Think About the Children!!! Infanticide in the Bible
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 авг 2024
- In this video, we talk about infanticide in the Bible. Many critics of the Bible have suggested that God is immoral because he destroyed everyone (parents and children) in Sodom and Gomorrah, and gave the command to kill all the Midianite boys. We will talk about those arguments, and what would have happened if the children were not killed.
If you want to continue on the conversation and meet other members of this community, you are invited to join us on our Discord community ( / discord )
If you feel like directly supporting the work of this channel, consider purchasing Ancient Egypt and the Bible merchandise from our store ( my-store-d6b41... ) or by becoming a patron on my Patreon account ( / egyptandthebible ).
You can also support us through Paypal using the address ( davidfalk@zoho.com )
Also consider purchasing my book, “The Ark of the Covenant in its Egyptian Context: An Illustrated Journey.” Available now through most major book retailers.
We are raising funds for a new book project on the “Ten Plagues of Egypt.” In this book, we plan to delve into the Egyptian culture context of the plagues of the Exodus so as to discover what those plaques would have meant to the Egyptians.
If you would like to help us with this project or wish to support our work financially and don’t want to be a Patreon member, please consider a donation to my a crypto currency wallet for Monero XMR ( 46RXpVRn5QtK25gU1naVa72tWa1nGdfGwK8npLaAZKwKQp9i8qbe1CDS5cjVcNX4Ug47Uh5Q8kid3eDV5za9b4saQ5sEWf5 ) or Bitcoin BTC ( bc1qn4hykytwr4kh8c2z9w05mqcq040h9vgtwl0pt5 ). Or if you still trust GoFundMe, to my GoFundMe campaign ( www.gofundme.c... ).
The music for the open and closing credits was provided by Velocirabbit ( / velocirabbit - topic ).
![Tee Grizzley - Detroit (Feat. 42 Dugg) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/aeKfTtt0x14/mqdefault.jpg)
This might be the best answer to this problem I have ever seen! This video hit right on time for me as I was just thinking about this issue myself. Thank you Dr. Falk!
I was in the same boat! Very timely indeed.
Dr. Falk is getting into the David Wood style skits. And he might even be better!
yep
Nah the Dizzle is better
Incredibly important video and I think I like this new style as well! Thank you for the informative lecture!
The "caveman pacifist" reminded me of the movie Saving Private Ryan, where the interpreter had pacifist inclinations and saved a German soldier, only to kill him later when he realized that in war moral rules don't apply the way they ideally do. I think it illustrates what it looks like when we try to fit contemporary ideals from our comfy bedrooms to the brutal reality of ANE clan warfare.
That is an excellent example. Thank you for your comment.
But that shows already that whats written in the bible is no objective and absolute moral. The moral is "the stonger wins".
The Canaanites also thought they follow the right belief, the right gods and that its right to sacrifice some of their babies to their gods.
The Hebrews claimed their god wants them to kill the Canaanites as they pray to the wong gods and as a side effect (or the main motive?) they overtook their land.
@@ancientegyptandthebible But that shows already that whats written in the bible is no objective and absolute moral. The moral is "the stonger wins".
The Canaanites also thought they follow the right belief, the right gods and that its right to sacrifice some of their babies to their gods.
The Hebrews claimed their god wants them to kill the Canaanites as they pray to the wong gods and as a side effect (or the main motive?) they overtook their land. (sorry to post it twice but not sure who can read what)
@user-hr8dx9qw4n
The absolute and objective moral standard would be based on what js the most loving thing to do. All of the commandments are based off of the 2: love God and love your neighbor. Morality becomes majorly subjective, personal, contextual, and circumstantial. After all, David Falk did say the Bible was the Supreme moral guidance, which I think he was wrong since most, in my eyes, would say it is the moral authority
@@mattd398 Sounds very nive what you are stating there.
As a Deist I just dont see the "godly" part in it, or better:
There is a man made ideal in it the bible, which is determined with a fictional godly character, but it is not given by a god.
In other words, sin and our actions affect the lives of those who are innocent and we need to take it seriously.
Indeed.
@ancientegyptandthebible sir will you please make a video on Prophet Jonah, if he really died or what like Lord Jesus said he will stay in heart of earth for 3 days like Jonah,did Prophet Jonah really stay there in the fish for 3 exact days or what.
Nope just the god of the old testament as it is called is a sadistic bully and common Sense tells us right from wrong don't need a book or an invisible man to tell you that
@@septuagintgreek read the old testament you will see he kills woman children even animals the cat loves blood
@@septuagintgreek translation: they don’t want to be held accountable for their actions lol.
