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,

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

I'm not sure what you're getting at because I have not said that either Dahmer and God are morally justified in their actions. I am however looking for answers as to why an ALL-good God would kill and that doesn't mean I have to include anyone else in the picture.. I can but I want to focus on God ONLY. If you can't respect the OP then I hope the moderators will help keep this thread on topic.

As far as reincarnation is concerned, these are your words,

Angel said:

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."

You were doing the wondering, not anybody else. This lead me to believe that you were considering reincarnation as justification for god's killing of children. Why didn't you simply shoot the idea down? Were you hoping that others would accept the idea as justification, even though you didn't. It appears to be nothing more than a back door method of getting your god off the hook.

Did you read the part about where I was referring to what SLEEPYHEAD brought up in another thread. That was his or her idea and I simply said I was wondering about it. Wondering about a view is NOT the same as saying, yep, that's the reason God did it and by the way that makes him justified. Please do NOT assume my intentions or at least ask me before you try to play psychology of the TYPICAL theist or of doing anything sneaky. I could easily say you're just trying to be a distraction and to keep people from answering the questions of the OP or trying to derail the topic but I'm not nor should MOTIVES be an issue here.

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.

Can you please provide evidence that I've reached any conclusions or offered any answers to the debate questions in post #1? If not, I hope that you will apologize or at least retract your statement.

No, I won't apologize. You're engaging in a philosophical exercise which is designed to offer theories that might satisfy other forum participants, concerning god's killimg of children. I've come to the conclusion, based on other posts and other threads, that you feel your god is perfectly justified in killing children. It's no problem for you, but this thread just might help convince others that god was justified.

Like, I said, please do not refer to me as a God-believer. For the record, I'm NOT a Christian. Keep it up and you'll be reported because this is the SECOND time you've been told this.

Secondly, I have tried to offer 'foreknowledge' as a reason for justification in the past on other threads but I realized I need to reeaxmine the issue. Which is why I've started 3 topics on the issue so far, including this one. All of the topics involve QUESTIONING how killing babies squares with an all-good God or how is it justified. I'm now looking for answers from others rather than offering answers of my own.

I'm entitled to think and approach issues differently than you. I'm entitled to ask ANY questions I want just as long as they are within the forum rules and guidelines. I'm not sure why you are questioning me about wanting to give theists a chance to answer a question. If you don't like the idea then just simply stop posting here because its clear you've made up your mind and you have NO answers to the OP.

Are you the person who determines which questions are appropriate? No one else is entitled to think and approach issues differently than you? If you can't answer my questions then just say so. It's obvious that you don't have any answers.

When it comes to this thread, yes, the TOPIC is MY choice. I opened this thread to be about providing justification for GOD ONLY. I don't give a rats you know what about Jeffrey Dahmer. Even if an explanation could be given for just God, it's possible that it doesn't apply to Dahmer or vice-versa. But either way its a red herring because no one here is saying that Dahmer nor God is justified, and yet you keep injecting Dahmer into the conversation as if I have to provide justification for him as well and perhaps because of your speculation on my MOTIVES which has NOTHING to do with the OP.

Please don't refer to me as a Christian or theist. If someone provides an explanation then I would sure hope they have evidence for their claims rather than just blindly throwing something out just to cover over the problem.

Are you a theist? Do you believe that Jesus is the messiah?

1. No.
2. Not sure.
Both atheism and theism are cancelled out in my mind because I don't know either way. I will not go into this further as it is against the OP and not a topic I'm interested in discussing even if it was the topic.

Have you recently deleted any "user group" associations that were listed below your avatar?

Yes. The usergroups under my avatar is all anyone here needs to know and refer to me as.


It amazes me how petty some of these debates are becoming where we're stuck on arguing about my motives while the QUESTIONS in post #1 are going unanswered. None of what you and I are arguing about helps answer anything I was looking for and when others see this web of mess it probably makes them want to stay away.

[SteveC]

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.

I'm not sure what you're getting at because I have not said that either Dahmer and God are morally justified in their actions. I am however looking for answers as to why an ALL-good God would kill and that doesn't mean I have to include anyone else in the picture.. I can but I want to focus on God ONLY. If you can't respect the OP then I hope the moderators will help keep this thread on topic.

