Thread: Why would a “just” god order the slaughter of children?

There are a number of instances in the Old Testament where god explicitly orders his followers to massacre large groups of people, including women and children. Most people today – including Christians – would agree that it’s never acceptable under and circumstances to deliberately slaughter innocent people, especially young children. And yet, God tells his followers to do it. What are we to conclude from this? Is any being who orders you to kill innocent children worthy of your worship and devotion?

Oh, come now. There seem to be plenty of Christians here. Surely they've given some thought to this...

Funny, if I swat a mosquito I never think about the life I destroyed, or whether it was young or old. I'm just thrilled to have rid myself of a pest. I generally feel good about it for a moment then move on. On an evolutionary scale I'm superior I think, so crushing a bug is nothing more than recirculating a few atoms. I'm not going to be emotionally attached or share anything in common with my victim.

I'm not advocating murder but I suppose if a god carries out this act then its ok. Who's going to tell him/her/it not to? Possibly, we(humans) are nothing more than some kind of disposable energy or matter to a superior being.

Just so you know, I haven't a religious bone in my body and I really couldn't care less about gods and the baggage that goes with them.

My first thought was that if nothing else this example should poke some holes in the absolutist moral positions of many Christians. But the more I thought about it, the more it seems that it is non-Christian liberals who in my experience had the more absolutist moral postions than the traditional Christians.

Murder has often been considered the ultimate sin, but their is no real Biblical justification for this. I am not so sure that some forms of abuse are not worse than murder. Certainly many Christians have found circumstances where they feel that killing is appropriate or justified, such as in war or the execution of convicted criminals. But it does make me wonder about the comparison of killing with other sins and why it is that one can be circustantially justified but not others.

In the past, the civilians of the losing side in a war were considered spoils, for whatever use in rape or slavery that the victors chose. Only fairly recently has this begun to change in behavior of the armed forces of democratic nations, whose soldiers are now tried and convicted of a crime when these abuses occur.

The reason for the command to slaughter was pretty obvious in the context of the story as it was told. It was apparently to maintain the cultural purity of the Jewish people. When the Jews so ordered disobeyed this command of God and kept the conquered women and children, then idol worship and pagan practices sprang up among the Jewish people within a few generations. The real question is why the cultural purity of the Jewish people was so important that the slaughter of women and children would be justified. The reason is apparently the role which the Jewish people were to play in God's salvation of all mankind. It may not have been the slaughter itself that was required but simply the lesson of the consequences of disobedience. Consider the story of Abraham ordered to kill his only son, who was at the last moment prevented by God from carrying out the order.

I have little doubt however that these stories have been used by Christians in the Crusades and in the European conquest of the Americas for similar types of slaughter. And it is in light of these events that these stories in the Bible represent a far more troubling question for Christianity than the events of the stories in the Bible themselves.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Funny, if I swat a mosquito I never think about the life I destroyed, or whether it was young or old. I'm just thrilled to have rid myself of a pest. I generally feel good about it for a moment then move on. On an evolutionary scale I'm superior I think, so crushing a bug is nothing more than recirculating a few atoms. I'm not going to be emotionally attached or share anything in common with my victim.

We didn't specially create mosquitos in our own image, and then profess unconditional love for them. The relationship between humans and mosquitos is in no way analagous to that between God and humans. If you are talking about a God other than the Christian God, that's one thing, but it's not the topic of this thread.

Originally Posted by Neutrino

We didn't specially create mosquitos in our own image, and then profess unconditional love for them. The relationship between humans and mosquitos is in no way analagous to that between God and humans. If you are talking about a God other than the Christian God, that's one thing, but it's not the topic of this thread.

There was no mention of love in your opening statement. Am I to infer that love, as you have inferred God is not 'just'. I gave you an answer. We are God's mosquitoes, to be crushed at his whim. So my first post is saying that god isn't just, I didn't think I would need to spell it out.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

On an evolutionary scale I'm superior I think, so crushing a bug is nothing more than recirculating a few atoms.

There is no evolutionary scale. If there were the chances are the mosquito would outpoint you (and the rest of us).

