Source
r/DebateAChristian•
[deleted]

How do pro-life Christians rationalize baby killing behaviors in the OT?

Hosea 9:11-16 Hosea prays for God’s intervention. “Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer. Give them, 0 Lord: what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. . .Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.”

1 Samuel 15:3

3 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.’”

The list goes on.

I've heard the Binding of Isaac story rationalized to be ok because God would have never allowed Isaac to be harmed, yet these other stories seem to show God killing babies/pregnant women himself, or commanding the righteous to do it to the enemies of Israel / morality.

ps I'm not here to troll or cause some huge argument so I probably won't be replying to anyone, but I'd love to see your responses :). I know the pro-life movement is very strong in many Christian circles.

PSS thanks , the replies are great

Posted Jul 2, 2014, 6:47 AM UTC · edited

1291
bondbirdAtheist, Anti-theist•

She's sitting late at night, at her loom, working in the light of the oil lamp. She is the least person in the household, a slave to the Egyptian lady of the house, bound and sworn to do what her master tells her.

She owns nothing, not even the bed that she sleeps on. She is young, works hard, does what she has been taught is right. She has just one blessing in her life, a new born son. He is her delight with his quick smile and bright eyes. His laugh fills her heart with joy and makes her otherwise bleak existence endurable.

She knows her child was born a slave and will die a slave, that is the simple facts of her life. But she still dreams that he will do some much better than she. Maybe he will grow up to become a foreman that directs the construction of the pyramids of the Pharaoh or maybe he will be like the old slave in the market that makes beer so wonderful they say the Pharaoh's household comes to him only. As she dreams she sees the man he will become and she is filled with love and pride.

She knows nothing about the Jews that are rising up against the Pharaoh, nor has she ever heard anything about the God in which they belief. Like all those of her kind, she has been raised to believe in the Gods of her father and of her owner's house. She has seen the Pharaoh as he and his household traveled through the market place, but she knows nothing about politics or war or uprisings.

The air around her chances, its charged just as if lightening had struck. A terrible, glorious angel appears, hoovering over the reed cradle at her feet. A spark of light catches the edge of his sword as he plunges it into the heart of her babe. She screams a scream of anguish, dread, and horror so heart-wrenching that we still hear it today through the Old Testament.

Exodus 11:

4 So Moses said, “This is what the Lord says: ‘About midnight I will go throughout Egypt. 5 Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn son of the female slave, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well. 6 There will be loud wailing throughout Egypt—worse than there has ever been or ever will be again.

God does not hold any life as sacred, He only holds your worship of Him as having any value.

20
SsurebreCAgnostic Atheist•

You should write more!

8
peppazAnti-theist, ex-Catholic•

God does not hold any life as sacred, He only holds your worship of Him as having any value

This is why I am not religious, and even if God did exist, would not worship him to appease his vanity.

5
tfmaherAtheist, Ex-Catholic•

But he loves you!

4
CheeseEatingBulldog•

And he needs money!

1
georgejones31Agnostic Theist•

Wow. That was powerful.

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
Luc-Pronounced_LukeDeist•

Please stop replying as if it's your comment, days after the comment was posted. It's weird.

Also why are you shadowbanned?

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
masok88•

Moses said, “Thus says the Lord: About midnight I will go out through Egypt. 5 Every firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sits on his throne to the firstborn of the female slave who is behind the handmill, and all the firstborn of the livestock. 6 Then there will be a loud cry throughout the whole land of Egypt, such as has never been or will ever be again. 7 But not a dog shall growl at any of the Israelites—not at people, not at animals—so that you may know that the Lord makes a distinction between Egypt and Israel. 8 Then all these officials of yours shall come down to me, and bow low to me, saying, ‘Leave us, you and all the people who follow you.’ After that I will leave.” And in hot anger he left Pharaoh.

Pharaoh had a heads up this is also considering the hebrew concept of an eye for an eye or the punishment shall not exceed the crime - given that Egyptians killed all the hebrew boys born during the time of the birth of Moses.

The narrative could supplant an egyptian with a hebrew women and an Egyptian soldier instead of an angel and it wouldn't be any less tragic apart from the fact that the hebrew boy is killed because the egyptians were worried immigrants were going to take over the country. It was population control. This is after trying to reduce the number of Jews by enforced slave labour. You can't feign ignorance when the Government suddenly decides to just kill all the male babies born when the slavery isn't working out.

So out of all the 10 plagues it was the last and most terrible that was even then less than what Pharaoh wrought on the Hebrew populace on a whim. The ruler and head of the country who considered himself a God had 10 opportunities to avoid such a thing from happening and even when it did it was only half as tragic as what Pharaoh had inflicted on the Jews (if you want to be pedantic in the translation it was only the literal firstborns who are males according to hebrew and greek Septuagint translations eliminating all males who had firstborn sisters, leaving 25% of the firstborns in the literal sense and male, not legal firstborns which would be the males).