Some very salient points raised there! This has certainly helped me understand how to reason about such things
Starting off with a steelmanned argument automatically puts you in an intellectual and favorouble light. You rule at optics AND arguments. Good job.
The whole idea of consequences of sin and affecting others is shown pretty clearly from Genesis. All creation falling with original sin is the greatest possible form of this, and is also the first instance of sin being punished even in a perfect world (the garden).
I think this idea goes beyond circumstance, clan war, and a fallen world. I'm not sure but it seems that God fully intends for this kind of snowball effect from the punishment of sin. I think you mentioned that free will almost necesitates such consequences, which explains a bunch with the problem of evil and Jesus coming to destroy that curse.
Good video!
This brings so much clarity
Dr. "Dudebro" Falk lol, I love it
This is one of the best defenses I've seen on this issue. WOW!
Great points!
Historically, we also have the Tiglath-Pileser Principle, namely the fact that many ancient texts used propagandistic terms as metaphors in war accounts. For example, ‘extinguish the seed’ may be a metaphor for ‘stop a culture,’ or something like that. I think that most examples of ‘genocide’ in the Hebrew Bible are just misunderstood metaphors.
Interesting, wish Dr. Falk would respond to this with his thoughts
So when pharaoh orders newborn male Hebrew children to be thrown into the Nile he means only to give them a bath?
I was wondering about that when Dr Falk was talking about triggering blood feuds.
And this principle is very central to Dr Falk's channel, since this principle can be seen in the Merneptah Stele.
@@IamGrimalkin You are right. The 'seed' that was taken from Israel by Merneptah probably was not grain or feed. For example the Midianites were a people group like the Israelites were. Not a town. So Israel sent 12,000 men against them, (Num. 31:9) they took their cattle and flocks and all their property and burned their encampments. Nothing is said in Num. 31 of taking their grain. But they killed every male.
@@IamGrimalkin Exactly! We know that Israel wasn’t destroyed when the Merneptah Stele says that Israel was destroyed by the same literary principle.
Superb David!👍
Very good video! 👍🏻
what i find odd about arguing this text is that while the word male (zakar in Hebrew ) can mean both adults and children, later in the text it is specified that the Israelites spared and took both women and their children captive, and the word used for children here (tap-am in Hebrew ) is often used to refer to both male and female children. So it seems to me like the text is saying that only the adult men were killed and the children and their mothers were spared. Either way someone who knows way more about ancient Hebrew might understand these two words differently in their context.
This video is eye opening!
Thanks 🙏
From what I can tell it was all the males of the Midianites living in northern Moab that were slain. Northern Moab (North of the Arnon, Num. 21:13) had earlier been conquered by the Amorites but it appears there were still Moabites and Midianites living there. The Midianites probably would be what we call Arabs and lived in tents extending from the east side of Moab to probably all of Arabia. The Moabites living there did not seem to suffer the same fate probably because Israel was given the order not to attack the Moabites [Deuteronomy 2:9].
"no, I don't actually believe in this, amd this argument wouldn't work on me but if i say it maybe if i say it you will do what i want"
Every single time
Dr Falk dude bro should be a new steel man series . Fantastic video btw
Awesome video! God bless you Dr Falk!
Great video, thank you. For me, the context and logical discussion highlights that the infanticide was even an act of mercy. Golly, you hit on a lot of potential health harms that could have befallen the children, but even assuming none of that happened think about the mental and emotional harm the children would have to carry due to the consequences of their parents sins (admittedly the children wouldn't see it as such but simply their families being killed). Perhaps this talk of emotional trauma is an anachronistic way of looking at it, and/but maybe that is why you had the generational vengeance between clans that you referenced.
Great points, thank you
Could one not argue that in a situation where the Israelites go to war against their enemies and only kill the adults who are fighting them, that they could've adopted the children, so to speak, as in bring them back and raise them as their own in a sense?
Great video! Always love your insights. FYI, in your video description you have a spell check/auto correct issue, talking about the Egyptian "plaques" 😄 Also, that book sounds interesting!
Also isn't it true that some ancient middle Eastern cultures actually had child soldiers i.e children that would fight alongside the adults
Yes, it is true. The Egyptians certainly did this.
Samuel If he had to argue longer with Saul be like:
Never found this line of attack by atheists to be that great. If God isn’t real, there’s no basis to objectively condemn infanticide. If God IS real, then He gets to do what He wants, and we still have no basis for condemning His actions.
Yes, but people who are not strong in their faith or biblical knowledge will stil doubt about believing in an 'evil' God even if real. The argument of 'God is God so he can do what he wants' does not work on alot of people, because to them it just confirms their point of God being or acting evil. We must properly inform and guide them, not just state things without context or explaination.