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

There was no mention of love in your opening statement. Am I to infer that love, as you have inferred God is not 'just'. I gave you an answer. We are God's mosquitoes, to be crushed at his whim. So my first post is saying that god isn't just, I didn't think I would need to spell it out.

But you brought up the Christian God.
John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

The Christian God is supposed to love us, right? Despite some of the OT depictions.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Murder has often been considered the ultimate sin, but their is no real Biblical justification for this. I am not so sure that some forms of abuse are not worse than murder. Certainly many Christians have found circumstances where they feel that killing is appropriate or justified, such as in war or the execution of convicted criminals. But it does make me wonder about the comparison of killing with other sins and why it is that one can be circustantially justified but not others.

This would make something of an odd counter-argument, considering how so many christians like to say that atheism degrades the value of human life.

Originally Posted by Neutrino

But you brought up the Christian God.

Where???? I think you have mistaken me for someone else. All gods are the same to me. I have no preference nor do I care.

Originally Posted by "Ophiolite

There is no evolutionary scale. If there were the chances are the mosquito would outpoint you (and the rest of us).

Those little vampirical pests have been sampling the blood cocktail from many a fine beast for ages. Between them and cockroaches its a battle for evolution's number one spot. As long as I can splatter them I'll feel superior at least in strength. My mother's maiden name in Ukrainian means mosquito so I feel I have an affinity with the little buggers.

You've made me think. I know they can carry deadly diseases and pass them on. That should help my analogy. Gods slaughter little kids because they carry that deadly disease called sin by some religions.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

There is no evolutionary scale. If there were the chances are the mosquito would outpoint you (and the rest of us).

This is true only when comparing species. Along with the comon cold, mosquitos, flies and roaches are are marvelously resilient and adaptive. But as individuals there is hardly any comparison with a human being whose sensitivity and awareness (at least potential) of the world around him and adaptablity (some more than others) far outstrip any of these simpler organisms.

Life at the species level is very very primitive, in which you might see a response to the environment only over the course of tens of thousands if not millions of years. The individuals are more alive by a factor of billions. At least they are more intensely alive even if they are not so long lived.

But where human beings really outstrip all other organisms is in the emerging life of the community. Even though presidents like Bush make us doubt whether human community has any capacity for life let alone intellegence, the potential there is way beyond any other living organism on the planet. In the human comunity we may have both intensity of life and longevity (if you believe that miracles can happen).

Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Murder has often been considered the ultimate sin, but their is no real Biblical justification for this. I am not so sure that some forms of abuse are not worse than murder. Certainly many Christians have found circumstances where they feel that killing is appropriate or justified, such as in war or the execution of convicted criminals. But it does make me wonder about the comparison of killing with other sins and why it is that one can be circustantially justified but not others.

This would make something of an odd counter-argument, considering how so many christians like to say that atheism degrades the value of human life.

Holy Cow! An arguement? No you said "cou-whatever-argument" me? Heaven forbid. I can't stand the art of rhetoric it takes to make those things, "arguments" did you call them?

NO. Honest observations is what I go for. Whether it helps the case of Christians or not. If I am going to win anyone over to Christianity I want them to come in with eyes open, knowing full well what they are letting themselves in for. As you see I make pretty lousy salesman, or preacher for that matter.

Considering who voted for President Bush I hardly think that the opinion that Christians may have, about what degrades human life, is very reliable. Serial killers, suicide, sexual predators, terrorism, family abuse, genocide, any people who prey on others, maybe even reality shows on television, oh and Bush of course, these degrade human life. Without the atheists, there would be only the religious to talk to -- if there were only the Christians that would be a scary thought. But truth be told, if there were no real atheists around then they would probably be calling me an atheist.

P.S. The fact that I am Christian is one of the things that makes feel so comfortable making the severe criticisms I level at them. I have just as powerful praises for them as well, and I trust that real honesty is something they can or should be able to endure.

I have not previously weighed in on this question because I kinda wanted to see what way it would go.

While the way the question is phrased gives it a somewhat loaded question quality, the idea expressed is a legitimate question which even we Christians find difficult to deal with.