As far as reincarnation is concerned, these are your words,

Angel said:

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."

You were doing the wondering, not anybody else. This lead me to believe that you were considering reincarnation as justification for god's killing of children. Why didn't you simply shoot the idea down? Were you hoping that others would accept the idea as justification, even though you didn't. It appears to be nothing more than a back door method of getting your god off the hook.

Did you read the part about where I was referring to what SLEEPYHEAD brought up in another thread. That was his or her idea and I simply said I was wondering about it. Wondering about a view is NOT the same as saying, yep, that's the reason God did it and by the way that makes him justified. Please do NOT assume my intentions or at least ask me before you try to play psychology of the TYPICAL theist or of doing anything sneaky. I could easily say you're just trying to be a distraction and to keep people from answering the questions of the OP or trying to derail the topic but I'm not nor should MOTIVES be an issue here.

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.

Can you please provide evidence that I've reached any conclusions or offered any answers to the debate questions in post #1? If not, I hope that you will apologize or at least retract your statement.

No, I won't apologize. You're engaging in a philosophical exercise which is designed to offer theories that might satisfy other forum participants, concerning god's killimg of children. I've come to the conclusion, based on other posts and other threads, that you feel your god is perfectly justified in killing children. It's no problem for you, but this thread just might help convince others that god was justified.

Like, I said, please do not refer to me as a God-believer. For the record, I'm NOT a Christian. Keep it up and you'll be reported because this is the SECOND time you've been told this.

Secondly, I have tried to offer 'foreknowledge' as a reason for justification in the past on other threads but I realized I need to reeaxmine the issue. Which is why I've started 3 topics on the issue so far, including this one. All of the topics involve QUESTIONING how killing babies squares with an all-good God or how is it justified. I'm now looking for answers from others rather than offering answers of my own.

I'm entitled to think and approach issues differently than you. I'm entitled to ask ANY questions I want just as long as they are within the forum rules and guidelines. I'm not sure why you are questioning me about wanting to give theists a chance to answer a question. If you don't like the idea then just simply stop posting here because its clear you've made up your mind and you have NO answers to the OP.

Are you the person who determines which questions are appropriate? No one else is entitled to think and approach issues differently than you? If you can't answer my questions then just say so. It's obvious that you don't have any answers.

When it comes to this thread, yes, the TOPIC is MY choice. I opened this thread to be about providing justification for GOD ONLY. I don't give a rats you know what about Jeffrey Dahmer. Even if an explanation could be given for just God, it's possible that it doesn't apply to Dahmer or vice-versa. But either way its a red herring because no one here is saying that Dahmer nor God is justified, and yet you keep injecting Dahmer into the conversation as if I have to provide justification for him as well and perhaps because of your speculation on my MOTIVES which has NOTHING to do with the OP.

Please don't refer to me as a Christian or theist. If someone provides an explanation then I would sure hope they have evidence for their claims rather than just blindly throwing something out just to cover over the problem.

Are you a theist? Do you believe that Jesus is the messiah?

1. No.
2. Not sure.
Both atheism and theism are cancelled out in my mind because I don't know either way. I will not go into this further as it is against the OP and not a topic I'm interested in discussing even if it was the topic.

Have you recently deleted any "user group" associations that were listed below your avatar?

Yes. The usergroups under my avatar is all anyone here needs to know and refer to me as.


It amazes me how petty some of these debates are becoming where we're stuck on arguing about my motives while the QUESTIONS in post #1 are going unanswered. None of what you and I are arguing about helps answer anything I was looking for and when others see this web of mess it probably makes them want to stay away.

Others may have not noticed your old user group associations, but I remember them. I've got your number, you can't separate yourself from those associations and your old posts. Everything is relevant in these discussions.

You haven't received any viable justifications for god's baby killing tendencies, because there simply aren't any. The truth of the matter is that the Bible is a Jewish perspective. It reflects a particular time in their culture when killing an enemy's family, including children, was standard operating procedure in all cultures. The Jews, as well as all the other cultures in the world, had good reasons for killing children. God didn't kill children, but ancient cultures did. God didn't kill children in floods and the accidental destruction of cities, but nature did. The ancients didn't separate nature from god, consequently god was blamed. It is/was as simple as that........................unless, of course, you need a literal interpretation of the Bible. Then we are at square one - god killed children, which is unconscionable for a god.

