Either the Bible is in a State of Egregious Error or God Seems to Dislike Babies and Small Children
Debate Rounds (3)
There are several instances of God killing babies and/or small children in the Bible. These stem from either His wanton disregard for human life when He is quite angry, or from a sense of furious rage and unjust retribution.
Furthermore, the Bible ascribes a sense of happiness to persons taking the lives of babies in the book of Psalms:
Psa 137:9 - " Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."
Here are some examples of God killing babies or young children:
Gen 7:23 - "And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark. "
This would of course include the babies of all people that were not on the Ark at the time of the flood...
Gen 19:24 - "Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;"
This would of course include the babies of all the people who were in the city... Remember too, that God only spared the just and righteous of the city (which apparently included Lot for some strange reason)...
1 Sam 15:2a, 3 - "Thus saith the LORD of hosts... Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and a$$."
God orders the "smiting" of the Amaleks including "infant and suckling." Because of course, the infants and sucklings are wicked individuals.
Num 31:17 - "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him."
As part of another God-ordered genocide, the male babies among the surviving Midians.
2 Kin 2:23-24 - "And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them."
God causes two she bears to eat 42 children because they made fun of Elijah. How moral.
I submit that these instances are evidence that God must dislike these small children. Why else would he commit the moral evil of killing innocent babies and at least semi-innocent young children. The only sensible conclusion is that either the Bible is lying about what happened, or God dislikes babies and small children.
There must be some compelling reason for killing innocent babies. I submit that this is because God dislikes them, as evidenced by his wanton disregard for their lives in the Bible.
Another point is: Why do you seem to place more value on the lives of babies and small children? That's another emotional connection. We are all sinners. Babies are sinners. It's inherited. Children are sinners. It's inherited. Once again, your life is in God's hands. He will determine when it starts and when it ends. Since God does everything he does out of pure love, (God is love), His taking life is not evil. It is what he does to further His purpose. His purpose is to use us to glorify Him. To bring us to Him. Using selected scriptures is pointless. The one foundational fact about God is that He loves us all and that anything that He allows to happen to us is done through His love. There is a Pandora's box of issues in this question, but the one question that does have an answer is the question of whether or not God cares about children. Since children are people, then the answer is YES.
>> "Your argument is purely emotional. You FEEL that God is uncaring because you think He takes life."
False - I infer that God is uncaring because the Bible states as fact that God takes life.
>> "Christian doctrine teaches that since Adam and Eve fell from grace, the whole human race is cursed with death. Death is the result of their sin."
Christian doctrine is obviously false, as two people are not a viable genetic population. The story is metaphorical. Death is a result of medical conditions, not sin.
>> "Since you bring up this debate, I am assuming that you acknowledge that there is a creator and that the creator of this universe is known as God."
If there is a God, as described by the Bible, he's certainly not worthy of any praise... but I'm pretty sure there simply is no God.
>> "This universe that we live in did not always exist. It had a starting point. Before that starting point, Something that could start it existed. God is what existed before our universe was created."
Then there must have been something to created God. If you accept that God always WAS, you can accept that matter always WAS, and there is no need to posit God as a starting point.
>> "He is perfect. Of course He is perfect because He is the source of everything."
That's obviously very poor reasoning, considering not everything is perfect.
>> "God made you, He can take you out whenever He pleases."
My opponent seems to have the notion that we are "owned" by God, yet somehow retain free will. This puzzles me, as I have used my free will to not believe in God. Am I therefore not owned by him anymore? It seems egregiously unjust to think that I am still somehow owned by an entity I don't believe exists...
>> "God is 100 percent righteous and everything he does is in order to bring glory to him. When a child dies, you may not see His purpose. But there is a purpose. You may not think it's fair, but if it is God's will, it's fair."
This is a terrible line of reasoning - everything God does is FAIR? What about when God let Satan destroy Job's family to prove a point? What about the terrible suffering God caused to Job? Was that FAIR? What about God siding with the Israelites on their numerous genocides... was that FAIR? Obviously not...