Like the questioner, we prefer to focus on the Godly qualities of mercy and loving kindness and forgiveness while sort of glossing over the qualities of justice, anger and jealousy.

Mostly, I have been pleased with the tolerant, somewhat understanding comments of the non religious.

The very first problem is that the questioner is looking at events which took place some 4,000 years ago and evaluating their morality through the eyes of 21st century A.D. Western Civilization eyes.

Second problem is one does not know exactly what the questioner is suggesting. Some options: 1. God is just but this action was unjust and therefore not really directed by God. 2. The action is unjust and since it was directed by God, He is equally unjust. 3. The action was a just action directed by a just God. 4. God does not exist, did not direct this action; it was merely the normal course of events in a savage world.

Mitchell has previously pointed out that one explanation which we Christians use to assuage our perplexity at this same question was the matter of ridding the area of pagan religions in an attempt to keep their religion and practices from infiltrating the Jewish religion and practices. I think Mitchell also alluded to the idea of punishment for the Canaanites’ 400 years of ungodly life styles. I can add nothing to those explanations and they don’t fully satisfy me either.

In view of the history of that region, it would seem it would have been a strategically logical tactic from a militaristic standpoint. Let us remember, there were a huge number of Israelites invading a rather small area and attempting to homestead it by deposing the former residents. Now if you think people enjoy being deposed from their land, just look at today’s Palestinians.

This very land has been overrun by foreigners numerous times since the Israelite first usurped it. First came the Assyrians, followed by the Babylonian-Mideans (now Iraq), followed by the Persians (now Iran) followed by Alexander, a Macedonian Greek (now part of the Balkans), eventually taken over by the Romans and then the Ottoman Empire and now back into the hands of the Israelites after hundreds of years of the former Canaanites living there again. And a lot of other wars in between.

It is a way of life which has been practiced for over 4,000 years in that part of the world. The remnants of all of these civilizations (save the Romans) are still busy in the region extracting revenge on former adversaries.

This makes absolutely no sense to we who are products of 20th Western Civilization. Whether we like it or not, the basic moral and political structure of Western Civilization has had no greater influence than that of Christianity.

But what I think makes even less sense to me is that products of Western Civilization can be so concerned over religiously motivated genocide some 4,000 years ago while being totally oblivious to the religiously motivated genocide and terrorism which is taking place this very moment in numerous places in the world.

It bothers me that people who can be so upset over a war of words about something so trivial as evolution cannot be equally upset by a movement that does not understand the freedom of expression or religious tolerance which allows us to have these silly discussions. How many Danish flags would Christians burn because of political cartoons about Jesus? How many embassies would be threatened by Jewish people as a result of political cartoons about the God of Israel?

Those who may see Christianity and the God of Israel as being threats to their way of life and thinking are looking in the wrong place. They do not say the things about Allah and Mohammed and the Koran that they say about God and Jesus and the Bible. Why is that?

Do they really think that the religion which has been the major influence on Western Civilization is now bent on destroying it?

Why would a “just” God order genecide? Probably for a better reason than an “unjust” God would.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

I have not previously weighed in on this question because I kinda wanted to see what way it would go.

While the way the question is phrased gives it a somewhat loaded question quality, the idea expressed is a legitimate question which even we Christians find difficult to deal with.

In a way this was the most interesting thing you said because I felt exactly the same way. I was only able to answer at all by taking an objective stand. Speaking for Christianity on this topic, puts one at such a disadvantage and completely on the defensive.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

The very first problem is that the questioner is looking at events which took place some 4,000 years ago and evaluating their morality through the eyes of 21st century A.D. Western Civilization eyes.

Yes this is an even stronger point than maybe even you realize, and was why I mentioned the prevailing attitudes of the times about spoils of war. Consider the issue of slavery, for example, and how views about this have changed in recent history. The Bible is far more tolerant of slavery than any Christian would be today, though it does speak for a more humane practice of slavery. This shows how the changing moral landscape is an unavoidable issue, which makes the questions concerning things like abortion, homosexuality, and sexuality in general, more difficult and far from obvious.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

Second problem is one does not know exactly what the questioner is suggesting. Some options: 1. God is just but this action was unjust and therefore not really directed by God. 2. The action is unjust and since it was directed by God, He is equally unjust. 3. The action was a just action directed by a just God. 4. God does not exist, did not direct this action; it was merely the normal course of events in a savage world.

