Like: Ordering the slaughter of infants and children (1 Samuel 15:3) Flooding the earth, killingeveryone but one family (Genesis 6–9) Burning cities alive (Sodom & Gomorrah) Punishing generations for the sins of their fathers (Exodus 20:5)

Sure — a fair, general definition of evil would be: “The intentional infliction of suffering, harm, or death on others — especially the innocent — without just cause or proportional reason.”

Is morality defined by action, or just who’s doing it?

Are infants guilty by association? Are babies “not innocent” because of where they were born? If a human leader did this today and said “they weren’t innocent,” would we call that justice… or a war crime?

That’s fair — emotion alone isn’t an argument. But emotion doesn’t disqualify logic, either. What I gave wasn’t emotionalism — it was a moral standard applied across the board. So let’s go back to your question:

Sure — in that case, it might not be evil. But then I asked: What’s the proportional reason for killing infants? And your reply was: “They weren’t innocent.”

lets turn this convo into a more reasonable approach

for the original answer yes, but lets change it to this degree -

Why are so many Christians so passionately against abortion — saying every unborn child is sacred — but then also worship a God who ordered the deaths of countless children and infants in the Old Testament?

f my issue was just misunderstanding scripture, you’d be able to explain how killing children aligns with divinelove—without outsourcing it to debates or doctrine. This isn’t metaphysics—it’s asking why “sacred life” only matters when humans end it, but not when God does.

And that’s fair if you’re still working through it. But if the belief system demands total trust—eternal consequences and all—shouldn’t the answers be clear without needing a PhD or YouTube rabbit hole? I'm not asking for debate transcripts—just a simple explanation for why divine love ever includes killing children.

Not everything, no. But when the system asks for total trust—and says the stakes are eternal torment—then yeah, I think it’s fair to expect clarity on how divine love aligns with divine violence. If we’d question that in a human leader, why give God a pass?

If someone doesn’t believe in Jesus—or picks the wrong religion—they’re condemned to eternal separation from God, often described as hell or unending suffering. That’s the common teaching. If the consequence is infinite punishment, then yeah… I’d call that a high-stakes system.

I believe in asking hard questions—and that truth should hold up under them. Whether or not I believe in Jesus isn’t the issue here. The issue is how eternal punishment, genocide, and selective sacredness get defended under the label of “love.”

I’ve watched plenty of debates—that’s part of why I’m here asking real people. If the truth of a belief can’t be explained clearly without professional apologists, that says a lot. I’m not expecting perfection—just consistency. And so far, I’ve gotten more redirection than resolution.

I understand the answers. I just don’t find them convincing—or consistent. Saying “God is love” while defending genocide and eternal hell sounds more like moral gymnastics than divine truth. If the answers require me to redefine love, justice, and innocence just to protect the doctrine… maybe the doctrine needs rethinking.

Nah—what it showed is that you're willing to call things evil when humans do them, but not when God does the same or worse. I stayed consistent with the definition. You changed the rules depending on who held the sword. That’s not clarity—that’s double standards disguised as faith.

If morality doesn’t apply to God, then stop calling Him good—call Him powerful. Goodness means something only if it's consistent across all beings. If “He can do it because He’s God” is the defense, then you’ve admitted it’s wrong… you just don’t hold Him accountable for it.

That’s the thing—I’m not asking from my worldview. I’m using yours. If your God is loving, just, and perfect, then I’m asking how divine commands to kill babies, punish entire nations, and send people to eternal torment fit that definition. If that’s not a fair question, maybe the worldview is shielding something.

Exactly—and the fact that we’ve come full circle without a clear answer kind of proves the point. If a belief can’t survive one hard question without circling, dodging, or outsourcing, maybe it’s not the question that’s broken—it’s the system trying to avoid it.

I’m all for research—but I’m also for honesty. If a worldview requires endless reading just to justify killing children or eternal suffering, maybe the issue isn’t my heart—it’s the doctrine people keep excusing. I came with sincerity. The spin came later.

It’s always the heart when the logic runs out, isn’t it? I didn’t come with hate—I came with questions. If asking how love and justice coexist with mass killing makes me the problem… maybe the real issue isn’t my heart. It’s the doctrine that can’t handle the light.

but thank you for doing this

نستخدم ملفات تعريف الارتباط لتوفير تجربة تصفح سلسة لك. لا نعرض أي إعلانات، ونحافظ على تجربتك مجهولة.