The Baby Salvation Loophole

[Kane]

We do not have the authority to murder, so it is immoral for us to do so, unless we are granted that authority by someone who does, whereby it becomes lawful killing.

Do you have a reasoning brain?

[Whag]

God isn't ordering infanticide today, nor do I know of any abortion doctors claiming this.

It doesn't matter that, according to you, God isn't ordering infanticide today. According to the Bible, He once did, and Craig justifies it by saying the horror of that is nullified by their being welcomed into Heaven. The implication here is that God saw value in the slaughter other than indiscriminate vengeance. He was being loving by ordering those soldiers to kill babies.

[seanD]

It doesn't matter that, according to you, God isn't ordering infanticide today. According to the Bible, He once did, and Craig justifies it by saying the horror of that is nullified by their being welcomed into Heaven. The implication here is that God saw value in the slaughter other than indiscriminate vengeance. He was being loving by ordering those soldiers to kill babies.

If Craig is correct, which we don't know. Assuming Craig's theory is correct, then what?

[Whag]

If Craig is correct, which we don't know. Assuming Craig's theory is correct, then what?

It's not just Craig's theory. I just used him as an example.

If the theory is correct, a Canaanite baby goes to Heaven even though he would grow up to do all the naughty things Craig describes those cultures as doing. Craig implies that God is too impotent to see that child would have rejected him later. How hard would it be for God to not be hoodwinked in such a way as to permit souls to be in his company who otherwise would have hated him? God sounds like a dupe.

If one of the requirements to get into Heaven is simply to die before you learn to hate God, that seems to contradict the idea of the importance of Heaven being populated by quality-controlled, kiln-fired believers.

[Carrikature]

We do not have the authority to murder, so it is immoral for us to do so, unless we are granted that authority by someone who does, whereby it becomes lawful killing. We are not supposed to do evil so that good may abound, so even though murdering a child might be for their long term good, it is not something that we should do on our own authority.

All of this is irrelevant. The question is not "should we do this". The question is "is this actually possible". For the sake of argument, hypothesize that I believe in Heaven but also believe I am doomed to Hell. Therefore, the state of my soul, and the morality of any action, is not a concern. Conceivably, I could still find it 'good' to kill small children for the sake of ensuring they all go to heaven.

The possibility of God judging children on the lives they would have led sounds reasonable, however, the Bible does not say one way or the other, so I simply trust God to act justly.

While I do see your point, I would wonder why any of us need live our lives if God was willing to simply judge us on how they would have turned out.

[seanD]

It's not just Craig's theory. I just used him as an example.

If the theory is correct, a Canaanite baby goes to Heaven even though he would grow up to do all the naughty things Craig describes those cultures as doing. Craig implies that God is too impotent to see that child would have rejected him later. How hard would it be for God to not be hoodwinked in such a way as to permit souls to be in his company who otherwise would have hated him? God sounds like a dupe.

If one of the requirements to get into Heaven is simply to die before you learn to hate God, that seems to contradict the idea of the importance of Heaven being populated by quality-controlled, kiln-fired believers.

I don't really know what you mean by "hoodwinked," but in regards to the theory, it was merely God intervening so that the infants had the full knowledge of God, and thus wouldn't have been exposed to the opportunity to reject him, even if we assume God knew they would have rejected him as grown adults. Why did God reveal himself to Paul when Paul, before the revelation, hated Christ?

[lao tzu]

God probably knew they were all going to reject him and end up in hell, anyway. Don't need omniscience for that. It'd have been a harder call if He hadn't ordered the slaughter of their friends and families, though.

[Whag]

I don't really know what you mean by "hoodwinked," but in regards to the theory, it was merely God intervening so that the infants had the full knowledge of God, and thus wouldn't have been exposed to the opportunity to reject him, even if we assume God knew they would have rejected him as grown adults.

By "hoodwinked," I mean that God's ultimate preference is that lives are lived out and genuine, experience-based commitments to Him made. If I kill a baby, I trick God into sending a human to Heaven that might otherwise have been a serial rapist or blood-drinking Canaanite.

Why did God reveal himself to Paul when Paul, before the revelation, hated Christ?

I don't understand. Can you elaborate?

[seanD]

By "hoodwinked," I mean that God's ultimate preference is that lives are lived out and genuine, experience-based commitments to Him made. If I kill a baby, I trick God into sending a human to Heaven that might otherwise have been a serial rapist or blood-drinking Canaanite.



I don't understand. Can you elaborate?

I think you’re overlooking God’s sovereignty. God can do whatever he wants to whomever he wants. God apparently chooses to allow freewill to a greater degree in some and chooses to diminish freewill in others. In light of this, Craig’s theory is pretty elementary to understand. God prevented the infants from ending up being damned for their potential life’s choices that would have probably ended up being against him. I used Paul to illustrate an example of this. He could have easily let Paul continue choosing to hate Christ and killing Christians until the day he died and then Paul would have been damned for his actions. Instead, God personally intervened (something he doesn’t do for everyone), tweaked Paul’s freewill and drove him on a different course. So people who kill infants don't "hoodwink" God because freewill is not homogeneous and God allows certain flexibility.

