Genocide

[spiritually inclined]

1 Samuel 15:1-3 (King James Version)


1Samuel also said unto Saul, The LORD sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD.
2Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
3Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ***.

Christians often jump to defend this genocide and slaughter of non-human life by claiming that the actions of the ancestors (committed hundreds of years ago!) of the Amalekites justified the murder of their descendants, even innocent infants, children, and animals. In modern times, at least in the United States of America, such a defense would not keep the perpetrators of this crime from being punished. Why do *some* Christians defend these actions? How is an acceptance of the slaughter of infants and children compatible with the view that abortion is murder, and thus wrong?

James

[Shadow Wolf]

Why do *some* Christians defend these actions? How is an acceptance of genocide compatible with the view that abortion is murder, and thus wrong?

Because God commanded it.
The youth pastor at the last church I went to (fundamental Baptist) even went so far as to say that Isreal was punished for not carrying out the slaughter, and it was because of the failure to kill everyone they were not there own state untill 1944 (?).

[Trey of Diamonds]

I think it's a mistake to judge the past based on present moralities. There are many brutal periods in our history and in order to take the lessons of history we must be able to examine the events within the context of the period.

For example. Genghis Khan is one of the most hated figures in history for western cultures. Why? Well he conquered his enemies, raised entire cities and was very successful in his endeavors. But when comparing his empire with the others of the period we find that under his rule there was religious freedom, a free market economy, not only freedom for women but political power as well. And yet all that is taught in schools is how horrible he was in battle and at war. But if you examine his actions during war you find them to be no different, or in many case more moral, than the other empires of the day.

So why is he vilified? Because he was our enemy and he was successful and therefore a danger to us. And so his legacy is still colored by this today.

So when you're looking at the actions of peoples long dead and buried, remember to take the information in context and consider the source of said info.

[spiritually inclined]

I think it's a mistake to judge the past based on present moralities. There are many brutal periods in our history and in order to take the lessons of history we must be able to examine the events within the context of the period.

For example. Genghis Khan is one of the most hated figures in history for western cultures. Why? Well he conquered his enemies, raised entire cities and was very successful in his endeavors. But when comparing his empire with the others of the period we find that under his rule there was religious freedom, a free market economy, not only freedom for women but political power as well. And yet all that is taught in schools is how horrible he was in battle and at war. But if you examine his actions during war you find them to be no different, or in many case more moral, than the other empires of the day.

So why is he vilified? Because he was our enemy and he was successful and therefore a danger to us. And so his legacy is still colored by this today.

So when you're looking at the actions of peoples long dead and buried, remember to take the information in context and consider the source of said info.

How is this relevant to the question of how murdering people, including children and infants, is moral, at any time? Do you believe it was not immoral to commit infanticide and genocide just because it happened in another time period for superstitious religious reasons?

James

[Trey of Diamonds]

Originally Posted by spiritually inclined

How is this relevant to the question of how murdering people, including children and infants, is moral, at any time? Do you believe it was not immoral to commit infanticide and genocide just because it happened in another time period for superstitious religious reasons?

James

Define moral. You are using the definitions of today not the time period the event took place in. What was the moral compass of the time like and what did the people of the time think. We think it is immoral but did they?

[spiritually inclined]

Define moral. You are using the definitions of today not the time period the event took place in. What was the moral compass of the time like and what did the people of the time think. We think it is immoral but did they?

Apparently they did not find it immoral; they believed it was the command of God. Does that mean it was not wrong for them to kill innocent children?

In other cultures in which slavery is deemed acceptable, even moral, does that make slavery okay?

Is morality so relative as to mean that in one time period or culture that slavery and murder are wrong, but in another time period or culture they are not wrong?

That seems to be your implication.

James

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by spiritually inclined

How is this relevant to the question of how murdering people, including children and infants, is moral, at any time?

This stuff becomes tiresome after a while ...

It's exaggerated folk history blended with bellicose propaganda aimed at warning potential enemies.

Merenptah's Victory Stele

The princes are prostrate saying: "Shalom!"
Not one of the Nine Bows lifts his head:
Tjehenu is vanquished, Khatti at peace,
Canaan is captive with all woe.
Ashkelon is conquered, Gezer seized,
Yanoam made nonexistent;
Israel is wasted, bare of seed,
Khor is become a widow for Egypt.
All who roamed have been subdued.
By the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Banere-meramun,
Son of Re, Merenptah, Content with Maat,
Given life like Re every day.

Bombast such as this was common throughout the area. Get over it ...

[Trey of Diamonds]

Originally Posted by spiritually inclined

Apparently they did not find it immoral; they believed it was the command of God. Does that mean it was not wrong for them to kill innocent children?

In other cultures in which slavery is deemed acceptable, even moral, does that make slavery okay?

Is morality so relative as to mean that in one time period or culture that slavery and murder are wrong, but in another time period or culture they are not wrong?

That seems to be your implication.

James

Morality is very fluid. It has multiple meanings even today. What is right and wrong is certianly relative to the period of time you're discussing. Today it is relative as to what country you're in. In the United States it is right to go out and have a beer with a woman at a bar. In Saudi Arabia it is wrong and even considered a sin.

Are you claiming that there is an ultimate right and wrong and if so that you know what that right and wrong is?