Amalek

[mikkyo]

When you begin quoting things in context, then and only then can you presume to teach me about scripture. The verse you quote 1. refers to JEWS

Both the Quran and Bible advocate violence for the purpose of conquering land. To be honest with you, I see no difference between the bible and the quran, no difference between Allah and Jehovah, and no difference between Jews and Muslims. In fact, both groups fit the description of the Amalekites. It is quite obvious your god is pitting Jews and Muslims against each other. That is why you all are suppose to fear him.

Again, there is only ONE, exactly one, precicely one instance in which G-d directs the Jews to wipe out an entire people, and this was regarding the Amalekites. For those reading along, here is the entire quote, giving context:

What about this verse:

Deut 2:31-34, “And Jehovah said unto me, Behold, I have begun to deliver up Sihon and his land before thee: begin to possess, that thou mayest inherit his land. 32Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, unto battle at Jahaz. 33And Jehovah our God delivered him up before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. 34And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed every inhabited city, with the women and the little ones; we left none remaining:
Seriously, how can you be in such denial?

 

[mikkyo]

If you are going to do Bible interpretation you need to learn how to do it properly. First of all, you have to put the verses in the contest of their historical circumstance and also in the context of what they say.

And do you also believe Muslims when they use the same pretext to justify murder in the name of religion? I would not think so.

He didn't even say it was a commandment from God. He said it was a vision. It was hyperbole given to make a point.

But your god had the reputation of ordering the Jews to murder. It clearly says so.

Deut 2:31-34, “And Jehovah said unto me, Behold, I have begun to deliver up Sihon and his land before thee: begin to possess, that thou mayest inherit his land. 32Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, unto battle at Jahaz. 33And Jehovah our God delivered him up before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. 34And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed every inhabited city, with the women and the little ones; we left none remaining:

You cannot tell me this is a vision.

 

[mikkyo]

This conflict will be the same. It's only a matter of how long we want to drag it out and how many true innocents we are willing to sacrifice to give us the illusion of a clean concience.

As long as the murder rate never exceeds the number of innocent civilians who died in Iraq, then why should America or the UN care? You all just don't get how evil the world has become, but instead everyone waste time pointing fingers at each other.

 

[Secundulus]

And do you also believe Muslims when they use the same pretext to justify murder in the name of religion? I would not think so.



But your god had the reputation of ordering the Jews to murder. It clearly says so.

Deut 2:31-34, “And Jehovah said unto me, Behold, I have begun to deliver up Sihon and his land before thee: begin to possess, that thou mayest inherit his land. 32Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, unto battle at Jahaz. 33And Jehovah our God delivered him up before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. 34And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed every inhabited city, with the women and the little ones; we left none remaining:

You cannot tell me this is a vision.

That doesn't say God ordered them to kill anyone. It says that Sihon attacked them as they attempted to pass and that with God's help they were victorious in battle.

 

[GeratTzedek]

Mikkyo:

Lets quote then entire chapter you reference and read it while considering your two statements: that G-d had a habit of asking the Jews to "murder" people, and that this secondly was a way to get land. Everyone will now see for themselves that in this one chapter Israel comes into contact with FOUR peoples. Three of them HaShem specifically states they are not to engage them or encroach upon their land. That means that if we extrapolate from the chapter you quote, 75% of the time HaShem says, "Leave other people alone."

And the 1 out of 4 which Israel did engage? Joshua initially asks only for peaceful passage through the land. When King Sihon REFUSES them safe passage and ATTACKS Israel instead, THAT is when Israel follows HaShem's instruction to conquer.

Gee, that sounds nothing like what you decribed. It is apparent to me that you decided in advance that Israel's G-d is some kind of bloodthirsty deity, and then went looking for quotes to prove your prejudice. Sorry. the passage speaks for itself.

