Genocide in 1st Samuel 15:2-3

[keithnurse]

These verses say "Thus says the Lord of Hosts, "I will punish the Amalekites for what they did in opposing the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt. (3) Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey". This story says God told the Israelites to commit genocide against the Amalekites. If you believe the Bible to be the inerrant, infallible word of your god then you would have to believe this story is accurate, that your god DID tell the Israelites to commit genocide against a neighboring ethnic group. If you believe god really did say this how do you reconcile it with the idea of God being a god of justice and love? The Christians I have spoken to about this have said the Amalekites were bad people and needed to be gotten rid of . How do you know they were all bad as a group? How do you know the infants and children deserved to die also? The above verse says to kill the children and infants too. I think the Israelites wanted to get the Amalekites out of their way and they concocted this self serving story of God ordering them to commit genocide. Any thoughts from Christians and Jews?

 

[Carico]

These verses say "Thus says the Lord of Hosts, "I will punish the Amalekites for what they did in opposing the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt. (3) Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey". This story says God told the Israelites to commit genocide against the Amalekites. If you believe the Bible to be the inerrant, infallible word of your god then you would have to believe this story is accurate, that your god DID tell the Israelites to commit genocide against a neighboring ethnic group. If you believe god really did say this how do you reconcile it with the idea of God being a god of justice and love? The Christians I have spoken to about this have said the Amalekites were bad people and needed to be gotten rid of . How do you know they were all bad as a group? How do you know the infants and children deserved to die also? The above verse says to kill the children and infants too. I think the Israelites wanted to get the Amalekites out of their way and they concocted this self serving story of God ordering them to commit genocide. Any thoughts from Christians and Jews?

God told the Israelites to destroy God's enemies which they did.

The OT is a shadow of the reality of what God will do to his enemies. Since God made the laws, only He is qualified to judge who breaks them. A judge can see all sides of an issue. Humans can't because humans are the defendants in God's courtroom. That's why not even earthly justice systems allow defendants to judge their own guilt. That's because criminal defendants are too interested in saving their own skins to be honest and object about their crimes and resulting sentence.

So God is the judge and showing contempt for the judge never changes your sentence. it usually makes it worse.

 

[keithnurse]

Your response to what I said is valid only if God actually DID tell the Israelites to kill those people. You said nothing to back up your claim that God told the Israelites to kill the Amalekites. I think, once again, that the Israelites put those words in Gods mouth to make it ok for them to commit genocide against the Amalekites.

 

[Carico]

Your response to what I said is valid only if God actually DID tell the Israelites to kill those people. You said nothing to back up your claim that God told the Israelites to kill the Amalekites. I think, once again, that the Israelites put those words in Gods mouth to make it ok for them to commit genocide against the Amalekites.

Yup. "God is Spirit." Ezekiel 36:17, "And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and obey my laws."

But actually, you're the one who said that God did that. So by your own words, my response is valid.

 

[keithnurse]

Wrong, read the original post again. I said that the story is 1st Samuel says that God said those words. I also said I think it is a self serving story the Israelites made up to justify what they wanted to do i.e. get rid of the Amalekites.

 

[Carico]

Wrong, read the original post again. I said that the story is 1st Samuel says that God said those words. I also said I think it is a self serving story the Israelites made up to justify what they wanted to do i.e. get rid of the Amalekites.

Sorry, but you have to know who God is in order to know if I'm wrong. So discussing a God you don't know is no different than discussing Napolean if you don't believe that Napolean existed. So, is there anything else?

 

[keithnurse]

Sorry, but you have to know who God is in order to know if I'm wrong. So discussing a God you don't know is no different than discussing Napolean if you don't believe that Napolean existed. So, is there anything else?