>> "Why do you seem to place more value on the lives of babies and small children? "
I didn't - nowhere do I say that babies and small children are "worth" more. But now that you mention it, is it not more morally repugnant to smite an innocent baby that hasn't sinned at all than a grown man that has sinned many times?
>> "Babies are sinners."
Pray tell... what was their sin? Original sin? If that's a smiting-worthy sin, then we should ALL be smote.
>> "Since God does everything he does out of pure love, (God is love), His taking life is not evil. "
Riiiight - God takes lives in his fits of jealousy, rage, and love. This is just a silly idea.
>> "Using selected scriptures is pointless. The one foundational fact about God is that He loves us all and that anything that He allows to happen to us is done through His love."
Using selected scriptures to put forth the notion that God is love is pointless by this same logic. Obviously, my opponent cannot attempt to exclude the Bible as a source and retain any meaningful idea of God.
My opponent's two arguments can be summed up thus:
1) God owns everyone, therefore it's OK for him to kill them.
2) God likes babies because babies are people.
However, these positions are obviously inconsistent with the Bible.
God explicitly states that "Thou shalt not kill." I suppose my opponent will say that it's morally wrong for us to kill each other, but it's perfectly fine if it's God doing the killing. In other words, killing is not wrong for God. Again, this is a silly idea.
God clearly does not like all people - he destroyed the entire world with flood once, and he smote two cities because he didn't like the behavior of the people there. Why would God kill people he likes?? That makes no sense.
Readers, my opponent has barely even addressed the issue at hand. The verses in Round 1 indicate several instances of God smiting babies and small children. He has not denied this in any way, other than to say that God somehow likes the people he kills...
First, I maintain that my opponent is basing his arguments on feelings. He says that he 'infers' that God is uncaring because He takes life. Even if one does not get "smited" by Him, one will eventually die. And you will die because God designed you that way. Therefore, your life is in God's hands. If you believe in God, there is no way around this. This is also a short sighted, worldly viewpoint. God, if you are a believer, has a place for you to live in for eternity. Two places actually.
Second, the bible points out time and again that God cares about his creation, meaning us. He created us, why would he create something that he doesn't care about? God cared about Job. He let Satan do his worst to Job to show us for posterity how unfailing faith works. In the end Job was rewarded greatly. And he was used to bring millions of souls to salvation. I can see how, to an atheist, that this is meaningless since you don't believe in salvation / eternal life.
Job knew that everything that happened to him was by the hand of God being removed from Satan's will. Yet Job still knew that even if he died, he would still end up spending eternity with his creator. Job was looking at the big picture.
Adam and Eve. How are they not viable ancestors for all humanity? How does my opponent know this? I'm coming at this from a biblical perspective, and my opponent is coming from a worldly perspective. Adam and Eve were the most perfect representatives of humanity when they were created. Their gene pool was intact when they began populating the world. It was tainted by sin, and God warned them in the garden that "They would surely die", under certain conditions. They met that condition and of course, died. Hence we all now die.
The next point my opponent makes is just nonsense. He basically says that if there is a God, then something must have created him. Nope. God is, by definition, eternal. He existed before the universe, He created the universe and the universe exists in Him. To me, that's pretty simple. You just can't have an infinite being getting created by another infinite being. They can't coexist. And it would be pointless. This is another case of my opponent wearing world colored glasses.
Next my opponent says that God is not perfect because everything is not perfect. At creation, everything was perfect. God even said so after each creation day. Each day, after creating things, He said, "It is good". As I've explained and as the bible explains many, many times, the world fell from perfection through sin. Sin tainted our world and now perfection is unattainable. The next logical question would be, "If God is perfect, then how did he create an imperfect creation?" Because He is sovereign and that is what He chose to do. This is logical. We know for a fact that God is perfect. He can't be any other way. We know that his creation is imperfect. Therefore, He must have made it that way on purpose. Why? Because perfect people can't exist with a perfect God. They would not need him and He would not need them. So creation would not even be necessary.