Chapter 21 "When we did turn and proceed into the desert on the Red Sea road, as the LORD had commanded me, we circled around the highlands of Seir for a long time. 2 Finally the LORD said to me, 3 'You have wandered round these highlands long enough; turn and go north. 4 Give this order to the people: You are now about to pass through the territory of your kinsmen, the descendants of Esau, who live in Seir. Though they are afraid of you, be very careful 5 not to come in conflict with them, for I will not give you so much as a foot of their land, since I have already given Esau possession of the highlands of Seir. 6 You shall purchase from them with silver the food you eat and the well water you drink. 7 The LORD, your God, has blessed you in all your undertakings; he has been concerned about your journey through this vast desert. It is now forty years that he has been with you, and you have never been in want.' 8 "Then we left behind us the Arabah route, Elath, Ezion-geber, and Seir, where our kinsmen, the descendants of Esau, live; and we went on toward the desert of Moab. 9 And the LORD said to me, 'Do not show hostility to the Moabites or engage them in battle, for I will not give you possession of any of their land, since I have given Ar to the descendants of Lot as their own. 10 (Formerly the Emim lived there, a people strong and numerous and tall like the Anakim; 11 like them they were considered Rephaim. It was the Moabites who called them Emim. 12 In Seir, however, the former inhabitants were the Horites; the descendants of Esau dispossessed them, clearing them out of the way and taking their place, just as the Israelites have done in the land of their heritage which the LORD has given them.) 13 Get ready, then, to cross the Wadi Zered.' So we crossed it. 14 Thirty-eight years had elapsed between our departure from Kadesh-barnea and that crossing; in the meantime the whole generation of soldiers had perished from the camp, as the LORD had sworn they should. 15 For it was the LORD'S hand that was against them, till he wiped them out of the camp completely. 16 "When at length death had put an end to all the soldiers among the people, 17 the LORD said to me, 18 'You are now about to leave Ar and the territory of Moab behind. 19 As you come opposite the Ammonites, do not show hostility or come in conflict with them, for I will not give you possession of any land of the Ammonites, since I have given it to the descendants of Lot as their own. 20 (This also was considered a country of the Rephaim from its former inhabitants, whom the Ammonites called Zamzummim, 21 a people strong and numerous and tall like the Anakim. But these, too, the LORD cleared out of the way for the Ammonites, who ousted them and took their place. 22 He had done the same for the descendants of Esau, who dwell in Seir, by clearing the Horites out of their way, so that the descendants of Esau have taken their place down to the present. 23 1 So also the Caphtorim, migrating from Caphtor, cleared away the Avvim, who once dwelt in villages as far as Gaza, and took their place.) 24 "'Advance now across the Wadi Arnon. I now deliver into your hands Sihon, the Amorite king of Heshbon, and his land. Begin the occupation; engage him in battle. 25 This day I will begin to put a fear and dread of you into every nation under the heavens, so that at the mention of your name they will quake and tremble before you.' 26 "So I sent messengers from the desert of Kedemoth to Sihon, king of Heshbon, with this offer of peace: 27 'Let me pass through your country by the highway; I will go along it without turning aside to the right or to the left. 28 For the food I eat which you will supply, and for the water you give me to drink, you shall be paid in silver. Only let me march through, 29 as the descendants of Esau who dwell in Seir and the Moabites who dwell in Ar have done, until I cross the Jordan into the land which the LORD, our God, is about to give us.' 30 But Sihon, king of Heshbon, refused to let us pass through his land, because the LORD, your God, made him stubborn in mind and obstinate in heart that he might deliver him up to you, as indeed he has now done. 31 "Then the LORD said to me, 'Now that I have already begun to hand over to you Sihon and his land, begin the actual occupation.' 32 So Sihon and all his people advanced against us to join battle at Jahaz; 33 but since the LORD, our God, had delivered him to us, we defeated him and his sons and all his people. 34 2 At that time we seized all his cities and doomed them all, with their men, women and children; we left no survivor. 35 Our only booty was the livestock and the loot of the captured cities. 36 From Aroer on the edge of the Wadi Arnon and from the city in the wadi itself, as far as Gilead, no city was too well fortified for us to whom the LORD had delivered them up. 37 However, in obedience to the command of the LORD, our God, you did not encroach upon any of the Ammonite land, neither the region bordering on the Wadi Jabbok, nor the cities of the highlands.