-8
SkololoAnti-theist•

Pharaoh had a heads up this is also considering the hebrew concept of an eye for an eye or the punishment shall not exceed the crime - given that Egyptians killed all the hebrew boys born during the time of the birth of Moses.

That's the best your god of love and forgiveness can do? Repay mass murder of innocent children with an equal and opposite mass murder of innocent children?

8
bondbirdAtheist, Anti-theist•

You justified glorifying your God for murdering an innocent baby of an innocent woman. Praise the Name of the Lord, Our God, in All His Glory.

5
Qinella•

Pharaoh had a heads up

The story was about a slave woman, not a pharaoh.

3
masok88•

My response isn't as detailed as I like as I'm on mobile, I'll write a fuller followup to any questions you have. Just as a caveat, whilst I don't associate with the traditional imagery of a pro-lifer, I do think abortion is infanticide and morally wrong. I'm also not american and I think the discussion is framed slightly different outside the US.

With the first verse the explanation for me is in v16 that is Ephraim as a tribe have forsaken God (who in the OT narrative Israel/Abraham promised to follow and so God makes a covenant with them to protect them). Here we find Ephraim judged for going over to pagan Gods, Baal and Asherah (who incidently practiced child sacrifice). As a result God is cutting them out of Israel. He ends that part of Israels lineage.

With Samuel the Amalekites I think were people who had attacked and harassed Israel in the Exodus. Ambushing them and killing a good number - I think to put it blunty its revenge for their treatment (you can read how they ask the immigrant population to leave the Amalekite lands before they attack). Considering Israel is meant to be Gods instrument on earth its seen as more than just tribal warfare but an attack on both the people of God and God himself.

As said this is written on my phone so forgive the language, I haven't quote been able to flesh out my response quite so well as I like but I didn't want to pass this up. I hope this helps. I think the corollary between an individuals choice to terminate a child and the examples given isn't perhaps the best. You could also look at Gods response to the child sacrifices of Molech, Baal and Asherah - again also from an explicitly Christian stance consider Jesus's words on the treatment of kids and the early churches prohibition against all abortions.

Thank you for your time.

3
BlunderLikeARicochet•

I think to put it blunty its revenge for their treatment

Revenge against infants?

15
masok88•

Revenge against infants?

Against the nation.

-7
BlunderLikeARicochet•

Why would a moral being hold an infant responsible for crimes committed by the nation in which it lives?

12
masok88•

How do you define morality?

-10
BasilidesIgnostic•

And the Christian god specifically told his followers to kill all of the infants and children why?

6
masok88•

I nearly wrote this out in the last response but figured it wouldn't need explaining as anyone willing to throw out such questions would at least be willing to try and research the context.

In short Amalekites multiple times throughout the OT had attacked and raided Israel both raiding them in the exodus killing the weak at the back of the Israeli caravan and later aligning with other tribal groups to destroy the crops and livestock of Israel once they had settled. Since the first attack on the Israelite caravan in the wilderness it was sworn that Israel would inherit the lands of the Amalekites - their distant relatives through Jacob and his brother Esau who gave up his inheritence (some people translate the Amalekites as the Wrung Off People perhaps referring to their lost inheritence).

This wasn't the norm and such behaviour wasn't found amongst Israelites up until this point. A combination of having just come out of intergenerational slavery, the hardness of having survived in the wilderness for so long, the loss of their own loved ones and belongings at the hands of these people, the promise of their own land from God and the open rebellion of these people in the eyes of the Israelites against their creator by treating the Israelites in these ways were all perhaps amongst the contributing factors that lead up to this. It was extreme given that the Israelites had lost crops and belongings to the Amalekites yet God told to leave nothing behind - not even to take from the Amalekites belongings what would restore them - they were to be blotted out from history as a nation, this is stated and appears several times in the aftermath of attacks by the Amalekites against Israel.

You could of also searched for the context of Israel's encounters with the descendents of Amalek yourself.

-1
Mr___F•

Here we find Ephraim judged for going over to pagan Gods...As a result God is cutting them out of Israel. He ends that part of Israels lineage.

I find this terrifying too. The fact that they stopped believing in God means that the Israelites have the right to kill them all? I stopped believing in God; does that give Christians the right to murder me? I know of course you answer is no, but that's my point. The OT isn't exactly a model for morality or behavior in the modern world. Doesn't that sort of undermine the pro-life, anti-gay, etc arguments that (I think) come from the OT?

7
masok88•

Personally I don't take any of my views on those subjects ultimately from the OT - I don't know anyone who does. In context you mention however Ephraim adopted child sacrifice and temple prostitution - things God had stated are things abhorrent to him. If you meet a Christian who thinks they should kill you for not believing in God I'm sorry. Likewise if you think we get our morality from the OT I would say the OT is more than what its made out to be in this thread but ultimately the NT is what makes Christians different from Jews in the first place - anyone who thinks we're defined by what people read in the OT I would entreat to study the NT for themselves.