@@marlena. To hear what this guy just said and then say "God is evil" is to completely miss the point of it all.
You are right and everything else other than this is largely fluff and word games. The real question that people are interested in is whether what God views as good and evil aligns with what we consider good and evil/just and unjust.
@@bonbon_nextlevel I am not saying that. I am responding to this comment from the peoples perspective who doubt in their faith because these type of arguments when they have very little faith or biblical knowledge.... I am just saying that what he says is true but wont work for certain people..
I'd argue that you can use the God of the bible as a basis for arguing against his morality. To put it simply "my standard is the one your God set up" essentially.
Awesome content
WKW! I thought i knew the answer to this, but i only knew about 10% at best. Good video Doc.
Loved this video! Unrelated, what is the sock puppet thing?
That's Mr. Empty Conjecture. He makes appearances from time to time, especially on Popcorn Reviews and the Mr. EC Show.
As good as this is, it’s still a mystery why they killed the animals in the Jericho conquest. Hyperbole?
9:31 There’s another window seat on the opposite side of the aisle
But what about the people on the other side fighting for the window seat? Think about the passengers!!! 🤣
@@ancientegyptandthebible They can sit in the seat that their tickets assign to them.
Let me play the Devil's Advocate, Could adoption of male Children by Israelites (just like the virgin girls) be an option in the Midianite case? raising them up in a Godly environment within the Israelite community?...Awesome Response though. Kindly address this too.
”“Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people.”” . . .
”They fought against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every man.“ . . .
”The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho. Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. Moses was angry with the officers of the army-the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds-who returned from the battle. “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man,“
Numbers 31
It’s clear that God only commanded that the Midianite men were to be killed in battle. God commanded Israel to take vengeance on the Midianites but God never told Moses to kill the boys. The Israelites could’ve adopted them but Moses was angry and had them killed. Throughout the Torah, Moses is a hot head and can get very angry very quickly. This whole incident happened because Moses let his anger get the better of him and took God’s command too far (Originally only killing the male soldiers in battle to killing the young boys). When reading the rest of the Bible it is clear that anger leads to sin and suffering.
”Refrain from anger and turn from wrath; do not fret-it leads only to evil“
Psalms 37:8 NIV
”Whoever is patient has great understanding, but one who is quick-tempered displays folly.“
Proverbs 14:29 NIV
”Do not be quickly provoked in your spirit, for anger resides in the lap of fools.“
Ecclesiastes 7:9 NIV
It's hard to judge from our time frame on what kinds of rituals the male children might have gone through as this whole culture had sexual practices with their worship of gods.
See : Numbers ch.25 .
When the Tiglath-Pileser Principle is applied, which shows that metaphors are used in war passages, perhaps some of the children were allowed to live. Not all of the Midianite children necessarily had to be killed by that principle. Perhaps some became indentured servants, perhaps some were thereby incorporated into households, an ancient comparandum of adoption. Also, Numbers 31:1-2, 6-7 shows us that Moses is interpreting God’s will, God did not command such violence necessarily (such interrelation is inherent in Biblical prophecy, but rarely does the author distinguish between the edict and the interpretation as they normally fully agree).
@@carlknaack1019 Yeah I noticed this. Moses after the striking of the rock incidence seems to be a little out of sync with God's will. Could you explain a bit more on it if you have some more information? Would love to hear it. Thanks!!
@@avinashshinde1635 I haven’t don’t too much research on that passage. The book “Ahab’s House of Horrors” goes into some similar historiographical principles.
If you find anything else I would love to hear about it.
My problem with the presentest fallacy thing is that while i agree its unfair to judge an ancient culture based on our standards, theres just 2 issues i have with this idea,
1.) Israel is not just an ancient society, its Gods society and Gods supposed to be unchanging. I have trouble seeing why God would have to compromise his morals to fit the morals of other societies at that time.
2.) Wouldn't this give leeway for other things to not be looked down upon (ie. Child sacrifice) as that would be "judging them" by our modern standards as there was a rationalization for doing such things?
Edit: You may adress these in the video, i paused here to comment. If you addressed them my apologies lol.
Where does it ever say the society is supposed to be unchanging? Yes God is unchanging, but not so the circumstances. Food laws get set up for one reason at a specific time and need, then get abolished at a different time when that need is no longer there.
I personally see what's going on as a pendulum - unmoving in one end and moving in the other. The static part would be God, or the ultimate goal God is working towards. The moving part would the fluctuating circumstances. The string connecting them is "morality" - both objective and situational at any given moment. Again, merely personal view.