[dianaiad]

<snip to here>
Then we are at square one - god killed children, which is unconscionable for a god.

Ah, but that's the rub. Did God, indeed, KILL children?

Yes, a literal view of the bible would say that He did end their mortal lives...and if a human did it, yes, that's killing.

But if God does it, is it killing?

Remember...according to most people here, 'killing' means the ending of a life. As in...finis. Over. Done. Not continuing. Gone forever, not existing any more.

Phhht.

As an atheist, I'm fairly certain that to you, 'killing' means that the life being ended is, well, ENDED.

..............and that is indeed the correct view to take, for mortals; for us, because we don't have sure knowledge of an afterlife...nor do we have the right to make the decision to send someone on just because we think there IS an afterlife.

But here we have God, Who, according to the description of Him, created the whole shebang. According to the description of Him, He is quite aware that death is not 'the end' of life, just the end of MORTAL life. For HIM, what we see as the end of existence is merely a change in the state of that existence. We still exist.

Therefore, you are going to have to come up with another word for killing if you are talking about Deity doing it, because...He, even if he ends mortal existence, isn't ending existence.

.............................................and that makes a rather large difference. True, being honest about this means that a lot of the 'God is evil therefore He can't exist" argument of the non-believers is toast, but c'mon; if God does not exist, one can argue against the idea without engaging in equivocation and dishonest rhetoric.

[Deadclown]

<snip to here>
Then we are at square one - god killed children, which is unconscionable for a god.

Ah, but that's the rub. Did God, indeed, KILL children?

Yes, a literal view of the bible would say that He did end their mortal lives...and if a human did it, yes, that's killing.

But if God does it, is it killing?

Remember...according to most people here, 'killing' means the ending of a life. As in...finis. Over. Done. Not continuing. Gone forever, not existing any more.

Phhht.

As an atheist, I'm fairly certain that to you, 'killing' means that the life being ended is, well, ENDED.

..............and that is indeed the correct view to take, for mortals; for us, because we don't have sure knowledge of an afterlife...nor do we have the right to make the decision to send someone on just because we think there IS an afterlife.

But here we have God, Who, according to the description of Him, created the whole shebang. According to the description of Him, He is quite aware that death is not 'the end' of life, just the end of MORTAL life. For HIM, what we see as the end of existence is merely a change in the state of that existence. We still exist.

Therefore, you are going to have to come up with another word for killing if you are talking about Deity doing it, because...He, even if he ends mortal existence, isn't ending existence.

.............................................and that makes a rather large difference. True, being honest about this means that a lot of the 'God is evil therefore He can't exist" argument of the non-believers is toast, but c'mon; if God does not exist, one can argue against the idea without engaging in equivocation and dishonest rhetoric.

If your argument is, 'it's okay for god to kill because he sends the babies to heaven', then it is an implausible argument from ignorance. Even if we assume that an afterlife exists, you have no way of knowing where God sent the children who died in the events described in the bible, except wishful thinking. Considering his attitudes, it appears implausible that he would cause them a horrible death and follow it with an eternity of happiness. I could (with as much evidence as you) say that God 'killed' those kids and sentenced them to oblivion or eternal damnation. Which causes his crimes to be exponentially worse. So the whole argument is a blatant red herring.

[SteveC]

<snip to here>
Then we are at square one - god killed children, which is unconscionable for a god.

Ah, but that's the rub. Did God, indeed, KILL children?

Yes, a literal view of the bible would say that He did end their mortal lives...and if a human did it, yes, that's killing.

But if God does it, is it killing?

Remember...according to most people here, 'killing' means the ending of a life. As in...finis. Over. Done. Not continuing. Gone forever, not existing any more.

Phhht.

As an atheist, I'm fairly certain that to you, 'killing' means that the life being ended is, well, ENDED.

..............and that is indeed the correct view to take, for mortals; for us, because we don't have sure knowledge of an afterlife...nor do we have the right to make the decision to send someone on just because we think there IS an afterlife.

