Age gap

[Philip]

As God is the giver of life, as He is the owner and Creator of all that exists, then ONLY He has the right to take a life. WE do not infinitely and exhaustively know either the immediate, the future, nor the eternal purposes behind God's actions. But HE DOES! We either trust His actions or not. And more than any person alive, God has personally experienced the evil and horror of being murdered. We also know His desire is that ALL would embrace and love Him BACK!

[RickD]

As God is the giver of life, as He is the owner and Creator of all that exists, then ONLY He has the right to take a life. WE do not infinitely and exhaustively know either the immediate, the future, or the eternal purposes behind God's actions. But HE DOES! We either trust His actions or not. And more than any person alive, God has personally experienced the evil and horror of being murdered. We also know His desire is that ALL would embrace and love Him BACK!

[Neo]Yea but...there goes OM! [/Neo]

[neo-x]

No Rick, I explained and you didn't agree, which is a different thing.

As for the rest: <a class="rtBibleRef" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/1%20Sam%2015.2-3" data-reference="1 Sam 15.2-3" data-version="nasb95" data-purpose="bible-reference" target="_blank">1 Samuel 15:2-3</a>,
This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

Is it an interpretation now or plain old scripture?

Neo,

I didn't see how you explained how what I said affects OM. Would you be kind enough to requote where you explained it?

And good. You posted scripture so I know exactly what you are referring to.

God, through Samuel the prophet, commanded Saul to kill the Amalekites, for two reasons. First, to punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel. And second, to test Saul.

So in this case, I agree that God commanded Saul to kill the Amalekites.

So, what's the issue you have with this? God used Israel to punish evil. I still don't see the issue with this as it pertains to OM.

Again, murder is unjustified killing of another human being. Murder is objectively wrong. God was justified in having Saul kill the Amalekites. What's the issue?

So killing of everyone else who did not participate in war was just fine? It wasn't objectively wrong to kill children and infants who had nothing to do with anything and whose ancestors had wronged Israel some 400 years ago? And you are saying that this doesn't go against OM?
Sounds like you have it all figured out Neo. You know that God had no good reason to have children killed. Not sure how you can judge the situation better than God in His infinite wisdom can. But hey, you seem like a smart guy.

So basically, you do hold that marrying 12 years old girls is objectively wrong even though there may be varying reasons for it, but killing of children and infants is not wrong as long as you have a reason for it.

First, I'm not saying that I'm sure that marrying a 12 year old child is objectively wrong. I just don't know if I can go that far. I suppose it's possible that in some culture somewhere, a sexually, emotionally mature 12 year old girl could marry a sexually, emotionally mature boy close to her age. But, I'm sorry Neo, your great grandfather was a dirty old man.

And I never said, so please don't misrepresent me, that killing children is not wrong if I have a reason for it. I'm saying that it's not objectively wrong if GOD had a good reason for it. And apparently unlike you, I don't presume to be omniscient. So, unlike you, I don't claim that God doesn't have good reasons for what He does.

I have no qualms about what you think of my great grand father, I am not here to defend him.

But what does concern me is that you are appealing to mystery when there is no other way to answer the question.

I'm saying that it's not objectively wrong if GOD had a good reason for it.

If you are not omniscient how do you know God had a good reason for it?

I'm not saying that I'm sure that marrying a 12 year old child is objectively wrong. I just don't know if I can go that far. I suppose it's possible that in some culture somewhere, a sexually, emotionally mature 12 year old girl could marry a sexually, emotionally mature boy close to her age.

But that is not what you said earlier, when you said somethings are just wrong always? Ok so do you agree that in some instance marrying a 12 year old is possible and not against OM.

Fine.

[neo-x]

As God is the giver of life, as He is the owner and Creator of all that exists, then ONLY He has the right to take a life. WE do not infinitely and exhaustively know either the immediate, the future, nor the eternal purposes behind God's actions. But HE DOES! We either trust His actions or not. And more than any person alive, God has personally experienced the evil and horror of being murdered. We also know His desire is that ALL would embrace and love Him BACK!

I agree Phillip and this is a very nice answer and perhaps the only answer we can genuinely give. The bit about children being killed going to heaven so as to be saved from pagan beliefs is evil in logic philip. Its disgusting and evil.