Also child sacrifice is condemned in the text, so that was the contemporary opinion of it. The example of Abraham might come to mind, but notably it didn't go through. Yes, indeed there was an important rationalization for the commandment of it, but again - didn't go through.
@@zayobayo2175 The way I worded that was awkward so that's my bad. What I mean is that it seems God's morals progress with his ppl throughout the bible. So how would this be any different from claiming that Zeus, Allah, or any other God is doing the same with us. This basically gives a lot of God's who did terrible things leeway to escape issues. The more important part of that comment is the second part about God's apparently compromised morals.
The pendulum analogy is a good way of going about this imo but it leaves the same issues I laid out in the first paragraph above, imo.
What I was referring to with the child sacrifice wasn't about the bible but instead David's argument of not judging ancient cultures by our standards of morality. My point is that ppl that sacrificed children often thought they had good reason to do so, so would this now mean we can't judge horrendous actions committed by ancient ppl simply bc of context?
@@wannabe_scholar82 Good points. For the point of compromising (at least as I understand it) the pendulum thing would explain it as needing to do a nasty thing to get out of a nasty situation, in order to progress towards the better goal, at which point the situation would obviously change, changing the morality with it. "Morals progressing" - sure? I mean, there's one covenant with Adam and Eve, a different with Noah, a different with Abraham, a different with Moses, who himself spoke of the jews eventually needing a new covenant, "a circumcision of the heart". And then the literal "New Testament". Again, I define morality as the middle string in the pendulum - but the ultimate goal of God has never changed - the restoration of Eden. So I have no problem saying "morals progress". Unless you mean something else by "morals compromised/progressed", in which case I'd need a specific example and explanation with how it doesn't fit with the pendulum thing.
Do you perhaps mean "Thou shall not kill", and then commanding killing? Because in that case it should better be translated "Thou shall not murder", as in extra-judicially, on your own accord. God could still (and did) command execution whenever deemed necessary, so it's not a compromise strictly speaking.
As for how to know about others, Jesus said "by their fruits you shall know them". We can judge Zeus or Allah or any other deity by seeing what results in the long run. Is the nastiness they've led people to only temporary or there to stay, or getting worse? What are/were they progressing towards? Funnily enough, Allah in islam does employ a similar thing, he's constantly "abrogating" his previous commandments, but what's observed there is that it was in the opposite direction. Mohammed's message evolved from one of peace to one of oppression and slaughter the more successful he became. What God is doing has steadily progressed towards good, historically, despite anything.
Also there is a difference between there _actually_ being a good reason, and people _thinking_ there is a good reason. Aztecs thought human sacrifices were needed to power the sun. There's also the aspects of the priests in power potentially being wiser and knowing it's a sham, but using it as a means of control anyway. There's the aspect of prophet-like figures warning them and being ignored. How likely were the child-sacrificing societies to stop on their own?
And if you want to entertain the notion of any of these deities actually existing, then that's easy. It's a matter of who's actually the true God, capable of sustaining life forever (i.e. only ever commanding nasty stuff for a good reason). Also, which one of the other deities came down here so we can torture him to death? That's a +1 for Yahweh.
Sorry for the long comment. It's late and I'll be checking in tomorrow. I might be misunderstanding something.
I generally agree, although it seems like I could reason my way into a lot of trouble using the same logic.
Probably the first thing you need to know if you wanna get into evangelising to western athiests
I think a lot of these objections (and this is even the instinct of many Christians) come from applying the naturalistic idea that death is the greatest evil to the Christian premise that God acted in history and killed people. If death is the greatest evil, because existence ends with life, then God's killing of people is, to say the least, very harsh. But Christianity asserts that life does not end at death.
To illustrate the difference this makes, let me bring up the first Passover:
The Egyptian firstborn, many being children, are killed, presumably painlessly, by God. Their spirits are separated from their bodies, and while this in itself is a horrible obscenity resulting from humanity's exile from Eden, it's not wrong for the one who gave life to take it away. The childrens' spirits dwell in Sheol/Hades until their spirits are redeemed, and presumably they're now with God.
If the children had not been killed when they were, they might have lived a long, natural life, but they would not have ended up with God in death, because the Messiah never would have been born into a freed Israel. Since the children were killed, eventually they were united with their Maker.
There is no evil here without the naturalistic presumption that death is the greatest evil added onto the story.
Thank you greatly for this video
Preach!
I'm surprised you didn't mention the alternative interpretation for many of the commands God gives to seemingly slaughter children that IP brought up in one of his videos where "destroy all the men, women and children" could also be a form of hyperbole, the same way we say someone was "utterly destroyed" in an argument.