But here we have God, Who, according to the description of Him, created the whole shebang. According to the description of Him, He is quite aware that death is not 'the end' of life, just the end of MORTAL life. For HIM, what we see as the end of existence is merely a change in the state of that existence. We still exist.

Therefore, you are going to have to come up with another word for killing if you are talking about Deity doing it, because...He, even if he ends mortal existence, isn't ending existence.

.............................................and that makes a rather large difference. True, being honest about this means that a lot of the 'God is evil therefore He can't exist" argument of the non-believers is toast, but c'mon; if God does not exist, one can argue against the idea without engaging in equivocation and dishonest rhetoric.

Yes, god's actions are considered to be killing/murdering, if a literal interpretation of the Bible is used. You have to examine the emotions and motivations behind the taking of life. In all instances god's emotions and motivations are quite human like. Anger, revenge, jealousy, and fear are all ugly human emotions that drive the urge to kill. God uses all these emotions as motivation to kill. It doesn't matter that god accepts his murder victims into the afterlife, the ugly human emotion behind the killing is still present. You have to ask yourself if there was a better way for omniscient loving god to deliver a message or influence human behavior. Just as long as there is one human alive who can say, yes, there was a better way, then god has been judged. I judge the Bible god to be a murderer because he killed people in an ugly emotional manner. It's even more heinous that god killed children while being influenced by ugly human emotions.

I'd like to see any Bible literalist offer scripture that shows god treated his victims any different in the afterlife. You assume a lot when you imply that god's ugly human emotions changed in the afterlife existence. Show me scriptural evidence that indicates god's victims enjoy a rewarding afterlife. Until then, I assume - ugly in life, ugly iin death.

[Flail]

dianaiad wrote:

But here we have God, Who, according to the description of Him, created the whole shebang. According to the description of Him, He is quite aware that death is not 'the end' of life, just the end of MORTAL life. For HIM, what we see as the end of existence is merely a change in the state of that existence. We still exist.

Therefore, you are going to have to come up with another word for killing if you are talking about Deity doing it, because...He, even if he ends mortal existence, isn't ending existence.

This is, after all, what is so compelling about God. Since we have no coherent idea what a God would even be or if one or more of such creatures even exist, we can pencil in whatever characteristics and motivations for Him that we choose. It's quite a fiction.

[dianaiad]

If your argument is, 'it's okay for god to kill because he sends the babies to heaven', then it is an implausible argument from ignorance.

How so?

Even if we assume that an afterlife exists, you have no way of knowing where God sent the children who died in the events described in the bible, except wishful thinking.

Uhmn.....

Mormon here. Our doctrine spells that out quite explicitly. If God exists as we claim He does, and He is as we believe Him to be, then that's where the children went. Heaven.

Of course, if you are arguing that this is an 'argument from ignorance' because we don't know empirically that God exists, you are....and my mind is going blank as to what logical fallacy is being committed here, but someone has named 'em all. This one has to have a fancy Latin name, too.

What IS the fallacy committed when the existence of a certain thing is accepted for the sake of arguing an aspect of that thing, and one side attempts to win his point by claiming that since the original assumption of existence(agreed to by both parties) is invalid (that thing, after all, not really existing) then any point made in the debate must then come down on the side of the party which does not believe in the existence of that thing....

And that further, the assertion of the non-existence of the thing (the existence of which was agreed to by all parties for the sake of the argument only) proves the point that requires the assumption to be 'true' in order to be established?

Like, for instance, deciding that God is evil because He doesn't exist?

Perhaps, 'circular' works...

or "If I don't get my way, I'm going to take my ball and bat and go home?"

Considering his attitudes, it appears implausible that he would cause them a horrible death and follow it with an eternity of happiness.

Why? As I have already mentioned, I HAVE drowned. I lived through it only because someone brought me back...but I had already gone through all the pain that would have been involved had I actually died. I have also born five children, broken bones, had gall bladder attacks, suffered with arthritis and knee replacements....I think that I can safely say that I understand exactly what sort of 'horrible death' was experienced in those instances where God Himself could be said to have ended the mortal lives of those children.

