Why would I worship and love a "God" who ordered infanticide?

Here ya go!
Source: https://carm.org/analysis-pre-pauline-creed-1-corinthians-151-11

 

Paul's account was not eyewitness. He never even knew Jesus and many of his teachings directly contradict things Jesus stated in the Gospels.

 

So why wasn't that "explanation" mentioned in 1 Samuel 15:3???

There is no reference to "infected infants" ....just God ordering the Israelites to kill children.

 

The bible isn't a science book. It's a religious one. It expects you to use common sense when you read it. For example, why would God order the Israelites to isolate those it deemed unclean? Why would touching a corpse deem a person unclean? Why would people need to release their excrement outside of the camp into a hole and then cover it with dirt afterward? The bible doesn't explain this, but modern science figured out why. The same goes for the Canaanites. Modern science already figured out why.

The source never said that. Go back and re-read it instead of glancing at it. Also check the references as well. It's quite lengthy.

 

So there are TONS of references to "unclean" in the Bible....

but "oddly" it failed to mention a "good reason" that God ordered the slaughter of children and babies for being "infected"?!?!?!?!?

You had to come up with that from "common sense".....otherwise known as pulling it out of thin air.

 

You were using the existence of this "creed" as proof of eyewitness accounts. Are you no retracting that claim?

 

So? That might excuse wiping out the adults but BABIES? I emphasis might since all this mighty god would have to do IMHO is reveal its mighty self and tell them he is the real deal and no more doing these sex acts and wipe out the offending temples and have displays of power. Seriously strange deity he can do anything, is supposed to be moral yet acts in such dumb ways.

Lets go to the Exodus okay same scenario but here is a moral wy to display his power and get back at the Egyptians. First you in a divine act spirit every Hebrew, their cattle and strip from Egypt all metal of value giving a portion to the Hebrews. Then moving the Egyptians out first blast every idol and temple to another deity in a vicious display not harming anyone. Then to add to this make every Egyptian male, both man and beast, infertile. That would screw them good. And I bet after word got out no one would be messing with the Hebrews for a long time.

And I would made keeping slaves a big evil in the Ten Commandments likely the first one to show my disgust for slavery.

At least as a moral story it would be a nicer one than in the Bible.

 

Old Testament God was not such a nice guy. Your attempt to paint him as supposedly something else and then proving that he is not your painting is a classic strawman. Lots of people died during the great flood.

 

To offer apologia for the bloodthirsty God of the Old Testament....the apologist has to "discover" things using "common sense"....that are not actually in the Bible.

- - - Updated - - -

Pretty sure that was my point, Deckel.

 

No it wasn't. You tried to paint God as a nice guy in the Bible and then have a gotcha moment that showed he wasn't in order to attack Christianity. There is no requirement for God to be nice for him to exist, and I am fairly certain anybody who has read the Bible knows he was not. But then he had a baby just like Darth Vader and things changed deep inside him and he settled down and cast off his teenage rebellion.

 

If an infant has a contagious disease that could kill your entire tribe, and doctors didn't exist, what would you have done? Please explain this to me, please? Right now you're showing your lack of knowledge in history. What do you think happened to infants that had small pox during the medieval period? What do you think happened to infants that had deadly contagious diseases in history? History shows that both the mother and the infant were killed to stop the spread of the disease in question. Whole families were burned alive to prevent the spread of small pox. It couldn't be helped. You're saying you have a better solution for those days. So, lets hear it!

Also, God already revealed himself to the Canaanites multiple times. He warned the Canaanite for hundreds of years over and over and over. They just didn't stop.

That's dumb. How is anything you said any different than the first 9 plagues God showed the Egyptians? The amount of skepticism you're showing now is the same amount of skepticism the Egyptian Pharaoh had then. If facts aren't enough to convince you to believe in God, then what supernatural event could convince them? Every event that happened was explained away as the Pharaoh had his own magicians perform the exact same feats.

 

No. I'm not. Maybe you ought to read the source I provided and quit trying to damage control.

What would you have done? Why won't you tell me? What would you have done if you came across a village of people infected with small pox with no cure and no doctor? I want to hear what your solutions are.

 

How does "perfection" change?

 

Where is your evidence these children had infectious diseases? Can you provide any proof at all or are your going to make (*)(*)(*)(*) up again?

 

Don't be absurd. You're asserting that an entire population of people passed these teachings of Jesus along and did so without creating contradicting doctrine. Get serious. We've all played the game of telephone in class. People can't get one message through twenty people in an hour without having the thing come out butchered in the end.

Your claim is completely and utterly devoid of logic.

 

Considering how many various groups of Christians with wildly different beliefs there were in the first few centuries of Christianity's existence, the telephone idea would seem to bear out.

You know that the current books of the Bible are not the be all end all of Bible stories yes? There were way more than were accepted by various groups.

 

It is absolutely sad and hilarious watching the religious try to justify the insanity and immorality of their God. There is no way to really justify it. All you're doing is apologizing for a sociopathic deity whom you willingly want to be a slave to.

 

There are NO references to the Amalekite children and babies being "infected" or "unclean"....

God just orders those children slaughtered.


To "excuse God"....you simply make up something. I'm not even sure you believe it....you just can't speak aloud your real reason you have no problem with God ordering infanticide.

 

What would you have done? Why won't you tell me? What would you have done if you came across a village of people infected with small pox with no cure and no doctor? I want to hear what your solutions are.

 

Once again...

What would you have done? Why won't you tell me? What would you have done if you came across a village of people infected with small pox with no cure and no doctor? I want to hear what your solutions are.

 

I love all of the creative excuses offered when the scriptures themselves offer none. We've had Christians here argue that the children were diseased, which is not mentioned in the Bible and is inconsistent with the way Canaanites were treated in other conflicts. In other conflicts, children were spared, and in others all males (including children) were killed while virginal women were taken as war wives. The Bible offers only one explanation for the treatment of the Amalekites: kill them all because of what their ancestors did. Modern Christians can't swallow that explanation.

Of course, any remotely sane person sees these as inexcusable, so believers make up excuses and pretend like they should be obvious. Some of the Christians here have argued that the children were diseased. Another argued that the children were "genetically evil". Another Christian has argued that the story can't be true at all. Other Christians have argued that the story is symbolic.

 

You want me to accept your premise...which has ZERO basis for fact, even using the Bible as reference.

There is NO MENTION of the Amalekite children being "infected" or even "unclean".....none, zip, nada.

It is something you are just MAKING UP out of whole cloth....to try to excuse God ordering the deaths of children.

 

I noted a few of the excuses the "Bible Believers" offer up in the OP-

1. The Old Testament is flawed and imperfect. Fine. That let's God off the hook...it was just bull**** the Israelites came up with to justify their genocide...but then?...why not the New Testament?

2. The babies and children were "inherently evil". But that denies Free Will.

3. (Qchan's) The babies and children were "infected" and needed to be "sterilized" by being slaughtered.

But even that fails...consider....HOW would the Israelities have killed those children? By sword, spear, pike, etc. Melee weapons, right? Weapons that would have seen the "infected" blood spill all over the weapon and its wielder....thus exposing the Israelite soldier to "infection."

Unless he thinks the Israelites just grabbed the children while wearing Bio-Hazard suits and tossed them into a bonfire?


None of these "apologia" make sense or are substantiated by the Bible or Christian teaching.

 

You have yet to demonstrate these children were infected with disease. They Bible says nothing about that. It talks about conquest and the murder of children.

 

This is the closest thing to a "justification" that the Bible provides:

"Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.

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 ass."

The context is clearly vengeance-driven genocide, not sterilization of disease.