Dr falk what is your interpretation of the six days of creation? Also what evidence supports that interpretation?
There is a man named mindshift on youtube he makes athiest like me look bad.
When can you do a treatment on slavery in the bible and whether God supported it? People like Josh Bowen make their case against the bible with this argument alone. I often hear Christians refer to indentured servitude but it does seem like God was okay with violence towards slaves in certain passages. Can you do a full treatment of this topic there are very few fellow Christians I trust on this issue because they either don't have the expertise or they are biased and try not to make the old testament look bad.
Slavery is a complicated topic that is a specialization all of its own. The research in that field is voluminous and always changing. Nevertheless, I disagree with Bowen's assessment of it and I agree that Bowen has made "God endorses slavery" his primary shtick. I will consider doing a video on it, but it will take some time for me to get up to speed on the current research on the topic.
@@ancientegyptandthebible okay, thanks for your response
Let’s try this:
hypothetical, if the law here in the United States was, “A man who murders another man is to be put to death, and any and all sons he has shall be put to death also, though they are innocent. “
Is this just?
Should the society that passed such a law be held accountable?
If we take the command of Moses, as the commands of God Himself (absence of defense for the goodness of God, and a definition for what is good, being recognized), how then does God ordering “vengeance” upon the children a simple consequence of their parents actions?
The example that you gave concerning Sodom and Gomorrah could be argued as committing the fallacies of arguing from consequences, and also of emotion. Example being, mentioning the other cities coming in, and killing and enslaving children, how is that not an appeal to consequences and emotion?
I’m a big fan of yours, Dr. Falk and I recommend you to everyone I know. But here I think you’ve left yourself open for attack.
Or maybe I need more coffee. 😂
Now, if only that feud between you, and three of the Dopest dopes, I’ve ever known, had continued. 😂
These passages are an example of what William Webb calls the “Incremental Redemptive Movement” of Scripture. God showed the beginnings of the redemption by restraint, with the ultimate goal being the abolition of such hatred. Such Spirit of the Law was clarified in the NT period.
> Let’s try this: hypothetical, if the law here in the United States was, “A man who murders another man is to be put to death, and any and all sons he has shall be put to death also, though they are innocent. “
Believe it or not, that's not a hypothetical in some countries that still exist today.
> Is this just?
By the standards of 21st century Christian moral ethics, no. But again, you cannot apply the moral standards of today to the past. Littering today is considered immoral--it wasn't always seen that way.
> Should the society that passed such a law be held accountable?
Perhaps. It depends.
> If we take the command of Moses, as the commands of God Himself (absence of defense for the goodness of God, and a definition for what is good, being recognized), how then does God ordering “vengeance” upon the children a simple consequence of their parents actions?
There is nothing in the Bible that says that God ordering the death of children was an act of "vengeance" upon the children. Again, this is a clan-based culture where vendetta is passed on to the next generation. There are alternative reasons for the ordering of the death of the children that go beyond naive vengeance.
> The example that you gave concerning Sodom and Gomorrah could be argued as committing the fallacies of arguing from consequences, and also of emotion. Example being, mentioning the other cities coming in, and killing and enslaving children, how is that not an appeal to consequences and emotion?
Okay, the fallacy of consequences is the is-ought fallacy which is the opposite of the ought-is (or the hypothetical) fallacy. It is saying that because of what "is" happened that how it "ought" to have happened. I don't make that argument. Arguing that consequences "do" happen isn't the same as arguing that a consequence "should" or "ought" to have happened. Moreover, in mentioning the other cities could come in and killing and enslaving children, in no way argued that killing children was better, and is hence not an argument from emotion. But this hypothetical showed that consequences are unavoidable.
> I’m a big fan of yours, Dr. Falk and I recommend you to everyone I know. But here I think you’ve left yourself open for attack.
> Or maybe I need more coffee. 😂
Have another cup... coffee is always a good thing. However, I don't think I'm quite as open to attack as might be thought, although some will undoubtedly try. 😂
> Now, if only that feud between you, and three of the Dopest dopes, I’ve ever known, had continued. 😂
Whatever do you mean?
Omnipotent God can kill people, but to take care of some children - ”am I made out of manna?!” 😅
Somehow, I just knew you'd show up and offer your penny's worth of thought minus a cent. 😂
@@ancientegyptandthebible "offer your penny's worth of thought minus a cent" LOL IM STEALING THIS
@@ancientegyptandthebible at your service. 💁♂️
Love the hat XD
You bring up some fair points, however, you could have touched more on some other objections. For example, we know a lot of the neighboring enemy cities, outside of the land that Israel was promised involved the children being spared but put under Serfdom. For some reason, the children of these people are not spared, as the reason given is just how corrupt these people are. This suggests that even the children are seen as just as guilty as the parents as to how sinful this entire place has become. Otherwise, they would've just treated them as to how they would treat the outside cities.