And the same goes for that bit Rick quoted about " But I can tell you if He's God, and He commands something, who the hell are you to say He's not justified?"
Who is to say then OBL was wrong when he thought Allah commanded him to do something. Who the hell would be anyone to say then he is wrong. That is the same logic.

Bottomline is, If it was God's will, it was carried out by humans, warriors. They must have claimed the same "God said to kill all so we kill all." And no one can tell them they are wrong, obviously they claim God told them so. That is unacceptable logic Philip and Rick. I hope you can see that.

[neo-x]

As God is the giver of life, as He is the owner and Creator of all that exists, then ONLY He has the right to take a life. WE do not infinitely and exhaustively know either the immediate, the future, or the eternal purposes behind God's actions. But HE DOES! We either trust His actions or not. And more than any person alive, God has personally experienced the evil and horror of being murdered. We also know His desire is that ALL would embrace and love Him BACK!

[Neo]Yea but...there goes OM! [/Neo]

But Rick, you are falling into the same problem you accuse Kenny of. You hold that God is the source of OM and yet if God himself acts out against OM then OM becomes subjective.

[RickD]

As God is the giver of life, as He is the owner and Creator of all that exists, then ONLY He has the right to take a life. WE do not infinitely and exhaustively know either the immediate, the future, or the eternal purposes behind God's actions. But HE DOES! We either trust His actions or not. And more than any person alive, God has personally experienced the evil and horror of being murdered. We also know His desire is that ALL would embrace and love Him BACK!

[Neo]Yea but...there goes OM! [/Neo]

But Rick, you are falling into the same problem you accuse Kenny of. You hold that God is the source of OM and yet if God himself acts out against OM then OM becomes subjective.

Neo,

God is not acting against OM.

Murder is unjustified killing. Justified killing is not wrong. It's pretty simple. The command is Thou shalt not murder. Not, Thou shalt not kill.

If you are not omniscient how do you know God had a good reason for it?

You're kidding, right? I have to be omniscient to know God is perfectly good. And since He is perfectly good, anything He does cannot go against that.

But that is not what you said earlier, when you said somethings are just wrong always? Ok so do you agree that in some instance marrying a 12 year old is possible and not against OM.

I didn't say that, exactly. I said I'm not sure I'd go as far as saying that someone marrying a 12 year old goes against OM. I also would say that I'm not sure it doesn't go against OM either. What I'm saying, is that I'm not sure enough either way at this point.

And the same goes for that bit Rick quoted about " But I can tell you if He's God, and He commands something, who the hell are you to say He's not justified?"
Who is to say then OBL was wrong when he thought Allah commanded him to do something. Who the hell would be anyone to say then he is wrong. That is the same logic.

Of course it's not the same logic. In one case, we are talking about what God actually commanded. On the other, we are talking about a man claiming a false god told him to kill.
That is, unless you are claiming that the bible is wrong, and God never actually commanded it. If that's the case you've got a whole other issue.

Bottomline is, If it was God's will, it was carried out by humans, warriors. They must have claimed the same "God said to kill all so we kill all." And no one can tell them they are wrong, obviously they claim God told them so. That is unacceptable logic Philip and Rick. I hope you can see that.

Again, I ask you how it's unacceptable if God commanded it. Your saying it's unacceptable, is the same as your saying you know better than God.

[neo-x]

Neo,

God is not acting against OM.

Murder is unjustified killing. Justified killing is not wrong. It's pretty simple. The command is Thou shalt not murder. Not, Thou shalt not kill.

Give me one scenario where one can kill an infant, justly?

But that is not what you said earlier, when you said somethings are just wrong always? Ok so do you agree that in some instance marrying a 12 year old is possible and not against OM.

I didn't say that, exactly. I said I'm not sure I'd go as far as saying that someone marrying a 12 year old goes against OM. I also would say that I'm not sure it doesn't go against OM either. What I'm saying, is that I'm not sure enough either way at this point.

That's ok, this is not what you originally claimed and since you changed your position, I am fine with it.

Of course it's not the same logic. In one case, we are talking about what God actually commanded. On the other, we are talking about a man claiming a false god told him to kill.

It is the same thing in principle. Practically what happened is that some person told the other guys that God told him that we should kill everyone. How do I know if he had any mental issues. like you were worried for yourself earlier for a hypothetical scenario.

Bottomline is, If it was God's will, it was carried out by humans, warriors. They must have claimed the same "God said to kill all so we kill all." And no one can tell them they are wrong, obviously they claim God told them so. That is unacceptable logic Philip and Rick. I hope you can see that.

