Ah, a well-written defense for divinely commanded genocide.
Okay, as for the point on Genocide (for clarity of understanding for other readers here): Well, Genocide does not apply to God because He made you and all people. We wouldn't exist in the first place if it wasn't for God. Also, God knows if a person is being good and wicked. God knows a person better than anyone knows themselves. God knows your future and what you are going to do. So if God decides to take a person's life and if that person is truly wicked and was never wanting to accept the Lord whereby they just loved sin and evil instead, then God being their Creator of all things has the right to judge their sins and then end their existence by casting them into the Lake of Fire. If a person is innocent like a baby or someone who is mentally handicapped, or if a person is a true believer in Jesus Christ (and not a fake), then they will be with the Lord in spirit when their body dies and then one day they will have a new physical resurrected body so as to restore God's original good plan of being with man back in the Garden. For God never intended man (Adam & Eve) to be on their own. For man can never be perfectly obedient on his own. Mankind needed God (Jesus Christ) to be his/her mediator or intercessor.
See, the difference between the first group and the second group is that the first group doesn't see any need to justify God commanding genocide. He said to do it. So it's good and just. The second group looks for reasons why the command could be good or just, which you did a fairly good job at doing.
Thank you.
One thing I am curious about though is your last paragraph. You hint to an age of accountability for children. Many Christians believe in this ideology one way or another but there is virtually no Scripture to back up this claim. There is no doctrine that I know of that is more widely accepted than the Age of Innocence or Age of Accountability doctrine that has such little Scriptural backing.
We say the only way to heaven is through Christ, yet there is this backdoor exception. If you are too young, or some have even included the extremely mentally handicapped, then you get a free pass. Where is the line drawn for the age of accountability? How mentally handicapped does someone have to be? What about someone who gets into an accident that leaves them severely handicapped or in a coma? Who knows? All I know is I'd hate to be the kid who died just after he passed that imaginary line.
This doctrine has always struck me as conscious insurance. We all would feel a whole lot better knowing that babies and toddlers aren't going to hell in masses. But is there really enough Scripture to merit believing in this. And how old are we going here? 5? 7? 9? Apparently you'd go as far as 12 if you were referring to the orphan boy in my analogy. But it doesn't seem like age is necessarily the factor here, but rather the ability to be able to accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior. No matter how old a severely mentally handicapped person gets, they will never be able to do this. So people often include that group among those that get the free pass. One could even argue that people that have never heard of Jesus or God should get the free pass as well. I'd really be interested to here someone expound on this mysterious doctrine, using Scripture as backing.
Romans 5:13 says, "sin is not imputed where there is no Law." This passage can be understood in two ways.
#1. In context it is talking about how sin was imputed by Adam's death to those who did not live by faith before the Law of Moses came. In Romans chapter 5 we learn, "For by one man sin entered the world and by one man many shall be justified."
Now, under the Mosaic Law there was an accounting and those under that Law had to bring their sacrifices accordingly. Prior to the Mosaic law, the Patriarchs offered sacrifices to God, but not as a result of particular sins–not because God said to them if you do such and such sin then you have to offer such and such sacrifices. The sacrifices of the Patriarchs were offered based upon faith, not law. Which explains the context of Romans 5:13.
For sin was no doubt in the world prior to the law and so was transgression, hence there had to be some kind of law. For obviously Paul does not contradict himself here. He says that sin was not accounted until the law came. The point is that there was no law from God to this point that had been codified, that is, placed into written form. Before the Law of Moses, sin was not imputed because there was no written Law to transgress. Then how was sin imputed to those living before the written Law? Well, sin was imputed to those living before the Law because the "death of sin" was passed down to them thru Adam's disobedience (Romans 5:12, 14, 17, 18, 19). Those living before the Law, were exclusively justified by faith and those who did not live by faith were condemned. In other words, the Old Testament saint living before the Law was justified by following Romans 8:1. Yes, they did not know who Christ was yet or this passage, but the Spirit of Christ was in fact within the prophets, though (1 Peter 1:10, 11).
#2. The basic truth or point expressed in Romans 5:13 can also be applied to a person's life, as well. The passage says, "Sin is not imputed where there is no Law." Babies, and the mentally handicapped have no knowledge of the Law (or right from wrong yet) so sin is not imputed to them. Young children have some kind of understanding of the Law, but they are not fully aware of the entire scope or conseqences of the Law yet. In other words, sin is not imputed to those who do not know about God's Law (Such as babies and or those who are mentally handicapped) and sin is not imputed to those who do not have a full awareness of God's Law yet (Such as children who are still learning about right from wrong).
As for more verses about the Age of Accountability: Well, I would recommend checking out these two articles here.
Anyways, I hope this helps.
And may God bless you, my friend.