Now, some common thoughts would be that the children are now very high threats as you killed their parents. This might be a good point if they spared the infants. After all, infants have no emotional attachments, and the Israelites can teach them properly. It would make sense to teach them where they originally came from, and how evil those people were. When you're taught your whole life such things, what reason would they even seek revenge on you? Although, I do believe there's hyperbole going on here with the whole 'totally destroyed' everyone.
The only way that I can think of to get around this is that if *only* the infants are spared, then which family member would take them in to raise them? Perhaps a lack of anyone willing to do that might be a potential solution. Those solutions don't feel so airtight to me. What does everyone else think?
(PS: Some talking points is that if Christians really followed the Bible, they're supposed to be doing this. This is an obviously terrible point; as the whole idea of a command given by God to do to a very specific people does not imply what to do in general battles. As far as some general warfare practices for what to do to people, perhaps someone else can bring up why it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to apply to literally any modern Christian.
because the commands were not given too Christians . We didn't exist yet ...
Nevermind . It was not yhwh that said kill all the infants . It was Moses ..
@@DiverRamada Sure, *technically* speaking God never gave that order out (At least as far as the text makes clear), and presumably Moses decided in his mind the best course of action with the whole avenging the people of Israel, but it *seems* like God didn't really care too much about it one way over the other on this particular matter as he shows up a minute later and doesn't seem to say much of anything about it (Argument from Silence, I know. But this seems like a pretty fair treatment with it). Regardless of that, I was referring to the Amalek with my comment.
@@DragonKing101 there is examples in the Bible where God allows something even tho he doesn't like it . Eg allowing Israel to have a king . Yhwh never wanted that but his people wanted it ( a covenant is a contract both parties have a say ) that is why god punished Israel . They agreed to the covenant
This fits well with what happens in Gaza I think.The consequences are not limited to Hamas but the responsibility is.
What do you think of the argument that in the same way God can break the laws of physics then it is also His prerogative to violate moral laws, which by this view is equally objective? His laws, His rules, He can choose His actions as He wants to, as He knows what is best in the long run.
Also I fail to see why anyone would interpret this as a recommended action to mimic. I do not know of any passage that urges anyone to copy this infanticide or ve inspired by it.
Yeah! This whole thing with atheists & the Canaanites is just incredible!
"You believe the Bible is a book of fables & you're upset over an event that didn't happen, ordered by a non-existent being that you want to impugn & it violates objective morality that can't be grounded on atheism. And, I suppose you believe in reason???"
😮
Hello again holy body! I just have a honest question:since you do not condemn the commend of yahwey to kill children (and some times the women and elderly basically everybody with the animals too)would you follow the command and do phisically if you were living in joshuas time?
If you were living in Joshua's time, would you have the benefit of 2000 years of Christian moral reflection? Would you have the situational awareness to know the perils of living in a clan-based culture, where there are no courts and justice was only served up by the strong? Would you be willing to face the consequences of not being willing to protect the tribe, e.g., your children and grandchildren will be killed in front of you in retributive killings? It's really easy (and intellectually lazy) to armchair quarterback in the comfort of 21st Century Post-Christian democracy and judge the acts of the past when you haven't the foggiest idea of what life was like back then.
Dear Frank, I too will ask you a question, assuming you're an atheist who thinks the Bible is a dusty old book of nonsense and would never use it as a basis for morality:
What then, is the basis for your morality? Is it what most atheists claim, basically "whatever society agrees on is moral"?
In which case, if you were living in Germany in say, 1942, why should I not expect to see you loading Jews, blacks, the infirm and homosexuals into gas chambers? 🤔
It was a very simle question but you could not answer it.Again, would you cast the first stone{spiritually speaking } or would you not ,,rebel against your god killing innocent childrenst,infants?
@@FrankHajek if you won't answer my question, neither will I answer yours.
@@FrankHajek
> It was a very simle question but you could not answer it.
No, it wasn't as simple question. It was a loaded question. I won't answer malformed, disingenuous, or loaded questions. You "simple" question is both disingenuous and loaded, and as such no one should answer it.
> Again, would you cast the first stone{spiritually speaking } or would you not ,,rebel against your god killing innocent childrenst,infants?
That is a loaded question because it lacks sufficient nuance. You deserve to not have it answered. BTW, have you stopped beating your wife yet?
I wanna start by saying I’m a Christian that takes the Bible to be inspired. But I don’t think this deals with the issue of infanticide.