Again, I ask you how it's unacceptable if God commanded it. Your saying it's unacceptable, is the same as your saying you know better than God.

I know better than those people who actually killed children and infants.

[Kurieuo]

Give me one scenario where one can kill an infant, justly?

God gives life. God takes life.
Such life include infants.
Just or unjust in each case?

Not to mention grass, flowers, plants, trees,
insects, birds, amphibians, reptiles, mammals,
humans, infants, children, women, men --
good and evil, innocent and guilty alike.

[Kurieuo]

As God is the giver of life, as He is the owner and Creator of all that exists, then ONLY He has the right to take a life. WE do not infinitely and exhaustively know either the immediate, the future, nor the eternal purposes behind God's actions. But HE DOES! We either trust His actions or not. And more than any person alive, God has personally experienced the evil and horror of being murdered. We also know His desire is that ALL would embrace and love Him BACK!

I just saw Philip covered such.

[neo-x]

As God is the giver of life, as He is the owner and Creator of all that exists, then ONLY He has the right to take a life. WE do not infinitely and exhaustively know either the immediate, the future, nor the eternal purposes behind God's actions. But HE DOES! We either trust His actions or not. And more than any person alive, God has personally experienced the evil and horror of being murdered. We also know His desire is that ALL would embrace and love Him BACK!

I just saw Philip covered such.

And I agreed with him.

[neo-x]

Give me one scenario where one can kill an infant, justly?

God gives life. God takes life.
Such life include infants.
Just or unjust in each case?

Not to mention grass, flowers, plants, trees,
insects, birds, amphibians, reptiles, mammals,
humans, infants, children, women, men --
good and evil, innocent and guilty alike.

Its actually pretty easy for me to agree. I mean God killed David and Bathsheba's first born. He killed the Firstborn of Egypt, he took away Job's children or let them being killed, he tried to kill Moses' child, drowning evil people in flood and raining fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, these incidents I can understand. God giving life and taking it away, sure. But when people start killing other people because God told them so, that is when I seriously question things.

[Kurieuo]

Two sticky issues that I see are,

1) God using Israel as an instrument in dispense justice or consequences.
Is there something clearly wrong with this? It feels awkward, because is has "God excuse" stigma attached? (for example, we'll readily dismiss ISIS who believe they're doing God's work beheading children, men and women... so should we accept Israel's story)

2) God meting out consequences on children (e.g., to use David's son as an example).

[Philip]

Kurieuo: Two sticky issues that I see are,

1) God using Israel as an instrument in dispense justice or consequences.
Is there something clearly wrong with this? It feels awkward, because is has "God excuse" stigma attached?

There is no need for an "excuse" - this is a matter of God instructing something He expects to be carried out. Yes, it might feel awkward, even horrible. Again, do we trust God or not?

(for example, we'll readily dismiss ISIS who believe they're doing God's work beheading children, men and women... so should we accept Israel's story)

K, your question reveals that you doubt God ordered this, that the Scriptural account isn't actually true. While this may be "Israel's STORY," the account, more importantly, springs from God's very own prophets.

God can order His people do as however He pleases - so, this cannot be sin! But if a MAN ordered such, it WOULD be sin. Are you seriously going to compare the evils of a modern heathen nation to that of Holy God punishing an ancient, equally evil, nation?

2) God meting out consequences on children (e.g., to use David's son as an example).

But, for the children and infants, what would have been the ULTIMATE consequence? A split second of a sword strike, with second number two beginning a joyous eternity with the Lord. Who wouldn't trade the first for the second, knowing the results? Seriously, it would be an almost certain terrible life lived amongst a violent, evil, war-like people, absorbing Godless, pagan religion, followed by an eternity apart from God. THAT ultimate consequence is very likely exactly how God views the ultimate consequence. But we, understandably, are obsessed with the immediate time preceding and including that very second of the sword strike.

[PaulSacramento]

Give me one scenario where one can kill an infant, justly?

justly
[juhst-lee]

adverb
1.
in a just manner; honestly; fairly:
Deal justly with the prisoners.
2.
in conformity to fact or rule; accurately.
3.
deservedly; as deserved.

Definitions aside:

A just killing is one in which a higher good is served ( or at least that can be viewed as ONE way to understand it).
And IF killing an infant saves lives then, yes, one CAN be justified in doing so.
Would I be able to?
No, probably not.