You really don't have a grasp of what a sound or unsound argument is do you? I am discussing 1st Samuel 15:2-3. You assert that a god really did tell the Israelites to commit genocide against the Amalekites. I assert that the Israelites had their reasons for wanting to get rid of the Amalekites so they made up the story of God telling them to do it. Even if the god of the bible really exists, that doesn't automatically mean god really had anything to do with this story. :yes::yes:

 

[gnostic]

This story says God told the Israelites to commit genocide against the Amalekites. If you believe the Bible to be the inerrant, infallible word of your god then you would have to believe this story is accurate, that your god DID tell the Israelites to commit genocide against a neighboring ethnic group. If you believe god really did say this how do you reconcile it with the idea of God being a god of justice and love? The Christians I have spoken to about this have said the Amalekites were bad people and needed to be gotten rid of . How do you know they were all bad as a group?

Actually this is not the only problem with this god over the genocide, keithnurse.

If you read what it say in 1 Samuel 15:2 properly, you will see that God wasn't just punishing what this current generation of Amalekites did in Saul's time. :no: They were being punished for what the ancestors of current generation did in Moses' time, and that was some 250 or more years before the current genocide.

This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt.

The Amalekites' ancestors didn't want the Israelites to pass through their land, and there was a war between the two people; and the Israelites won (Exodus 17:8-16). So God had already punished the Amalekites by giving victory to Moses and the Israelites.

What did the Amalekites do to Saul and the Israelites? Nothing. They were being punished for something they didn't do. They were being punished hundreds of years later for what their ancestors did, and because the so-called merciful god holds ancient grudge, that he would take his vengeance on the women and children.

Yes, Saul was the one who ordered attack and annihilation of the Amalekites, right down to killing babies, but who gave Saul's this order? Samuel. And Samuel - being both prophet and judge, chosen when he was still young - got his order from God.

God told the Israelites to destroy God's enemies which they did.

The OT is a shadow of the reality of what God will do to his enemies. Since God made the laws, only He is qualified to judge who breaks them. A judge can see all sides of an issue. Humans can't because humans are the defendants in God's courtroom. That's why not even earthly justice systems allow defendants to judge their own guilt. That's because criminal defendants are too interested in saving their own skins to be honest and object about their crimes and resulting sentence.

So God is the judge and showing contempt for the judge never changes your sentence. it usually makes it worse.

I thought the sons shouldn't be punished for the sins of the fathers. That only the sinners should be held accountable for their own sins, not their children. It was mentioned in the Exodus (or elsewhere) that children shouldn't have to pay for what their fathers did (though I don't remember where exactly).

But what happened in 1 Samuel 15 was the sins of the fathers, but that of their ancestors.

Apparently this is not true.

This was a turning point of Saul's reign. The thing is, Saul spared the king, when Agag surrendered, but had his soldiers killed everyone else, so the king lost favour from God, if you read the rest of 1 Samuel 15. God then had Samuel anointed David as the future king in the very next chapter, 1 Samuel 16:1-13. Agag, king of the Amalekites was killed anyway by the order of Samuel.

The animals were also not kill, but used for sacrifices to the God, but Samuel rebuked Saul, and said it is better to obey God, then sacrifice animals to him.

Then if this is case (in regarding to obedience and sacrifice), then is Jesus' sacrifice is for naught?

It makes me wonder just how illogical and vengefully cruel this god really is.

 

[Dunemeister]

You really don't have a grasp of what a sound or unsound argument is do you? I am discussing 1st Samuel 15:2-3. You assert that a god really did tell the Israelites to commit genocide against the Amalekites. I assert that the Israelites had their reasons for wanting to get rid of the Amalekites so they made up the story of God telling them to do it. Even if the god of the bible really exists, that doesn't automatically mean god really had anything to do with this story. :yes::yes:

Sounds to me like you're cooking the books in favor of an interpretation you favor.

 

[gnostic]

Wrong, read the original post again. I said that the story is 1st Samuel says that God said those words. I also said I think it is a self serving story the Israelites made up to justify what they wanted to do i.e. get rid of the Amalekites.

:no:

You need to look at the big picture. The entire book (1 Samuel) is not really about the Amalekites. If you read the read the entire book, you would come to realise it is really about how Saul lost his kingship and all about the rise of David to ultimate power (for a human, at least).

