children.

What exactly do you believe happened in the Flood and at Sodom and Gomorrah? In your opinion, did god actually order the Jews to kill babies?

[Angel]

Angel,

Babies' amoral standing is irrelevant, and is pretty much a red herring.
Why are we associating infant morality with whether or not they are considered innocent? There is something wrong with a belief concept that associates infants with anything less than total innocence. Amoral does not assume guilt. How can god judge without a guilt association?

Amoral means that morality does not apply which also implies no guilt nor innocence. Trees are also amoral and would not be classified as guilty nor innocent. Post #1 would actually mean that God did not kill babies based on guilt or innocence since morality wouldn't apply to them no more than a tree. So perhaps to God, taking the life of a baby is akin to causing a tree to die? I'm not sure myself which is why I'm offering it up as a question of debate.

And if my biblical view mentioned in post #1 is wrong, then on what moral basis or reason did God kill and order for others to kill babies?

I can't print the words that I would associate with any god that would order the killing of my children.

What exactly do you believe happened in the Flood and at Sodom and Gomorrah? In your opinion, did god actually order the Jews to kill babies?

In Noah's flood, babies died.
In Sodom and Gomorrah, babies died.
According to the Bible, God did order the killing of babies.

So why did God order all these killings and if we apply that explanation beyond what the Bible says, would it be reasonable to justify those acts?

No one to date has given an apologetic explanation here and on other threads I've posed this question on so I figured I'd throw out some ideas if anyone agreed and wanted to expand on them.

[SteveC]

Angel,

Babies' amoral standing is irrelevant, and is pretty much a red herring.
Why are we associating infant morality with whether or not they are considered innocent? There is something wrong with a belief concept that associates infants with anything less than total innocence. Amoral does not assume guilt. How can god judge without a guilt association?

Amoral means that morality does not apply which also implies no guilt nor innocence. Trees are also amoral and would not be classified as guilty nor innocent. Post #1 would actually mean that God did not kill babies based on guilt or innocence since morality wouldn't apply to them no more than a tree. So perhaps to God, taking the life of a baby is akin to causing a tree to die? I'm not sure myself which is why I'm offering it up as a question of debate.

And if my biblical view mentioned in post #1 is wrong, then on what moral basis or reason did God kill and order for others to kill babies?

I can't print the words that I would associate with any god that would order the killing of my children.

What exactly do you believe happened in the Flood and at Sodom and Gomorrah? In your opinion, did god actually order the Jews to kill babies?

In Noah's flood, babies died.
In Sodom and Gomorrah, babies died.
According to the Bible, God did order the killing of babies.

So why did God order all these killings and if we apply that explanation beyond what the Bible says, would it be reasonable to justify those acts?

No one to date has given an apologetic explanation here and on other threads I've posed this question on so I figured I'd throw out some ideas if anyone agreed and wanted to expand on them.

Apologies not accepted. Intentionally slicing, drowning, and toasting babies is incomprehensibly evil. I can't understand why anyone would want to drive the get away car for a murdering thug.

Good luck with your babies are like trees defense. With a mentality like that, one could say that we kill because a certain god showed us how to do it.

Fine mentor you're trying to protect.

[Angel]

Angel,

Babies' amoral standing is irrelevant, and is pretty much a red herring.
Why are we associating infant morality with whether or not they are considered innocent? There is something wrong with a belief concept that associates infants with anything less than total innocence. Amoral does not assume guilt. How can god judge without a guilt association?

Amoral means that morality does not apply which also implies no guilt nor innocence. Trees are also amoral and would not be classified as guilty nor innocent. Post #1 would actually mean that God did not kill babies based on guilt or innocence since morality wouldn't apply to them no more than a tree. So perhaps to God, taking the life of a baby is akin to causing a tree to die? I'm not sure myself which is why I'm offering it up as a question of debate.

And if my biblical view mentioned in post #1 is wrong, then on what moral basis or reason did God kill and order for others to kill babies?

I can't print the words that I would associate with any god that would order the killing of my children.

What exactly do you believe happened in the Flood and at Sodom and Gomorrah? In your opinion, did god actually order the Jews to kill babies?

In Noah's flood, babies died.
In Sodom and Gomorrah, babies died.
According to the Bible, God did order the killing of babies.

So why did God order all these killings and if we apply that explanation beyond what the Bible says, would it be reasonable to justify those acts?

No one to date has given an apologetic explanation here and on other threads I've posed this question on so I figured I'd throw out some ideas if anyone agreed and wanted to expand on them.

Apologies not accepted. Intentionally slicing, drowning, and toasting babies is incomprehensibly evil. I can't understand why anyone would want to drive the get away car for a murdering thug.

Good luck with your babies are like trees defense. With a mentality like that, one could say that we kill because a certain god showed us how to do it.

Fine mentor you're trying to protect.