I think his position was simply of pointing out what he saw as an inconsistency and seeing how the Christians would respond. I would guess that his solution is simply that Christianity make no sense and is nothing more than superstitious nonsense. In other word, number 4. But I should wait and see if he speaks for himself.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

It bothers me that people who can be so upset over a war of words about something so trivial as evolution cannot be equally upset by a movement that does not understand the freedom of expression or religious tolerance which allows us to have these silly discussions. How many Danish flags would Christians burn because of political cartoons about Jesus? How many embassies would be threatened by Jewish people as a result of political cartoons about the God of Israel?

Forgive me for a little harsh criticism. I hope you can take it well from a fellow Christian. After all, it is not about us and them, really, but about the universal flaws of human nature in the harsh light of the relentless and unforgiving truth.

I think that taking the role of poor persecuted Christian may not be an effective strategy in this case. And trying to deflect the attack onto another religion is even worse. Do you really want to reply to this criticism by simply saying that at least we are better than those other guys.

The irony is that the essense of Islam is about bringing a greater unity in mankind by recognizing a few universal truths, namely that God is one, and therefore so should mankind be one in service to him. Islam has from the beginning been very tolerant of Judaism and Christianity recognizing our common heritage and calling us religions of the book. But the members of Islam have just as great a difficulty in living up to the ideals of their religion as we have in living up to the ideals of our own. And the terrorism we are seeing is an example of this. We have the complacent advantage of wealth and power in the world, and we must therefore bear the burden of greater forgiveness and self control, even though it is admittedly very fustrating and seems quite unfair.

This will not satisfy the questioners but here is one explanation from a site at http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/notkill.html

The article there discusses the issue at length including as follows:

What about when God ordered Joshua and his people to kill every man, woman and child in Canaan? What crime could be so great that entire populations of cities were designated for destruction? God told Moses that the nations that the Hebrew were replacing were wicked. How "wicked" were these people? The text tells us that they were burning their own sons and daughters in sacrifices to their gods. So we see that these people were not really innocent. For these reasons (and others), God ordered the destruction of the peoples whom the Israelites dispossessed.

What about the children and other "innocents" Surely God could have spared the children! People tend to assume that children are innocent, even if their parents are doing bad things. The assumption is unfounded. For example, Palestinian Muslim children are officially taught in grammar school to hate their Jewish neighbors. They are so well indoctrinated that some of them give up their lives in suicide bombings as children. Corruption literally does breed corruption, which is why God did not want the Hebrews tainted by the other corrupt cultures of the Middle East.

Tainted children???

'Any excuse will serve a tyrant'.....Aesop

Ethnic cleansing is ineffective unless the entire culture is wiped out. All the DNA must be eliminated of a particular phenotype.

But with regard to the "Canaanites," this was probably an example of the monotheistic jews eliminating the polytheistic ones, since archaeological evidence suggests that the Jewish people were Canaanite people. In all likelihood, the Canaanites suffered more from the same economic and societal collapses that were affecting other Near Eastern peoples of the time and the monotheistic cult emerged with a theme of religious renewal. The stories of great battles and "smiting" of the polytheistic tribes were, in all likelihood, embellishments and exagerations common to epigraphical accounts of the period.

In other words: campfire stories, told and retold before someone decided to write them down.

Actually, Abra(ha)m and Sarah were from Chaldea (now Iraq) and both Isaac and Jacob returned to Chaldea for wives. Some of Jacob's sons did take Canaanite women as wives and it was those families which emmigrated to Egypt. Thus most of the Israelites would have been half Chaldean and half Canaanite. But since Joseph took an Egyptian wife, some would have been part Egyptian.