It's just pain. Fairly short lived, at that. It takes human beings to really make the process of death horrific.

We get over it. It's temporary. Physical bodies come with physical sensations, and that's a good thing, even when those processes aren't all that wonderful.

I could (with as much evidence as you) say that God 'killed' those kids and sentenced them to oblivion or eternal damnation. Which causes his crimes to be exponentially worse. So the whole argument is a blatant red herring.

You could, if we were in fact talking about a deity YOU believed existed. However, we aren't. We are talking about the one I believe does. Since I'm the one defining Who He is for the purposes of the discussion, we do have to go with my idea; that is, that infants are utterly innocent, and that when they die, they go straight to Him.

Before you can say I'm wrong, you have to prove that;

God exists
He exists the way you describe Him and not the way I do.

Since you don't happen to believe that He does, then you can't describe Him, can you?

We'll have to go, then, with my description.

[Zzyzx]

.

Before you can say I'm wrong, you have to prove that;

God exists
He exists the way you describe Him and not the way I do.

Since you don't happen to believe that He does, then you can't describe Him, can you?

We'll have to go, then, with my description.

Correction: No one needs say or prove that you are wrong. That is phony "logic" -- where did that come from????

In DEBATE when you claim to KNOW something (perhaps about invisible, undetectable, proposed "gods"), YOU are expected to show evidence that you speak truth.

If someone says, "I don't accept what you say as truthful and accurate", they are NOT expected to prove you wrong. You have simply not convinced them that you are right.

In my view, it is the impression we make on readers (often thousands in any given thread) that makes a difference. I make no effort to "convince or convert" any person to any particular line of thinking -- but encourage all to evaluate the merits of what is said in defense of the various viewpoints. I am more than satisfied with the contrast between the "arguments" presented by Theists and those presented by Non-Theists.

Do you recognize that Theist "arguments" are based upon personal conviction (opinion) and unverified information from elsewhere -- plus emotional appeals?

[Deadclown]

If your argument is, 'it's okay for god to kill because he sends the babies to heaven', then it is an implausible argument from ignorance.

How so?

I explained as much in the previous post. I recommend reading the whole of the reply before replying.

Uhmn.....

Mormon here. Our doctrine spells that out quite explicitly. If God exists as we claim He does, and He is as we believe Him to be, then that's where the children went. Heaven.

I did not note anywhere in the OP where it said that we were discussing the specific Mormon interpretation of God. Perhaps then, if you can prove that your interpretation of the deity is the 'right' one, this will be something resembling a point. Maybe you can simply show without doubt that when God kills children they go to a blissful afterlife?

Of course, if you are arguing that this is an 'argument from ignorance' because we don't know empirically that God exists, you are....and my mind is going blank as to what logical fallacy is being committed here, but someone has named 'em all. This one has to have a fancy Latin name, too.

What IS the fallacy committed when the existence of a certain thing is accepted for the sake of arguing an aspect of that thing, and one side attempts to win his point by claiming that since the original assumption of existence(agreed to by both parties) is invalid (that thing, after all, not really existing) then any point made in the debate must then come down on the side of the party which does not believe in the existence of that thing....

And that further, the assertion of the non-existence of the thing (the existence of which was agreed to by all parties for the sake of the argument only) proves the point that requires the assumption to be 'true' in order to be established?

Like, for instance, deciding that God is evil because He doesn't exist?

Perhaps, 'circular' works...

or "If I don't get my way, I'm going to take my ball and bat and go home?"

You just love to do that Diana. I wonder if you ever actually read and consider what I type sometimes before launching a reply. Please read my words and don't just plaster on whatever strawman you wish to? If we assume God AND the afterlife exist, there is still no reason to assume that God sent the children killed in the OT to a happy afterlife. Insisting that he had to of (after killing them in horrible fashions because he disliked them), without evidence, is an argument from ignorance. The fact that the rest of it is irrational too, is beside the point.

Why? As I have already mentioned, I HAVE drowned. I lived through it only because someone brought me back...but I had already gone through all the pain that would have been involved had I actually died. I have also born five children, broken bones, had gall bladder attacks, suffered with arthritis and knee replacements....I think that I can safely say that I understand exactly what sort of 'horrible death' was experienced in those instances where God Himself could be said to have ended the mortal lives of those children.