Why couldn’t the Israelites have simply adopted the children. It’s not like they could influence the nation as a whole. But again a possible answer to my argument may be that in having a host of pagan children those who nurture the children would know their origin and may contemplate that the peoples they destroyed were actually innocent. Then as a result of such thinking then adopt pagan customs. If anyone has a better answer to my objection as to why they couldn’t simply adopt them.
Feel free to refute me
> I wanna start by saying I’m a Christian that takes the Bible to be inspired. But I don’t think this deals with the issue of infanticide.
You are free to disagree.
> Why couldn’t the Israelites have simply adopted the children.
They did sometimes. The Midianite girls were adopted. But girls are lot less likely to carry a vendetta for their clans. But I doubt that adoption could be done in every circumstance either.
> It’s not like they could influence the nation as a whole.
You're thinking in terms of national violence. In the Bronze Age, people thought in terms of clan violence. A single individual could certainly gather the resources to wipe out a clan.
> But again a possible answer to my argument may be that in having a host of pagan children those who nurture the children would know their origin and may contemplate that the peoples they destroyed were actually innocent.
What is the age limit for who would know what? Would a 7-year old know what happened to their real parents? Probably. And even if the children were young enough not to remember, sooner or later someone would comment that the children look different than normal Israelites, then the child would be alerted to their past and start seeking out answers.
> Then as a result of such thinking then adopt pagan customs. If anyone has a better answer to my objection as to why they couldn’t simply adopt them. Feel free to refute me
How many people who are adopted today find out by accident that they are adopted and seek out their birth parents? It's not a fool-proof solution. And in the case of the late Bronze Age, such a failure could lead to you and your entire clan being wiped out.
Potential future rebellion
That's why they take the females but not the males
Thanks for the reply can you provide me with resources or videos that explain the idea of clan violence as it pertains to Ancient contexts?@@ancientegyptandthebible
Have you heard the story of the death of Mohammed? He carried out the murdering of captured males and the rape of their women and girls who were made slaves. A woman whose husband, father and brothers all had been killed by the Muslims was his servant. She offered to cook a sheep for Mohammed and his companions. Well, she poisoned it and poisoned Mohammed. He became very ill but did not die immediately but suffered severe pain for two years until his end. (David Woods tells this story all the time.)
@@501Mobius
Good catch .
Hamas and human shields. Good upload.
This is good. I have often taken the same line of reasoning. I think the only real issue is how the children died. If God raptured them into heaven, no one would complain. And so I think the argument really is about how God allowed the consequences of the parent's sin to actualize a kind of death that seems painful for the child. And so we can reduce the objection to how God's justice is compatible with children suffering pain due to their parent's sin, not whether children suffering due to a parent's sin is unjust. Framed this way, we can clearly see the argument is 10x weaker than it first seems.
That is asking God to bubble wrap every immoral action we could do by removing the consequences .
Dr falks argument doesn't just apply to this specific context .
In fact . It is the consequences of your actions that help you consider if the action is worth it .
In other words . You can call it a prevention / deterrent mechanism
@@DiverRamada Yeah, I tend to agree. I think the pain the child experiences as a result of God's judgment on the parents, is more of a pastoral problem of how to make sense of God's love and Him allowing us and children to experience severe pain. There seems to be no obvious contradiction, hence the argument being weak, but there is serious emotional tension. One that can perhaps prevent worship.
@@MsLondondude
This isn't something unusual . There are consequences for your actions .
I mean that's the doctrine of hell
@@DiverRamada Yeah, but children don't go to hell. The issue is that a child is innocent and thus suffering extreme pain due to someone else's actions seems problematic emotionally. That is why I think it is a serious emotional challenge to worship.
That said, there is a difference between a parent doing some evil and this affecting a child and God ordering a nation to punish a child for a parent's action by inflicting pain on a child. Sure, the parent's disobedience warrants God's wrath, and by extension affects the child, but to order a nation to inflict physical harm on a child isn't the same as a parent's actions causing suffering for a child.
I am not sure what the difference is, but it certainly seems on face value that there is one. But I don't really find the OT a problem. There are so many options a Christian can take, I am happy to just hold God is maximally loving and whatever reading of the OT makes sense of this the best, is the most likely reading to be true.
@@MsLondondude If we really thought this was unjust and that God should have elevated the consequences . We would have to be consistent and ask why god doesn't do that as a general rule .
I do think the best answer is . The existance of the consequences actually help determine if you are going to commit an immortal action . It's actually a safeguard that helps prevent you from doing so because now you don't just have to think about yourself but those who will be effected by your actions .