The genocide of Amalekites was only used as a springboard for the story of Saul's downfall and David's eventual kingship. And of the two, God favoured David.

 

[keithnurse]

Sounds to me like you're cooking the books in favor of an interpretation you favor.

Exactly how am I "cooking the books"? The story says God told the Israelites to commit genocide against the Alalekites and then they did, if the story is historically accurate. What I question is the assertion that God had anything to do with it. Maybe the Israelites made the whole thing up about God telling them to do something they wanted to do i.e. get rid of the Amalekites.

 

[keithnurse]

Actually this is not the only problem with this god over the genocide, keithnurse.

If you read what it say in 1 Samuel 15:2 properly, you will see that God wasn't just punishing what this current generation of Amalekites did in Saul's time. :no: They were being punished for what the ancestors of current generation did in Moses' time, and that was some 250 or more years before the current genocide.



The Amalekites' ancestors didn't want the Israelites to pass through their land, and there was a war between the two people; and the Israelites won (Exodus 17:8-16). So God had already punished the Amalekites by giving victory to Moses and the Israelites.

What did the Amalekites do to Saul and the Israelites? Nothing. They were being punished for something they didn't do. They were being punished hundreds of years later for what their ancestors did, and because the so-called merciful god holds ancient grudge, that he would take his vengeance on the women and children.

Yes, Saul was the one who ordered attack and annihilation of the Amalekites, right down to killing babies, but who gave Saul's this order? Samuel. And Samuel - being both prophet and judge, chosen when he was still young - got his order from God.



I thought the sons shouldn't be punished for the sins of the fathers. That only the sinners should be held accountable for their own sins, not their children. It was mentioned in the Exodus (or elsewhere) that children shouldn't have to pay for what their fathers did (though I don't remember where exactly).

But what happened in 1 Samuel 15 was the sins of the fathers, but that of their ancestors.

Apparently this is not true.

This was a turning point of Saul's reign. The thing is, Saul spared the king, when Agag surrendered, but had his soldiers killed everyone else, so the king lost favour from God, if you read the rest of 1 Samuel 15. God then had Samuel anointed David as the future king in the very next chapter, 1 Samuel 16:1-13. Agag, king of the Amalekites was killed anyway by the order of Samuel.

The animals were also not kill, but used for sacrifices to the God, but Samuel rebuked Saul, and said it is better to obey God, then sacrifice animals to him.

Then if this is case (in regarding to obedience and sacrifice), then is Jesus' sacrifice is for naught?

It makes me wonder just how illogical and vengefully cruel this god really is.

Unless God never said "kill the Alalekites" in the first place. The problem I see with what you say here is that you accept as a given that God really did say what the Bible says he said here. What evidence is there that god had anything to do with the Israelites genocide against the Amalekites?

 

[keithnurse]

:no:

You need to look at the big picture. The entire book (1 Samuel) is not really about the Amalekites. If you read the read the entire book, you would come to realise it is really about how Saul lost his kingship and all about the rise of David to ultimate power (for a human, at least).

The genocide of Amalekites was only used as a springboard for the story of Saul's downfall and David's eventual kingship. And of the two, God favoured David.

I'm sure you're right, the book is not only about the Amalekites but about how Saul lost his kingship but I don't see how that rebuts anything I said in the OP. Even if the genocide of the Amalekites is "only a springboard for the story of Sauls downfall" the story still pictures God telling the Israelites to commite genocide. How do you know God had ANYTHING to do with the genocide? I think the Israelites made the whole story up to justify what they wanted to do i.e. get rid of the inconvenient Amalekites.

 

[Carico]

Unless God never said "kill the Alalekites" in the first place. The problem I see with what you say here is that you accept as a given that God really did say what the Bible says he said here. What evidence is there that god had anything to do with the Israelites genocide against the Amalekites?

But he did because it's written in His word which can never be taken back. Sorry. So calling the authors of the bible with zero proof for your claims is called slander.