It's just pain. Fairly short lived, at that. It takes human beings to really make the process of death horrific.

We get over it. It's temporary. Physical bodies come with physical sensations, and that's a good thing, even when those processes aren't all that wonderful.

All a bunch of red herrings and appeals to emotion. We aren't talking about you or whatever personal experiences you've had. We are talking about children killed during (lets pick out two isolated events) the Flood and Sodom and Gomorrah. God killed those children/babies because their parents were 'evil'. 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.

You could, if we were in fact talking about a deity YOU believed existed. However, we aren't. We are talking about the one I believe does. Since I'm the one defining Who He is for the purposes of the discussion, we do have to go with my idea; that is, that infants are utterly innocent, and that when they die, they go straight to Him.

Before you can say I'm wrong, you have to prove that;

God exists
He exists the way you describe Him and not the way I do.

Since you don't happen to believe that He does, then you can't describe Him, can you?

We'll have to go, then, with my description.

Diana, I am no longer sure you can even pose a coherent argument at me without making an Ad Hominem Tue Quoque fallacy. You do it so often and regularly, I think I will just start pre-empting them. The fact that I don't believe in a God does not remove my ability to discuss such beliefs logically. Not to mention that I don't recall, again, the OP ever mentioning your personal take on God. So really, please take your personal opinions elsewhere if you aren't going to play rational ball debate with the rest of us. Or else prove that your personal belief system is the 'right' one.

[Angel]

<snip to here>
Then we are at square one - god killed children, which is unconscionable for a god.

Ah, but that's the rub. Did God, indeed, KILL children?

Yes, a literal view of the bible would say that He did end their mortal lives...and if a human did it, yes, that's killing.

But if God does it, is it killing?

Remember...according to most people here, 'killing' means the ending of a life. As in...finis. Over. Done. Not continuing. Gone forever, not existing any more.

Phhht.

As an atheist, I'm fairly certain that to you, 'killing' means that the life being ended is, well, ENDED.

..............and that is indeed the correct view to take, for mortals; for us, because we don't have sure knowledge of an afterlife...nor do we have the right to make the decision to send someone on just because we think there IS an afterlife.

But here we have God, Who, according to the description of Him, created the whole shebang. According to the description of Him, He is quite aware that death is not 'the end' of life, just the end of MORTAL life. For HIM, what we see as the end of existence is merely a change in the state of that existence. We still exist.

Therefore, you are going to have to come up with another word for killing if you are talking about Deity doing it, because...He, even if he ends mortal existence, isn't ending existence.

.............................................and that makes a rather large difference. True, being honest about this means that a lot of the 'God is evil therefore He can't exist" argument of the non-believers is toast, but c'mon; if God does not exist, one can argue against the idea without engaging in equivocation and dishonest rhetoric.

Yes, god's actions are considered to be killing/murdering, if a literal interpretation of the Bible is used. You have to examine the emotions and motivations behind the taking of life. In all instances god's emotions and motivations are quite human like. Anger, revenge, jealousy, and fear are all ugly human emotions that drive the urge to kill. God uses all these emotions as motivation to kill. It doesn't matter that god accepts his murder victims into the afterlife, the ugly human emotion behind the killing is still present. You have to ask yourself if there was a better way for omniscient loving god to deliver a message or influence human behavior. Just as long as there is one human alive who can say, yes, there was a better way, then god has been judged. I judge the Bible god to be a murderer because he killed people in an ugly emotional manner. It's even more heinous that god killed children while being influenced by ugly human emotions.

I'd like to see any Bible literalist offer scripture that shows god treated his victims any different in the afterlife. You assume a lot when you imply that god's ugly human emotions changed in the afterlife existence. Show me scriptural evidence that indicates god's victims enjoy a rewarding afterlife. Until then, I assume - ugly in life, ugly iin death.

I understand your point about God's emotions but what I'd see more as justification are the actions of the people God is killing. If God kills people who murdered children lets say, then I don't think He doing things with anger involved would diminish the justification of the death penalty for the murderers. This does not answer for the babies of course because they were not part of their parent's immoral actions.