The next point my opponent makes is that being created somehow negates free will. I think it's easy for God to create us with free will. We can choose to accept or reject him. It's our choice. There is a lot of controversy about this. I believe that God is omniscient and knows from the time of creation exactly how I will choose and in fact, ordains it. Since there is nothing I can do about this, I don't worry about it. I believe what I believe and am grateful to God for choosing me. There are others He has elected not to choose for Himself. He is God. He can do that. From my own point of view, I am exercising free will. From God's point of view, I am doing just a He planned. There is nothing evil in that. It is God's perfect will.
Next point raised is fairness. This may sound harsh, but the fairest way God can treat you is to go ahead and let your sin drag you into hell. But, since God loves you and doesn't want that to happen, He made a way for you to be with Him, in heaven, for all eternity.
I'm not going to continue going point by point with every ridiculous argument my opponent has raised. He's concerned about God's apparent apathy yet doesn't even believe that God exists. My contention is that God does exist. God created us so therefore He must care about us. The bible, which is the word of God, reiterates over and over how much God cares for us. My opponent decries the death of children by the hand of God and says that it happens because God is uncaring about children. I say, that even though we don't always understand, God uses people to bring others to him. People are his to use, it's his prerogative. In the eyes of God, children are just as sinful as adults. One sin is all it takes. One lie, one cheat, one hurtful thought toward another person. That is all it takes to be a sinner and no longer able to share heaven with God. I thank God every day that He has given us all a way to be with him. A way to let our sins be forgiven so that we can spend eternity in heaven.
What about babies, innocents? The bible is not very specific about how babies and children that are too young to accept salvation are treated. But God has two distinct groups: Those that believe and those that don't. Babies and young children don't have the mental capacity to accept or reject Jesus' payment for their sins. They don't even know that they have broken God's law. John 3:18. Revelation says that we are judged by our works. Not from earthly works, but from works that manifest themselves from a believing heart. The biblical consensus is that those that die before they are able to know how salvation works, are saved by a merciful and compassionate God.
The bible is not flawed. It states clearly many times that God loves his creation. This would include babies and small children. The bible, when studied, shows over and over how God puts up with his rebellious creation and always gives them a way to find eternal companionship with Him. He gave us all free will and then gave us a way to escape from the choices of our free will. He sacrificed His own son, Jesus, so that we could pin all of our transgressions on him. He did this so that we can have everlasting life with Him. Since He is our creator, with absolute authority over our destiny, would do this for us, shows that he is the pinnacle of caring and compassion.
And now some final remarks. My opponent seems to think that he knows the mind of God. He has found a few bible verses that support his mindset. But it's obvious from his remarks that he doesn't know God. I'm a bible believing christian. I've read the bible, I've studied the bible, I've read commentaries on the bible. I've been in bible study for a long time. I understand the meaning behind the stories that we read in the bible. I believe whole heartedly that the entire bible points to one thing: Salvation through God's son, Jesus. Every chapter foreshadows the day that the messiah comes. Every story shows how mercy is bestowed on the faithful and ultimately mercy is offered to all who believe that Jesus is their scapegoat. It's obvious that God wants each and every human being to acknowledge God so that God can have them spend eternity with Him. To me, that's caring. That's love.
Because it's humorous to me to think that people refer to a Baby-Smiting-Deity as the "God of Love."
>> "First, I maintain that my opponent is basing his arguments on feelings. He says that he 'infers' that God is uncaring because He takes life."
Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Castro, the CCP, Alexander, Cortes, Columbus, most of the pilgrims... they all took lives - are you going to tell me that they cared about the lives they took, or can we infer from their actions that they probably didn't care too much about killing people? Obviously the latter.
>> "Even if one does not get "smited" by Him, one will eventually die. And you will die because God designed you that way. Therefore, your life is in God's hands."
So... because I'll die anyway even if not smote, and because God designed me, my life is in God's hands. That doesn't make much sense if I have free will. I can use my free will to reject God if I so choose, and remove my life from his hands.
>> "If you believe in God, there is no way around this."
Thank God I have a way around this then.