The way you describe the morals of the bible points in a direction that those morals are all man made, subjective and out of their historic context and different to our morals of today.
I would even agree about that.
Back then and today we live in subjective, man made moralities based on knowledge, experience and agreements in our historic situation.
For that reason I became as Deist, as no god/gods ever gave gave us any rules or morals.
Incorrect .
Moral progress means there is something to progress to the ultimate good ( god )
There is no such thing as moral progress in moral relativism .
Morality doesn't change only our understanding of it .
Just like scientific theories of the universe . The universe doesn't change our understanding of it does
Moral progress is evidence of objective morality
Moral relativists can't say their " morals of today "
Are better than that of the past
@@DiverRamada Thanks for your answer, but:
Where are we in a "progress to the ultimate good ( god )"?
We are not.
You named it in the right way: we cant say that our morals are better than the morals of the past, as all morals are subjective.
We make our morals of today based on our knowledge, our experience and our agreements in our situation of today, they did the same in the past.
People in other lands and cultures have other ideas of morality as they have other exeriences and are in other situations. Thats why you will never have 100% of the people be pro or agaisnt a war in the UNO, thats why you will always have contradictive opinions about actually everything.
That doesnt come from any god.
As a Deist I think there might be a god/gods, but he doesnt interfere in this world and he didnt give us any morals or rules.
We have to figure that out on our own.
@@user-hr8dx9qw4n
How can differences amongst different people groups on morality be evidence that morality is subjective without counter also being true . People agree on morals .
In fact across cultures there is shared morals . This is the mistake .
Morals are not determined to be objective or subjective based on the agreement or disagreement of people.
@@user-hr8dx9qw4n after all . I can show you morals in the Bible that are consistent throughout that don't change
What would you say to somebody who says: the israelites could have just taken the kids in and raised them?
I would say is that, when it was tried, it usually ended in dead family members. Again this is a clan-based society. Think Heike Monogatari here.
If the creation leads to unavoidable evil then do not create.
If you had a button that could kill all life right now and no further life will be created would you push the button?
Evil is a lack of Goodness both R A result of Creation and before the fall God says his Creation is Good..
@@JP-rf8rr yes
@@morlewen7218
You have the same moral philosophy as thanos. Pretty sure he was the bad guy
@@ramadadiver7810 Let's create another scenario. Given all the knowledge about pain and suffering in the world and given omnipotence to you would you create
1) exact the same universe like Yahweh did
2) a universe without pain and suffering
3) no unviverse at all.
There's no such thing as a cannanite orphanage😂😂
It is biblical christian teachings of bible that promotes infancides.
Never heard of progressive revelation, have you? Not that infanticide should impinge the conscience of a Satanist. You can now crawl back under your rock.
@@ancientegyptandthebible Europeans are pagan gentiles, and they have nothing to do with Abrahamic Semitic Religions or Egypt except Appropriation and Stealing.
Note: God kills every living thing he brings into being, sooner or later, in a wide variety of ways. Whether he sends a plague or an army, there is no real moral difference. It's only because God is supposed to be "loving" that this is a problem, the assumption being that someone who is "loving" will never do something that displeases me and is unlimitedly Nice. WHOEVER the Creator of this universe is, NICE He is not.
This is a good point that is often overlooked. Almost always.
Everyone dies, therefore God is "guilty" of every death anyway, the only difference is timing.
But of course, everyone overlooks the fact that God is also "guilty" of every life.
So at most, His score can only ever be 0, not -1. He gives life, He takes it. And the vast majority of people love their life and are glad to have it, so I think He's doing alright.
I JUST UNSUBBED
OKEY BROTHER! May God have mercy on you!
Weeding out the false Disciples like Jesus did in John 6.
@@davidjanbaz7728They must be a “false disciple” because they unsubbed? What?
@@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYouRemain subscribed and submitted to the authority of the One Holy Falkisterium or be declared anathema!
This isn't an airport; there's no need to announce your departure.
When you actually read the bible, you understand why religious people are more prone to sexual misconduct.
The bible has a lot of it and normalises it. It's the same a lot of the negative aspects of society.
What does that have to do with this video? Also, at best one could argue it might 'normalize' it for the conquered enemy nations where you're allowed to take a bride (Although it seems rather frowned upon to do that). Outside of that, I can't think of a time when it really 'normalizes' sexual misconduct.
MENE MENE TEKEL UFARSIM ,Sir ha ha ha ha
Yup, your displeasure has been already noted. But I don't think my "kingdom" if you even call it that is near to falling quite just yet.
Hahah
MORE. BEANIE. FALK.
Love this video, thank you!!
My pleasure... 😁