Is God held to a different moral standard?

[Angel]

The Bible mentions several acts of God that if a human did would be considered wrong. Some examples would be when the Bible mentions God killing babies and ordering others to do so. I wonder if God is obligated to follow the same morals as us. One common response I get from some Christians is that God is God so he can do what he wants. If we try to do some of the objectionable things on our own that he's done then we're guilty of playing God. For example, if a human kills an innocent baby, the human would be guilty of murder, but if God does it, some Christians defend it as being right since it's God. Christians with that position see no wrong in it just as long as the child goes to a better afterlife but they don't factor in the means of the baby's death which is by 'murder' as far as I could tell. Why the double standard?


Debate Question:
1) Does God have a different set of morals to follow or does he follow the same ones that he expects humans to follow?

2) If God does not follow the rules he expects us to follow, is that fair to his followers? Why or why not?

[Adamoriens]

Is there some possible world where this would be the case?

Does our own suffice?

You don't mean to say that our world should've forgone existence to prevent gratuitous pain?

[Angel]

...You've also left out some details in the stories of where God has killed or ordered others to kill babies...It would seem that under your logic, that God can do anything he wants, including rape, killing, starving, and ordering others to do the same and even to the 'innocent'...what's so special about God's goodness if he doesn't have to play by the rules?...

God does not order the indiscriminate "killing of the innocent"--at least not if you stay within the parameters of the biblical narratives. Per the narrative, God ordered the destruction of a corrupt society and a corrupt religion, after having first given that society plenty of time to demonstrate its irremedial culpability.

Do you have any reference in the Bible itself to show that no innocent people were killed (including babies) for those civilizations that God wanted exterminated (as the bible mentions)?

Also, the language in the narratives used rhetorical battle bravado--idioms commonly used in that culture--which were never interpreted literally and cannot be interpreted literally, given the simple fact that the Bible records that the Canaanites continued living among the Israelites. As Paul Copan says, "the conquest of Canaan was far less widespread and harsh than many people assume...ancient Near Eastern accounts readily used...obliteration language even when the events didn't literally happen that way" (p. 170-171).

I believe that 'some' war stories were exaggerated but this takes away from the Divine connection of the Bible if human influences could creep in right where the Bible mentions GOD himself said something. It brings into question what other God said such and such statements were really purely human in origin for some agenda? I hope Christians like you are open to applying naturalistic explanations for all areas of the Bible, rather than just for the hard-to-accept areas. If it was common for primitive people in history to attribute God to things they don't understand, then I wonder...

But going by the Bible itself, it also mentions times when Israel was ordered to destroy all inhabitants of a certain city but Israel did not follow through completely and left women and children alive. The thing is that doesn't mean that happened everytime or that there weren't babies killed and it doesn't answer for the command that everyone be killed even if it wasn't followed.

Moreover, the account of Rahab shows that mercy was available to Canaanites who demonstrated a positive response to the God of Israel. Combine all of this with the fact that the towns and cities mentioned were very likely military garrisons and the picture we end up with is far different than what might appear upon a surface reading of the texts.

Reading below the surface can get speculative. Rahab being saved does not take reading below the surface to see since the bible mentions that directly. That also does not mean that every single baby was spared neither just because she was spared.

In short, Jews and Christians today have never interpreted these stories as somehow condoning general warefare against innocents. The stories are ancient records using ancient idioms to describe a one-time takeover of territory from a corrupt soceity for God's overriding purpose of finally bringing blessing to all nations.

I'm not saying it was warefare against innocents but inevitably innocents were involved not only as the text mentions but also as common in warfare. Even in modern warfare today, it's inevitable that innocent people will be caught in the cross-fire.

So you draw the conclusion that the bible writers exaggerated on the details of EVERY SINGLE war story or maybe just the ones that involved the killing of babies. I draw the conclusion that there was some exaggeration, and that there's no way of knowing to what degree or if God's orders are part of that exaggeration or if every single baby was spared rather than just some adults being spared.

[EduChris]

...Do you have any reference in the Bible itself to show that no innocent people were killed (including babies) for those civilizations that God wanted exterminated (as the bible mentions)?...

As I said before, the God who gives life gets to determine the length of that gift. God takes no pleasure in anyone's death. The "obliteration language" was a well known ancient idiom that was never understood literally.

...I believe that 'some' war stories were exaggerated but this takes away from the Divine connection of the Bible if human influences could creep in right where the Bible mentions GOD himself said something...

The ancients wrote according to the idioms of their time. I don't see how they could have done anything different--if they wanted to be understood by the people of their time. The onus is on us to learn to read intelligently, rather than according to some preconceived chimera of a literalism that was never intended and has never worked.

...the Bible itself...mentions times when Israel was ordered to destroy all inhabitants of a certain city but Israel did not follow through completely and left women and children alive. The thing is that doesn't mean that happened everytime or that there weren't babies killed...

First of all you don't provide a reference; secondly, God is under no obligation to keep anyone alive for any amount of time. Moreover, this earthly life is not all there is to life. Humans cannot reward anyone or compensate anyone after their earthly life is done, but God can.