 

[keithnurse]

But he did because it's written in His word which can never be taken back. Sorry. So calling the authors of the bible with zero proof for your claims is called slander.

Your reasoning is very very poor on this issue. All you've done is insist that God really said what the bible says he said and called me a slanderer. Your reasoning could be used to say any idea is true. I could make up a story and say it's true because the Flying Spaghetti Monster says so and his work can't be changed and if anyone disagrees I would say "you are going against what the Flying Spaghetti Monster himself said. You are slandering the writers of this book".

 

[keithnurse]

But he did because it's written in His word which can never be taken back. Sorry. So calling the authors of the bible with zero proof for your claims is called slander.

I highly recommend that you go to www.youtube.com and look up a video titled "Kissing Hanks ***" and watch it . It is a PERFECT illustration of what is wrong with the reasoning you are using here.

 

[Carico]

Your reasoning is very very poor on this issue. All you've done is insist that God really said what the bible says he said and called me a slanderer. Your reasoning could be used to say any idea is true. I could make up a story and say it's true because the Flying Spaghetti Monster says so and his work can't be changed and if anyone disagrees I would say "you are going against what the Flying Spaghetti Monster himself said. You are slandering the writers of this book".

So poor reasoning is not calling authors liars when I have no proof of that they're lying. Is that correct? If so, then the law disagrees with you and so do I.

 

[keithnurse]

So poor reasoning is not calling authors liars when I have no proof of that they're lying. Is that correct? If so, then the law disagrees with you and so do I.

The poor reasoning you are engaged in here is called "begging the question". When I dispute that God told the Israelites to kill all the Amalekites your response was to simply insist and repeat over and over that God DID say that. That is called begging the question. A more respectable response from you would have been "I know God did indeed tell the Israelites to kill the Amalekites because of: evidence 1 and because of: evidence 2 etc. You did not respond that way because there is no evidence to support your case.

 

[gnostic]

I'm sure you're right, the book is not only about the Amalekites but about how Saul lost his kingship but I don't see how that rebuts anything I said in the OP. Even if the genocide of the Amalekites is "only a springboard for the story of Sauls downfall" the story still pictures God telling the Israelites to commite genocide. How do you know God had ANYTHING to do with the genocide?

Well, you'd seem to be forgetting one important character in the whole story - Samuel.

Did you forget him?

Samuel was chosen at a very young age - 1 Samuel 1-3. He was the last of the Judges, and a prophet. God chose Samuel to be his mouthpiece and 1st spoke to Samuel when he was still only a boy 1 Samuel 3.

When the Israelites wanted a king, it was Samuel who sought out Saul to be a king (1 Samuel 8-10). Have you forgotten this?

And after the Amalekite incident, Saul lost divine favours from God (1 Samuel 15), because Saul and his soldiers didn't completely obey God's order.

So who anointed David?

Samuel? (1 Samuel 16).

And God had a hand in turning against Saul.

God sent evil spirit that would torment Saul, whereby the king became both paranoid and jealous of David (1 Samuel 16:14-23; 1 Samuel 18:10-16; 1 Samuel 19:9-10; and perhaps there were more verses about the evil spirit).

Have you got these too?

If a God can sent evil spirit against someone, then he could easily also order people to commit genocide for disobedience.

I still think thinking that you are not seeing the whole picture of the book 1 Samuel.

 

[Autodidact]

God told the Israelites to destroy God's enemies which they did.

The OT is a shadow of the reality of what God will do to his enemies. Since God made the laws, only He is qualified to judge who breaks them. A judge can see all sides of an issue. Humans can't because humans are the defendants in God's courtroom. That's why not even earthly justice systems allow defendants to judge their own guilt. That's because criminal defendants are too interested in saving their own skins to be honest and object about their crimes and resulting sentence.

So God is the judge and showing contempt for the judge never changes your sentence. it usually makes it worse.

So, Carico, in your moral system, genocide can be a good and moral thing? Also infanticide?

And again, Rev. Phelps?