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.

[Janx]

Response to #1:The moral value in children is that they are a clean slate - innocent: blameless and incapable of doing wrong. From this it follows that the concept of justice does not apply to them. Thus one is incapable of carrying out justice by killing a child. In other words if a parent commits a crime we can take their possessions, their freedom, or even their life but we cannot take the life of their child.

Certainly children die in war despite our efforts. Such killing is accepted as an unavoidable though regrettable circumstance. So it comes down to this: was the total destruction of Sodom and the cities of the plain unavoidable? Was there no way to save the infants and children?

Response to #2: I don't see how lack of moral capacity equals being a tree. A tree cannot feel pain or possess consciousness. A tree will not grow up to be an adult to learn, work, have a family and be a part of humanity.

I assume there would have been several thousand orphans from the five cities and that is quite the logistical problem but is this an excuse to kill them? From a historical perspective God's actions make perfect sense. People's nature was a mystery to those who wrote the bible. Ancient humanity believed that children inherited the essence of their parents. This is why the bible, and much of human ancient human civilization, is so obsessed with linage and bloodlines. Flawed parents spawn flawed children and continued the cycle as illustrated by the surviving children of Sodom giving birth to children of Abraham's future enemies the Ammonites and Moabites.

The idea that an all powerful God is immoral for not sparing children when He could is a modern concept based on our knowledge of how nurture and genetics shapes an individual.

[Angel]

Response to #1:The moral value in children is that they are a clean slate - innocent: blameless and incapable of doing wrong. From this it follows that the concept of justice does not apply to them. Thus one is incapable of carrying out justice by killing a child. In other words if a parent commits a crime we can take their possessions, their freedom, or even their life but we cannot take the life of their child.

Generally, I agree with you here. In order for there to be a justified reason or a reason that wouldn't show God to be in the wrong to kill babies then understanding what happened in the Bible must be covered first. If that's not done then you may as well offer any explanation like reincarnation (esp. past lives) or that God help these kids not feel pain, etc and at that point you're leaving out the Bible and its theology which has to do with the God in question. So I'd want to find out what the Bible says or indicates on the matter.

Certainly children die in war despite our efforts. Such killing is accepted as an unavoidable though regrettable circumstance. So it comes down to this: was the total destruction of Sodom and the cities of the plain unavoidable? Was there no way to save the infants and children?

Good questions and I don't believe this was an issue of collateral damage. I'm trying to get behind how God judges kids or view them because maybe there's some key understanding as to why he had no problem with them being killed.

I've been able to gather that God was not killing these babies based on any moral related reason. If we say there were moral reasons involved in God's decision then it would probably have to be along the lines of God's predictions or knowledge of these kids future lives via His foreknowledge, but I'm still researching and working out this explanation. Either way, the reasons offered can be examined rationally to see if they are reasonable or justifiable reasons which is the real crux of this thread.

Response to #2: I don't see how lack of moral capacity equals being a tree. A tree cannot feel pain or possess consciousness. A tree will not grow up to be an adult to learn, work, have a family and be a part of humanity.

Well I didn't mean completely like a tree of course, but they are similar at least when it comes to my view of both being amoral. Animals also have consciousness and feel pain but we kill and eat them everyday. The main point of difference I see from your comment is regarding future lives of these kids but then that is different from their present state just as a fetus (which would develop into a baby and adult to work, etc.) would be different from a person who's already born.

I assume there would have been several thousand orphans from the five cities and that is quite the logistical problem but is this an excuse to kill them? From a historical perspective God's actions make perfect sense. People's nature was a mystery to those who wrote the bible. Ancient humanity believed that children inherited the essence of their parents. This is why the bible, and much of human ancient human civilization, is so obsessed with linage and bloodlines. Flawed parents spawn flawed children and continued the cycle as illustrated by the surviving children of Sodom giving birth to children of Abraham's future enemies the Ammonites and Moabites.

Your posts sparks a new point here. Would it be right to say that if these kids were left alive, they'd create a problem for Israel down the line? The Bible does mention something along these lines, for instance, Numbers 33:55-56, Deuteronomy 20:16-18, Joshua 23:9-13, etc. In these passages, God explains why he wants all inhabitants of the land of Canaan and others killed and the reason involves his predictions of those left alive being a threat to Israel later on in the future. So this goes with my foreknowledge point I mentioned earlier and shows these kids weren't killed based off anything they did (or moral related) in their 'present' stage of life but what they would do later. For now, I think I can work on philosophically examining the issue of using foreknowledge as a justified basis to kill someone.

The idea that an all powerful God is immoral for not sparing children when He could is a modern concept based on our knowledge of how nurture and genetics shapes an individual.

I agree and thanks for the ideas so far.

[SteveC]

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?

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

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

[Angel]

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.

[SteveC]

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.