Yes, some of the accounts are difficult to fully comprehend and are almost as difficult to believe as evolution.

What's so difficult to believe about evolution? Given the evidence it's not only easy to believe, but it's just about impossible to not believe.

Originally Posted by Neutrino

What's so difficult to believe about evolution? Given the evidence it's not only easy to believe, but it's just about impossible to not believe.

This is silly. It is possible to believe anything, and I mean anything. You just want to think that anyone who doesn't believe what you believe is a nut case. Some people beleive in UFO's, alien abductions and panspermia and others believe that they are God. Now a few of these may indeed be schizophrenic, but not all of them (especially when they form a community of like minded individuals). Now I don't feel that these beliefs agree so well with my experiences in life, but then other people have different experiences and even interpret the same experiences differently. And then again, I could be wrong and they could be right. Just because they are a minority doesn't mean they are wrong. Truth is not a democracy. Personally I think truth is much more complex than most people think and that not all of it is reducible to the black and white shades of truth and falsehood.

Oh but you want to say that your belief is reasonable while theirs is not! Wrong again. Logic only leads from assumptions to conclusion, so logic or reason is ultimately, for the most part (maybe even the whole part), only a tool for self-justification. Ultimately we just make choices. We choose to believe one thing rather than another and we choose our reasons for believing them at the same time.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Tainted children???

'Any excuse will serve a tyrant'.....Aesop

But children are not always innocent. Children do kill other children in some of the most horrific ways imaginable, like the boy who cut the head off a younger friend of his to stick it on a post in public in Japan. Maybe this could even be called innocent because innocent isn't neccessarily the opposite of evil.

And even when they are innocent it does not prevent them from being used by other people as tools for evil. This is something which many veterans from Vietnam were intimately made aware of. What about the children on the arline flights used in 9/11, should we not have shot those planes down if we had the chance? I would have without hesitation. For I personally feel that evil should be opposed at any cost. Of course we must be careful in judging what is evil, but sometimes it is obvious, and there is no need to hesitate.

Now I cannot say with any certainty, what happened 3600 years ago in Palestine and neither can anyone else, which makes it difficult for any of us to judge, don't you think?

Originally Posted by Neutrino

What's so difficult to believe about evolution? Given the evidence it's not only easy to believe, but it's just about impossible to not believe.

It is possible to believe anything, and I mean anything. You just want to think that anyone who doesn't believe what you believe is a nut case. Some people beleive in UFO's, alien abductions and panspermia and others believe that they are God.

I may have overstated the case a little, but we all know that evolution isn't just a belief that I drew out of a hat. There are reasons to accept it that can be demonstrated to any objective observer, unlike the beliefs that you mentioned above. It's a well established science with a substantial foundation of evidence, and it shouldn't be so easy to dismiss that. Whether some intentionally choose to ignore it or not, it's still there.

Oh but you want to say that your belief is reasonable while theirs is not!

Well, first of all I never really commented on their beliefs, other than their lack of "belief" in evolution. So, yes, I find that belief unreasonable.

Wrong again. Logic only leads from assumptions to conclusion, so logic or reason is ultimately, for the most part (maybe even the whole part), only a tool for self-justification.

Science and evolution are not just logic in a vacuum, it starts with real-world observation. Genetics, fossils, experiments, and so on. Again, as you know, the best (and imo, the only reasonable) explanation for the wealth of observation and data is evolution. An explanation in opposition to evolution has all the same data to explain, and none can - so, yeah, it seems unreasonable to reject it.

If rejecting evolution is in fact reasonable, what explanation do you suggest to replace it? Or if you don't have a replacement and feel that it's reasonable to believe that evolution fails on its own merits, what reasons are there for that belief?

Ultimately we just make choices. We choose to believe one thing rather than another and we choose our reasons for believing them at the same time.

Maybe, but all choices are not equally rational and reasonable.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

The very first problem is that the questioner is looking at events which took place some 4,000 years ago and evaluating their morality through the eyes of 21st century A.D. Western Civilization eyes.