>> "Second, the bible points out time and again that God cares about his creation, meaning us."
The Bible states that God saw his creation was good, not that he cared about it. I made a very good deuce the other day, and I don't give a crap about it. I made a very good stew last week, and I really don't care about it either. If God cares so much about creation, why does he spend so much time KILLING IT??
>> "Adam and Eve. How are they not viable ancestors for all humanity? How does my opponent know this? I'm coming at this from a biblical perspective, and my opponent is coming from a worldly perspective."
First of all - two people is not a viable genetic population. Second, for everyone to have come from two people, they would have needed to commit incest, which is punishable by death, except strangely in the the case of "just and righteous" Lot. My opponent admits he is using a Biblical perspective, which is inherently unrealistic. I approach the matter from a much more reliable source - reality.
>> "The next point my opponent makes is just nonsense. He basically says that if there is a God, then something must have created him. Nope. God is, by definition, eternal."
Then the existence of matter is, by definition, eternal. If you can accept that God has no creator, then you can easily accept that matter has no creator either.
>> "You just can't have an infinite being getting created by another infinite being. They can't coexist."
So God can't create another God... seems like he is not omnipotent then.
>> "We know for a fact that God is perfect."
This makes me giggle. You have no FACTS concerning the nature of God. It's impossible to have FACTS concerning the nature of God. Come on now...
>> "perfect people can't exist with a perfect God."
And why not? Adam and Eve would have been perfect people until they fell from grace...
>> "I believe that God is omniscient and knows from the time of creation exactly how I will choose and in fact, ordains it. Since there is nothing I can do about this, I don't worry about it."
In other words, my opponent believes all his choices are predetermined by God and there's nothing he can do about this lack of free will, yet he is not concerned about it. Strange.
>> "My contention is that God does exist. God created us so therefore He must care about us. "
God's supposed existence is a prerequisite for this debate - my opponent has finally made an on-topic argument. But again... I created a wonderful turd yesterday, but I don't care about it at all...
>> "I say, that even though we don't always understand, God uses people to bring others to him. People are his to use, it's his prerogative. In the eyes of God, children are just as sinful as adults."
My opponent holds that God kills babies to bring people closer to him, and that this is OK, because God owns the babies he kills and they are just as sinful as adults. This is quite simply a silly notion.
>> "One sin is all it takes. One lie, one cheat, one hurtful thought toward another person."
Again, I ask... what were the babies' sins?
>> "The bible is not flawed."
False. There are hundreds of flaws in the Bible. For example, the Bible states that pi is 3.
>> "I've read the bible, I've studied the bible, I've read commentaries on the bible. I've been in bible study for a long time."
It doesn't seem to have helped your understanding of how God kills babies.
Most of my opponent's argument has been a non-sequiter concerning how I'm going to hell, my argument is based on emotion, and that it's OK for God to kill people because he owns them.
My status of saint or sinner is a complete red herring. Likewise, the basis for my argument is a red herring, given that I have rational backing for the claim. God kills babies, ergo, he must either dislike them or the Bible is in error about this action.
My opponent has done almost nothing to actually address the notion of the argument itself other than to state "God created us so therefore he must care about us." I have shown with my turd example that this is clearly faulty reasoning. Furthermore, consider:
God created everything.
God cares about everything.
God spends a lot of time killing what he cares about.
It quite simply doesn't make sense. All three of these statements are supported by the Bible, and they cannot all be correct. Thus, either God does NOT care about everything (for example, babies and small children), or the Bible is in error about one of the other statements, thus fulfilling the resolution.
The point of the Bible writ large is completely immaterial to this debate. This debate is whether or not:
1. The Bible is in a state of egregious error; OR
2. God dislikes babies and small children.
This is supported by the numerous passages I put forth in the first round wherein God, the almighty, loving, caring steward of creation, smites innocent babies for no good reason at all. It would be simple for an omnipotent God to save the babies, but God chose instead to smite away. Obviously, God either dislikes babies (or saving babies at least), or the Bible is in egregious error about what actually happened.
casemill forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.