2
SsurebreCAgnostic Atheist•

I'd like to know, once again, how something that kills babies is moral.

5
masok88•

Are we talking about abortion? What measure of morality are we talking about?

-2
SsurebreCAgnostic Atheist•

I thought we were talking about God killing lots and lots of people including babies. Of all the examples, let's just pick Noah's flood.

4
masok88•

It states the rationale right in the Bible you either accept it or deny it.

If you want to adopt an alternative moral system based on and impose judgement on it go ahead but that was the context of the question. Your previous statement was unqualified and I still had to answer it without a properly defined scope (given by asking you felt the bible was insufficient to explain itself clearly). Unless you were asking a question without actually really interested in the answer and just wanted to state your objection to Jewish and Christian views?

-1
BasilidesIgnostic•

Considering Israel is meant to be Gods instrument on earth its seen as more than just tribal warfare but an attack on both the people of God and God himself.

Therefore, since Christianity is meant to be God's instrument on earth, attacks on a Christian nation are attacks on both the people of God and God himself. And this justifies genocide against any entity that would attack a Christian nation.

1
masok88•

ha - ok sure

If you can point to any where in the scriptures that defines so called 'christian nation' or in fact a christian mandate for warfare against people who oppress them in the NT then yes.

Otherwise? No. Contrary to whatever fruity and imaginative thinking you might constitutes acceptance. Go ahead - I'd be surprised if you could find a single Apostolic Father of the early church who condoned such an idea.

1
BasilidesIgnostic•

If you can point to any where in the scriptures that defines so called 'christian nation'

Identifying a nation as "Christian" is entirely up to you Holy Ghost-guided Christians.

Go ahead - I'd be surprised if you could find a single Apostolic Father of the early church who condoned such an idea.

Your god condones such an idea. In fact he has a history of commanding the carrying out of such an idea. Your god has a history of instructing his followers to engage in ruthless campaigns of genocide against unbelievers. There is every reason to believe he is capable of doing it again.

1
masok88•

Identifying a nation as "Christian" is entirely up to you Holy Ghost-guided Christians.

And the Holy Ghost tells us and is confirmed in the writings of NT that the very idea of a 'Christian' nation is fallacious.

Your god condones such an idea. In fact he has a history of commanding the carrying out of such an idea. Your god has a history of instructing his followers to engage in ruthless campaigns of genocide against unbelievers. There is every reason to believe he is capable of doing it again.

We could almost joke together about your spiritual insight being above that of scripture. If your right I guess even Jesus got it wrong. As did Paul and every single leader of the early church (they were nothing if not consistent on this point!).

A soldier of the civil authority must be taught not to kill men and to refuse to do so if he is commanded, and to refuse to take an oath. If he is unwilling to comply, he must be rejected for baptism. A military commander or civic magistrate must resign or be rejected. If a believer seeks to become a soldier, he must be rejected, for he has despised God.

I'll be honest I'm not sure what your comment has to do with the original question which at least implied some awareness of the differences between the OT and the NT as you seem to ignore the vast volume of pages in-between the events in question and today. If my theology stops its formation at 1 Samuel then we can talk about conflict and violence in the tone your espousing - but it doesn't. Whilst I appreciate you using me as a cheat sheet for Christian theology jumping to the conclusions you do without a basic grasp of such things isn't good for anyone.

0
jofwu•

This does not by any means answer your question fully... But I would like to point out that you can't compare God's actions/decisions with man's.

Let's say there is a man who commits a grievous crime. If a judge condemns this man, then his execution is legal and proper. But if an angry mob lynches the man before his trial they would all be guilty of murder.

The only difference between the two situations is the authority of the one who condemns.

1
SsurebreCAgnostic Atheist•

So might makes right?

5
jofwu•

Might and authority are not the same thing.

0
Bliss86Atheist, Secular Humanist•

Who or what gives authority to God? We accept our governments authority to punish people living under its authority if they've done something illegal. If I don't accept that, I can go somewhere else. Can I do the same with God?

3
jofwu•

God is a monarch, and there's not really anywhere else to go. He wasn't given authority; he simply has it. I get that your not keen on this. :) I'm not interested in trying to convince you that you should be.

But whether it's a preferably situation or not, my point was merely that if God is in a position of authority then we cannot say things like, "He did this, therefore I can too."

-1
SsurebreCAgnostic Atheist•

I'd like your explanation on how they're different. For example, let's say the military of the US is gone. What authority does the US have, globally?

1
jofwu•

When I was a child my father was an authority over me. Not because of any power he may have had, but because of who he was. Certainly there were times when I respected his authority because of his power over me. But that's not where the authority came from.