I understand that it was common at the time for an invading army to completely wipe out or enslave the people they conquered. However, I think it is still somewhat difficult to explain why a loving god would order genocide. It does not appear god was merely tolerating the killing because it was a common practice during a brutal period in history; rather, he was explicitly commanding it. Indeed, there's a passage in the bible where the army commanders are scolded for being too merciful and allowing some of the innocent people to live. After being scolded, the commanders are ordered to go back and "finish the job." I don't recall the reference off the top of my head, but I can look it up if anyone wants it.

Also, I think most people would agree that it's always wrong to slaughter innocent children, regardless of the time period. Frankly, it surprises me that most christians can withstand such cognitive dissonance. Most christians seem to simultaneously believe that killing innocent children is wrong, that god is just and loving, and that god ordered his followers to kill innocent children. This really baffles me.

Mitchell has previously pointed out that one explanation which we Christians use to assuage our perplexity at this same question was the matter of ridding the area of pagan religions in an attempt to keep their religion and practices from infiltrating the Jewish religion and practices. I think Mitchell also alluded to the idea of punishment for the Canaanites’ 400 years of ungodly life styles. I can add nothing to those explanations and they don’t fully satisfy me either.

In view of the history of that region, it would seem it would have been a strategically logical tactic from a militaristic standpoint. Let us remember, there were a huge number of Israelites invading a rather small area and attempting to homestead it by deposing the former residents. Now if you think people enjoy being deposed from their land, just look at today’s Palestinians.

Well, I'm glad that you find it unsatisfying - no offense, but this explanation seems absurd on its face. God is loving and all-powerful, but he can't come up with something better than mass genocide to clear the "promised land" of the people unfortunate enough to already be living there?

Do they really think that the religion which has been the major influence on Western Civilization is now bent on destroying it?

This is a completely separate issue, but I think Christians like to over-state the importance of christianity on contemporary western society and morality. Many of the things about western civilization that we consider most important - like democracy, freedom, respect for people's rights, and the importance of individual achievement - can be traced back to either pre-christian Greek and Roman civilizations or to relatively modern secular philosophers, many of whom were deists, agnostics, and humanists. Indeed, it could be argued that the high point of christian influence in western society was actually the lowest point for many of the best aspects of contemporary western civilization.

Similarly, it's hard to argue that christianity is really responsible for modern western morality. Most of the things that western society considers "bad" today - like murder, stealing, lying, etc. - were considered to be bad by classical civilizations long before christianity came around, and indeed are commonly considered bad by virtually all civilizations everywhere, including non-christian civilizations. Most of the aspects of western morality that can be directly attributed to christianity are quirks, like the belief that homosexuality is bad or that people should only marry one person.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

What about when God ordered Joshua and his people to kill every man, woman and child in Canaan? What crime could be so great that entire populations of cities were designated for destruction? God told Moses that the nations that the Hebrew were replacing were wicked. How "wicked" were these people? The text tells us that they were burning their own sons and daughters in sacrifices to their gods. So we see that these people were not really innocent.

It's pretty common for christians to bring up how "wicked" the canaanites were when explaining why god ordered the Israelites to wipe them out. Whenever I hear that sort of explanation it always makes me wonder just how much worse than the israelites the canaanites could have been. By the bible's own account the Israelites were rampaging though the countryside slaughtering women and children, raping, enslaving, or massacring everyone in sight - on god's orders! It's especially ironic that people who want to use this argument always seem to bring up the fact that canaanites killed their own children. Let's see, the canaanites are bad because they kill children...so god orders the israelites to kill them all, including the children? What?

Actually, daytonturner did not pen that which is cited to him, but rather quoted the explanation as writen by someone else. By enuendo, I would assume that I sort of accept that explanation.

But, Scifor, you continue to evaluate these actions through 21st century morality. I do not see that particular God ordering ethnic cleansing in the 21st century. When He does, an objection might be sustainable.

I suspect people in the next millenium will find some of our practices barbaric and stupid. It was not that long ago when we condoned slavery.

(Edited because submit button accidentally hit too soon.)

we were given free will. adolf hitler's mind couldnt be changed by god. god did not order any slaughter. free will did.