[Whag]

I think you’re overlooking God’s sovereignty. God can do whatever he wants to whomever he wants.

No, I just don't see it as an adequate answer for everything.

God apparently chooses to allow freewill to a greater degree in some and chooses to diminish freewill in others. In light of this, Craig’s theory is pretty elementary to understand. God prevented the infants from ending up being damned for their potential life’s choices that would have probably ended up being against him.

If people are that easily ushered into Heaven, I don't see why Christians make such a fuss about quality control.. Is quality control in heaven important or not?

I used Paul to illustrate an example of this. He could have easily let Paul continue choosing to hate Christ and killing Christians until the day he died and then Paul would have been damned for his actions. Instead, God personally intervened (something he doesn’t do for everyone), tweaked Paul’s freewill and drove him on a different course. So people who kill infants don't "hoodwink" God because freewill is not homogeneous and God allows certain flexibility.

I do agree that his freewill appears to have been tweaked according to the Bible. I see a laxity in the importance of free will, which seems to undermine the necessity of letting people make choices. To believe, one must rationalize these inconsistencies away.

[siliconwafer]

At 2:17 in this video, William Lane Craig partly defends the killing of babies in OT conquest wars by saying that the Canaanite babies inherited an eternal gift by being killed, nullifying the seeming crime done against them. That defense has always puzzled me, so I'd like to scratch the surface of it.

That defense seems to imply a massive loophole in the salvation system whereby a human being who could very well grow up to be a monster and go to Hell is luckily spared justice and gets a free pass to Heaven. If that is literally true, then it would make sense to kill as many children as possible and usher them into Heaven to bypass the judgment. How is that not a massive loophole? Surely, we can posit a person like Andrea Yates with a much bigger delusional agenda who determines this ultimately would be a moral act, and indeed it would be--if Craig is right--because it would result in the rescuing of souls that might have gone to Hell had they lived. Even if that delusional person was sent to Hell, a clear alleviation of the worst kind suffering is the result. (I do not argue that Craig's defense implicitly encourages such actions.)

A less comfy and more realistic perspective would be that God, being God, would be able to see how those babies might have lived had they grown and mete out punishment in that context. That bypasses the loophole and doesn't leave Craig and similar apologists vulnerable to the glaringly obvious (and I would say vastly superior) counterargument.

Everyone deserves eternal damnation including infants and unborn humans. Adam is our representative and when Adam sinned, God considered all of us to have sinned in Adam. As a result of Adam's sin, we inherit a guilty standing before God and a corrupt nature. Since infants deserve eternal damnation, we have no basis for finding fault with God if someone dies in their infancy and goes to hell. God could choose to save those who have died in their infancy, but the Bible is silent concerning the fate of those who die in their infancy.

The Canaanites were exterminated including the children as an act of divine judgment for their wickedness. God used the Israelites to be His instruments of judgment. The Israelites were not committing murder because God sanctioned them to carry out His justice. The Israelites were not taking justice into their own hands.

[Whag]

Everyone deserves eternal damnation including infants and unborn humans.

What does eternal damnation consist of?

Adam is our representative and when Adam sinned, God considered all of us to have sinned in Adam.

Why extend the guilt of one person to successive generations? That is cruel and illogical.

[Darth Executor]

At 2:17 in this video, William Lane Craig partly defends the killing of babies in OT conquest wars by saying that the Canaanite babies inherited an eternal gift by being killed, nullifying the seeming crime done against them. That defense has always puzzled me, so I'd like to scratch the surface of it.

It's not puzzling at all. The original objection is not an intellectual objection, it is an emotional objection. Even if it can be defeated on an intellectual level (and it can, quite easily), persuasion rarely works at that level for most people. Craig knows this so he makes up a BS emotional explanation to a BS emotional objection because he knows that if he uses a logical explanation he will end up "losing" the argument in the hearts of the audience.

[seanD]

No, I just don't see it as an adequate answer for everything.



If people are that easily ushered into Heaven, I don't see why Christians make such a fuss about quality control.. Is quality control in heaven important or not?



I do agree that his freewill appears to have been tweaked according to the Bible. I see a laxity in the importance of free will, which seems to undermine the necessity of letting people make choices. To believe, one must rationalize these inconsistencies away.

Not sure what you mean by quality control and what you think Christians are arguing about it. Freewill is important, but none of us have freewill without at least some causation by the divine. However, the degrees of this obviously vary, which I explained in my previous post. Why they vary and how much they vary is an unanswerable question because it’s just part of God’s sovereignty.

[Whag]

Not sure what you mean by quality control and what you think Christians are arguing about it. Freewill is important, but none of us have freewill without at least some causation by the divine. However, the degrees of this obviously vary, which I explained in my previous post. Why they vary and how much they vary is an unanswerable question because it’s just part of God’s sovereignty.

Is the quality of a person important in Heaven, or does God just let in any slob who's made a belief confession or died as a child? Paul cites the quality of believers as being important for entrance in Heaven.