...Reading below the surface can get speculative...

Perhaps, but reading ancient texts at the surface level, failing to take account of the idioms and literary conventions of the culture, is absolutely certain to result in failed interpretations.

...inevitably innocents were involved not only as the text mentions but also as common in warfare...

War is a messy business. Nevertheless, God made a one-time decision to take the land of a corrupt society and give it to the Jews for the greater purpose of bringing ultimate blessing to all people. God has the moral right to do this. A surgeon has the right to cut someone open and remove a cancer; no one in their right mind can extrapolate this to mean that anyone can cut anyone else open and remove some flesh willy nilly.

We simply have to be intelligent in our reading.

[Angel]

Do you have any reference in the Bible itself to show that no innocent people were killed (including babies) for those civilizations that God wanted exterminated (as the bible mentions)?...

As I said before, the God who gives life gets to determine the length of that gift. God takes no pleasure in anyone's death. The "obliteration language" was a well known ancient idiom that was never understood literally.

After doing some research, I will agree with you here on the hyperboles used in warfare language in the Bible. I'll definitely do more reading on that because I want to see what those who hold this point-of-view think of the stories of Sodom and Gomorrah (which some archaeologists believe to have found ) and the deaths of children. One source for the Sodom and Gomorrah sites here.

While you make a literary claim that I agree with, I still disagree with your theological point if you're saying that that God is still justified in taking the life of a baby or ordering others to do so. I agree that God gives life but I don't agree that he can take it any way he wants and that's because 'murder' is one condition that he can't use to end someone's life. And by murder I mean harm inflicted on someone to cause their death and for an UNjustified reason. So in other words, if God tells someone to go stab a baby at the nursery until it dies or if God does that himself then yes, he would be committing a murder. With that said, God may set when the person will die but not necessarily the means that they'll die.

I believe that 'some' war stories were exaggerated but this takes away from the Divine connection of the Bible if human influences could creep in right where the Bible mentions GOD himself said something...

The ancients wrote according to the idioms of their time. I don't see how they could have done anything different--if they wanted to be understood by the people of their time. The onus is on us to learn to read intelligently, rather than according to some preconceived chimera of a literalism that was never intended and has never worked.

The problem that I find is in not knowing what to take literally and what not to take literally, all the time. I already know that not every part of the Bible is to be taken literally, and even the Bible mentions that itself at times. As far as I'm concerned, all stories that I can't validate with corroborating evidence can be subject to a non-literal interpretation, including God himself.

...the Bible itself...mentions times when Israel was ordered to destroy all inhabitants of a certain city but Israel did not follow through completely and left women and children alive. The thing is that doesn't mean that happened everytime or that there weren't babies killed...

First of all you don't provide a reference; secondly, God is under no obligation to keep anyone alive for any amount of time. Moreover, this earthly life is not all there is to life. Humans cannot reward anyone or compensate anyone after their earthly life is done, but God can.

Some examples of the Israelites not killing all they were ordered to kill is, Numbers 31:7-18 .

Here again, we have a disagreement with theology. I agree with you that God is under no obligation to keep anyone alive, but he is under a moral obligation to not kill them via 'murder'. Causing "lethal" harm to an innocent person would also be incompatible with love.

Reading below the surface can get speculative...

Perhaps, but reading ancient texts at the surface level, failing to take account of the idioms and literary conventions of the culture, is absolutely certain to result in failed interpretations.

Agreed.

inevitably innocents were involved not only as the text mentions but also as common in warfare...

War is a messy business. Nevertheless, God made a one-time decision to take the land of a corrupt society and give it to the Jews for the greater purpose of bringing ultimate blessing to all people. God has the moral right to do this. A surgeon has the right to cut someone open and remove a cancer; no one in their right mind can extrapolate this to mean that anyone can cut anyone else open and remove some flesh willy nilly.

We simply have to be intelligent in our reading.

Going by the biblical text, there were clear reasons given for why God ordered the Canaanities to be killed. It wasn't because of just a greater purpose but also because of the Canaanites own wrongdoing. Unlike teh Canaanites, babies are innocent so if you'd say that when they are lethally harmed by God and that's fine and dandy, then I disagree with you. It might sound nice to some that they'll just make it to heaven but the means used and on who it was used on still makes the act immoral and unloving.

[AquinasD]

Is there some possible world where this would be the case?

Does our own suffice?

You don't mean to say that our world should've forgone existence to prevent gratuitous pain?

No, I meant the opposite. Existence isn't worth foregoing.

[EduChris]

...One source for the Sodom and Gomorrah sites here...

Natural disasters happen in our universe; I see nothing wrong with God harnessing these natural disasters to serve to some sovereign purpose.

...Some examples of the Israelites not killing all they were ordered to kill is, Numbers 31:7-18 ...

