No I didn't. I said there was no genocide. It's true that in the Flood an entire community was wiped out, but not the population of the world (genocide). During the conquest of Joshua 3 cities were burned—three communities, not an entire people group (genocide of the Canaanites).

> But when an environment is hopelessly incorrigible, then it's moral to wipe out the community to save others who may be tainted by the same "cancer."

About 4 responses ago you explained in great detail how the entire community was not wiped out and how inaccurate it was to interpret “kill ‘em all” as literally killing everyone.

No, because the actions God took in the Flood and at the 5 cities of the plain is identified as a hopeless, unredeemable situation. In the case of complete, systemic, and irreversible toxicity, the only solution is destruction. Most evil environments don't qualify for those categories. Despite their evil, and possibly even ubiquitous and thorough evil, if there is some redeemable hope (Gn. 18.32), then destruction is not the warranted course. Many children grow up in evil environments that are reached by others, reached by the gospel of Christ, experience life-change, are helped by the man community and repatriated to other locales—there are many possible scenarios where hope can be extracted even from dense evil. There may be many reasons God permits infants to grow up in evil environments. But when an environment is hopeless incorrigible, then it's moral to wipe out the community to save others who may be tainted by the same "cancer."

If objective morality dictates that it is good for God to kill infants before they grow up in evil environments, then wouldn’t the same objective morality dictate that it is bad for God to permit infants to grow up in evil environments?

The same moral code and moral standards apply to us, but it would be mostly immoral for us to do the same thing, not only just now, but at any time, because we are not omniscient. We would be hedging our bets, assessing risk, wondering about various possible future outcomes, but since God knows all and sees all, His course of action is certain where ours would be speculative.

The objective morality upon which this is based does apply equally to man. If we were able to discern the same amount of knowledge, we would also be right to perform the same action. Medically we could do this in the event of a toxic uncontainable incurable disease that had infected a community. In an extreme circumstance, we would (with great agony) destroy the community (even the babies) if there were no hope of cure and only horror of contagion. This is what the Bible says God sees spiritually and does (with great agony) in judgment.

I’m not claiming that killing infants to save them from growing up in evil environments is immoral. Perhaps it is objectively moral. As I have said, I’m trying to determine if the objective morality upon which this act is based applies equally to man, since man’s morality is based upon the nature of God.

If it would be immoral for man to do the same thing now, then what specifically exempts God from the same objective morality?

You can't be serious. Infants had committed capital crimes? It's not possible, so you're using the question to trap me, assuming, then, that the infants were not guilty of execution. What you seem to be neglecting in your trap is the inevitable deleterious effect of the environment in which these infants would grow up, raising them in the evil of the culture. As infants they are already exposed to these personalities and detrimental factors. Our own studies of psychology show us how even infants are negatively affected by such negative environments, whether drug or alcohol abuse, hallucinogenic substances, physical child abuse, child sexual abuse (even as infants), exposure to violence and fighting... We have no idea what these environments were like other than what we are told in the Bible, but we do know of environments in our modern world where the social and parental structures have collapsed and even the infants are affected by evil.

Just to avoid any confusion, how many infants are you claiming were caught up in this allegedly immoral act of God, and on what do you base this analysis?

Just to avoid any confusion, is it your position that infants had committed capital crimes and were beyond redemption?

> So, when I asked if genocide was against God’s nature, I was thinking more of the Great Flood or entire cities destroyed by fire from heaven.

OK, well, a little more clarity from the get-go would have helped, but here we are. Neither the Great Flood nor the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah were genocidal acts. The Great Flood was not a global destruction but rather an extensive regional judgment of a group of guilty people. So also, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was not genocidal, because there were many Canaanite cities that were not affected by the judgment. This destruction in particular was aimed at particular groups of people who had been guilty of capital crimes.

With regard to the Flood, we have an assessment from God that the population had fallen below the line of redemptive action (Gn. 6.5). The statement is obviously hyperbolic, but we are to understand that no one was innocent. Their society had collapsed to the point of total moral toxicity. Even the children were caught in the web of perversion. We have even seen examples in our world of ISIS parents training their toddlers to hate and their children to murder. We have seen examples in Somalia of terrorists training children as assassins. We have seen cultures where even the children are neither safe nor innocent.

The same is true with Sodom and Gomorrah. We start learning in Gn. 13.13 that the population as a whole were corrupt. An effort that could have changed their hearts and direction happened in ch. 14, but there apparently was no change and Abraham refused association with them (Gn. 14.22-23). In Genesis 18 we hear Abraham pray that if there are even 10 righteous people in the cities, would God spare them, and God agrees. The destruction shows that there were not. This is not genocide, but appropriate judgment for a society that had become incorrigible. For a judge not to act in a situation irredeemably depraved would be unconscionable.

I appreciate the thorough response, but I wasn’t focusing on genocide by men at God’s command. I’m attempting to compare acts by men to acts by God if both are governed by the same morality, which is based upon God’s own nature.

So, when I asked if genocide was against God’s nature, I was thinking more of the Great Flood or entire cities destroyed by fire from heaven.

To avoid debating the definition of genocide, let’s just say the killing of large groups of people including infants and small children.

I assume you believe this act would be immoral for man.

I assume you believe this act would not be immoral for God.

The question I have is what exempts God in this scenario from the morality that is supposedly based upon His own nature?