As for God:
This is one of those issues that isn't really an issue because we are not really answering the question UNLESS we understand what the question means and that is:

IF there is such a thing as GOD and that GOD is indeed the creator of ALL, then what we know about HIM means that death as WE KNOW it does NOT exist, in other words, death is nothing more than a stage of existence and one that actually leads to a far better existence post-resurrection.

So, to ask if God can justly kill an infant is really asking if God can justly change an infant from its moral state to a state of (eventually) immortality.

[Kurieuo]

Kurieuo: Two sticky issues that I see are,

1) God using Israel as an instrument in dispense justice or consequences.
Is there something clearly wrong with this? It feels awkward, because is has "God excuse" stigma attached?

There is no need for an "excuse" - this is a matter of God instructing something He expects to be carried out. Yes, it might feel awkward, even horrible. Again, do we trust God or not?

I have in mind a debate setting, in from on an audience where the Atheist is hammering a point like this.
Take the approach, "do we trust God or not" and you'll lose every time in front of an audience

Our response needs to be more thoughtful and tactful, rather than playing a card like do we trust God.
Rather than play into their hands... because the next push back will be an ISIS response like follows,

(for example, we'll readily dismiss ISIS who believe they're doing God's work beheading children, men and women... so should we accept Israel's story)

K, your question reveals that you doubt God ordered this, that the Scriptural account isn't actually true. While this may be "Israel's STORY," the account, more importantly, springs from God's very own prophets.

God can order His people do as however He pleases - so, this cannot be sin! But if a MAN ordered such, it WOULD be sin. Are you seriously going to compare the evils of a modern heathen nation to that of Holy God punishing an ancient, equally evil, nation?

The reason for my questions, is to provide a response that could assume God, but doesn't need "God said" to justify.
A response that even a non-Christian could perhaps understand, in order to justify what neo-x introduced which was the slaughter of infants.

You know, if God's implanted his moral standard into us, then we can tell right from wrong.
Let's accept that as a given, because our understanding of right and wrong had to come from somewhere.

Now lets place ourselves in the shoes of someone who believes God exists but doesn't know what to believe.

They attend a debate between a Christian and Atheist.
The Atheist points out these OT example of God telling Israel not to spare anyone, including the children and babies.
They use their typical line like, "Would a just and love God order the wholesale slaughter of infants?"
The lay person in the audience this, "Oh my gosh... that is so wrong! Surely if God is good, it can't be that!"

And then the Christian response is... "God is the objective standard so what he says is good and goes."
I am sorry. While I can see how such is logical. This, isn't going to float their boat. It hardly floats even mine.
In essence the Christian bows out at that point and has lost to the Atheist.

I've seen many Christians caught out in public discussion/debates on this question.
And the audience laughs and applauds the Atheist. THAT is my concern.

So, surely there is a better push back if we have truth?
One that a non-Christian who does intuitively perceive right and wrong can perhaps understand?
And then, once it is responded to, it needs to be made succinct enough to state in a minute.

2) God meting out consequences on children (e.g., to use David's son as an example).

But, for the children and infants, what would have been the ULTIMATE consequence? A split second of a sword strike, with second number two beginning a joyous eternity with the Lord. Who wouldn't trade the first for the second, knowing the results? Seriously, it would be an almost certain terrible life lived amongst a violent, evil, war-like people, absorbing Godless, pagan religion, followed by an eternity apart from God. THAT ultimate consequence is very likely exactly how God views the ultimate consequence. But we, understandably, are obsessed with the immediate time preceding and including that very second of the sword strike.

Fine, so then why can't they live their lives first?

Besides the echo in my mind of Israel measuring out the consequences and driving spears and knifes into crying babies,
the infants are actually innocent. They didn't individually do anything wrong.
So why kill them? Why are the infants being punished?

Sure, God might take them to himself, but then he might not...
ISIS could use the same refrain if they like, and that might make some of the push-back, but I personally feel more is needed.

And if human life is inherently valuable then it still isn't good that innocents be killed regardless of what happens after.
So what kind of good God would carry out punishment, either directly or indirectly via human hands, on infants?

I think neo-x's original question is actually rather potent.
And I don't blame neo-x for raising it, but it needs a good response.
Especially because your New Atheists love pushing such to get points and help blind their audiences.