The killing of the women is explained as retribution for the wrongdoing they had done by attempting to subvert God's purpose for the Israelites. The only "unexplained" matter has to do with the killing of the boys. This command will seem harsh to us in our culture, but likely not to previous cultures. Sparing the boys would have either resulted in their enslavement (a bad thing) or in the dilution of the inheritance rights of the Israelite boys.

...God...is under a moral obligation to not kill them via 'murder'...

I don't see how the term "murder" can be applied to God. After all, we don't say that the owner of a car can be charged with the left of the car she owns.

At any rate, you are blaming God that we live in the sort of world where bad things happen. I don't even say that bad things happen to "innocent people" because I don't think there is any such thing as an "innocent person." True, babies haven't yet had the opportunity to sin, but give them time and they will.

To me, the problem is not so much that our world is not yet ideal; the problem is more that we don't even know what an ideal world would look like. We are mired in ambiguity (and yes, the Bible contains ambiguities) and yet we think we can judge the God who gives us the law of love. The clearest example we have of the life we're supposed to live is found in Jesus. We can try to follow his example, but even this is difficult. I can't even buy a new computer in this world without contributing to the global mechanisms that virtually ensure that some people will be exploited and some resources will be depleted or spoiled. But I do the best I can, and I follow the example and teaching of Jesus as best I can. If I had some better standard to live by, that would be one thing. But no such better standard exists on this side of paradise.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

The killing of the women is explained as retribution for the wrongdoing they had done by attempting to subvert God's purpose for the Israelites. The only "unexplained" matter has to do with the killing of the boys. This command will seem harsh to us in our culture, but likely not to previous cultures. Sparing the boys would have either resulted in their enslavement (a bad thing) or in the dilution of the inheritance rights of the Israelite boys.

This particular false dichotomy is a pet peeve of mine. You seem to be forgetting that Yahweh is omnipotent. The options are not killing little boys, enslaving little boys, or (the horror!) diluting the inheritance rights of your own ethnic group. There are an infinite number of ways that Yahweh could have resolved these situations, any number of which would have been far more loving, kind, merciful, benevolent, humane, and worthy of our admiration. Omnipotence means that Yahweh chooses to solve problems with genocide when he has peaceful means of resolution at his fingertips. And while you can perhaps massage the text until you get an interpretation of it as a "nice" genocide, the moral problems are not resolved: Yahweh orders genocide when he could have resolved the situation peacefully. Yahweh orders his followers to kill babies when he could have resolved the situation peacefully.

If I had some better standard to live by, that would be one thing. But no such better standard exists on this side of paradise.

I would suggest aspiring to a standard set by a being who isn't known to solve his problems with mass killings would be an improvement, at least.

[Adamoriens]

No, I meant the opposite. Existence isn't worth foregoing.

Do you mean this in principle? Could it ever be the case that some world shouldn't be actualized due to pain? Also, could it be rational for a person to suppose that our world is such a one?

[EduChris]

...Omnipotence means that Yahweh chooses to solve problems with genocide when he has peaceful means of resolution at his fingertips...

In creating a world in which there is genuine and significant freedom for rational beings, God chose to limit his options. Were God to resort to magic at every turn in order to prevent us from experiencing the evil which we choose, then how could we ever learn the consequences of our evil actions? Does God get messy when dealing with a messy humanity? Yes, but the upside is that we gain the freedom we need to take ownership and responsibility for our own moral choices.

...I would suggest aspiring to a standard set by a being who isn't known to solve his problems with mass killings would be an improvement, at least.

I don't know of any such being who can do this and still give genuine and meaningful freedom to humans.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

...Omnipotence means that Yahweh chooses to solve problems with genocide when he has peaceful means of resolution at his fingertips...

In creating a world in which there is genuine and significant freedom for rational beings, God chose to limit his options. Were God to resort to magic at every turn in order to prevent us from experiencing the evil which we choose, then how could we ever learn the consequences of our evil actions? Does God get messy when dealing with a messy humanity? Yes, but the upside is that we gain the freedom we need to take ownership and responsibility for our own moral choices.

You are arguing that we would be unable to learn the consequences of our "evil actions" if Yahweh did not order people to commit genocide? Can you explain how that follows?

And remember, this isn't Yahweh resorting to magic to prevent us from experiencing the evil we choose, this is Yahweh resorting to magic to avoid commanding his followers to inflict pain and suffering and death on others. Plus he's already resorting to magic by telepathically communicating with his prophet, I would think.

I'm not necessarily talking about "resorting to magic" in the theatrical sense that he so often does in the Hebrew Scriptures. He could have ordered his followers to live peacefully. To maybe not go to that place where everyone wants to kill you. Perhaps he could have spent more time himself actually interacting with and educating his creation. Just think of the possibilities; it's quite unimaginative to argue that Yahweh's hands were tied, he just had to have all those babies killed and there was no other way.

...I would suggest aspiring to a standard set by a being who isn't known to solve his problems with mass killings would be an improvement, at least.

I don't know of any such being who can do this and still give meaningful freedom to humans.

Can you explain how humans would not have "meaningful freedom" if Yahweh did not kill huge amounts of people?