On the other hand, if someone were to kidnap me I might be obedient because of their power over me... But that doesn't imply they are a legitimate authority.

The US has authority over it's own territory, in addition to whatever authority other countries give it. If the US invaded Canada that does not imply it has rightful authority over Canada. If Afghanistan gives the US authority to hunt down terrorists in their land, the sudden disappearance of the US military doesn't intrinsically mean we no longer have that authority. It just means we aren't actively exercising it.

It's worth pointing out that in a more democratic setting, authority is bestowed. So naturally power may be a determining factor of whether or not authority is given. If the US military disappeared, Afghanistan would probably revoke any authority it gave. But power is not in any way an inherent qualifier for authority. Stephen Hawking is an authority on cosmology, but he's not exactly mighty.

1
SkololoAnti-theist•

They are precisely the same thing.

1
Qinella•

The only difference between the two situations is the authority of the one who condemns.

Not necessarily. We have developed our concept of justice to include such things as a fair trial, presentation of sufficient evidence of guilt, etc. A lynch mob circumvents all of these things, effectively stripping the victim of rights and dignity, which is why people do not generally approve of lynch mobs.

It is special pleading to say you can't compare God's actions with humans'. If you are going to use words such as "just" and "moral," well those words have meanings. The meanings do not suddenly do a 180 when applied to a different entity. Killing a baby is morally wrong. It does not become morally right if God does it or orders it.

3
LemonBombAtheist, Ex-Christian•

Just to clarify your point a little bit, are you saying that because God has authority (that could be a whole other conversation right there), any action he might take can always be considered moral just because he is God?

1
jofwu•

No. His authority does not make his decisions/actions justified, just as a human judge isn't justified merely because he has authority. My point was that I don't think we can say, "God did this, therefore I can too."

If we have a problem with God's justice then the problem lies in our moral understanding. I don't think it's a stretch to say that we aren't built with perfect moral compasses, so this doesn't feel like a surprise to me.

If God ordered the death of infants than I figure he had a pretty darn good reason to do so.

1
TheWhiteNoise1•

So there are reasons in which killing babies can be okay?

2
processuser•

This seems to be the assumption that needs to be challenged in order to evaluate such issues.

1
harrypayne•

But what if the judge condemns the man and all his children and his family and his entire village to death?

1
[deleted]•

"Do as I say, not as I do."

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
MoreorJehovah's Witness•

Ex 21:22-23 shows the value God places on the unborn, this was of course his standard for the nation of Israel who were in a covenant relationship with God and that applied to even the unborn Israelite child.

God also commanded at ex 20:13 you must not murder.

Of course it is also clear that God did not view non worshipers who attacked his people in the same light, as to why well the reason must not conflict with Gods perfect standards even if we do not understand.

The bible tells us that Gods quality scan be seen by the things he has made rom 1:20 and from creation we can see that God is very wise, for example there is over 100 chemical elements, and there atomic structure shows a intricate mathematical interrelationship and the periodic table points to obvious design.

John 3:16 tells us of Gods great love for mankind and the accounts in the Old Testament no doubt only appear to conflict with a God of love.

We really don't know what the final outcome will be for the people who were killed in those battles but we do know that God has promised to bring back to life almost everyone who dies john 5:28-29 the principal at Romans 6:7 permits this future hope and acts 24:15 and rev 20:13-14 also talk about this future hope for the dead.

If you think about it if satan the devil and his demons and Adam and Eve had not rebelled no one would have been removed from the protection that God gives his loyal servants and no one had to die! God will soon act to bring a end of this rebellion and mans great enemy death . 1thess 4:13

1
[deleted]•

Sure sure, but can you really justify that the infants and non-mob crowd of Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty because their 'neighbors' were rude to Lot?

I don't think I'll ever accept "God did it and ours is not to reason why" as a good answer here.

1
MoreorJehovah's Witness•

Are we really so much better than God, are you? Thousands of baby's are killed in car accidents and yet we take that risk with our own children every day because of accepting that risk as a part of modern life. Our goal is not to kill children in car accidents of course and that ultimately is not Gods goal either, that much I know for sure.

As to Sodom and Gomorra the account is clear that those city's were a scourge in the area to all ,not just lot, and even Lot although upset with the things they were doing had no problem with them being rude with him, it was a lot more than being rude that brought the end for them. Abraham even asked God if he would spare the city if there were any good people in it and God told Abraham that he would spare the city, the problem was that there was no good people left in those cities!

As to questioning Gods motives even the account you chose indicates that God is fine with that, but in the end Abraham knew that God would not do anything wrong.

1
georgejones31Agnostic Theist•

We lack the ability that God has. The God of the Bible is a narcissistic prick who will genocide people, bash infants against rocks, damn billions to hell so that a handful of people will freely choose him.

1