 

[mikkyo]

That doesn't say God ordered them to kill anyone. It says that Sihon attacked them as they attempted to pass and that with God's help they were victorious in battle.

So are you saying the Jews made a mistake when they killed the women and innocent children? Would you have done the same thing if you were a Jew living in that time?

 

[mikkyo]

Mikkyo:

Lets quote then entire chapter you reference and read it while considering your two statements: that G-d had a habit of asking the Jews to "murder" people, and that this secondly was a way to get land. Here is Deuteronomy chapter 2:

How about you explain the entire chapter, then we shall see.

 

[Secundulus]

As long as the murder rate never exceeds the number of innocent civilians who died in Iraq, then why should America or the UN care? You all just don't get how evil the world has become, but instead everyone waste time pointing fingers at each other.

What is your suggested solution?

And get off your moral pedestal. The majority of innocent civilians killed in Iraq are those killed by the brave Muslim Shaheeds who buy their way into Allah's paradise by killing Muslim women and children. We would have left four years ago if Muslims from all over the world had not come to kill their brothers and sisters.

 

[GeratTzedek]

That doesn't say God ordered them to kill anyone. It says that Sihon attacked them as they attempted to pass and that with God's help they were victorious in battle.

Yeah, you would think this would be obvious. But people have a tendency to see what they WANT to see, even when the text says otherwise.

 

[Secundulus]

So are you saying the Jews made a mistake when they killed the women and innocent children? Would you have done the same thing if you were a Jew living in that time?

I am saying that by the standards of warfare at that time that it was not unusual. That was how wars were fought. If you read this entire thread you will see the examples I have provided.

 

[mikkyo]

What is your suggested solution?

Either one goes or the other. I only say this because there is no more solutions, and I have a feeling the Palestinians will one day be wiped out.

And get off your moral pedestal. The majority of innocent civilians killed in Iraq are those killed by the brave Muslim Shaheeds who buy their way into Allah's paradise by killing Muslim women and children. We would have left four years ago if Muslims from all over the world had not come to kill their brothers and sisters.

This has nothing to do with my moral pedestal. Maybe for once you should use your clairvoyance instead of relying on your bipartisan faith. Just think about it. Every effect can produce 1 effect, sometimes 2 or even 100 effects. Everyone uses the excuse, "he started it". Then people use this excuse, "well I will finish what he started". Both actions can easily produce myriad effects. And in the end you can point the finger this way, or that way, or even a thousand ways. Now instead of having one solution to the problem, you have to now create more solutions to the overall problem.

Was Iraq worth it? Ask yourself that question. In order to remove 1 dictator, civilians were sacrificed, military soilders killed, terrorists flocking to the war zone, trillions of dollars spent, political instability, creation of more jihadists and even sympathizers, and thousands of soilders suffering depression syndromes. Do you honestly believe the future generations will not inherit these problems. It will be ongoing and endless until the world finally ends.

Let me ask you this. If you were in George Bush's shoes, and you had a vision of the effects that we see today, would you still go into Iraq? Therefore, you ask me what the solution is. But George Bush's original solution to oust Saddam has now demanded more solutions to fix the problem. I will then tell you, the only solution is to do nothing. Leave it be.

 

[mikkyo]

I am saying that by the standards of warfare at that time that it was not unusual. That was how wars were fought. If you read this entire thread you will see the examples I have provided.

So according to today's standards is it wrong? And if you were a Jew, would you have murdered women and children?

 

[CaDan]

So according to today's standards is it wrong? And if you were a Jew, would you have murdered women and children?

And we are back to the dilemma in the OP.

Been paying attention, me.

 

[GeratTzedek]

Either one goes or the other. I only say this because there is no more solutions, and I have a feeling the Palestinians will one day be wiped out.



This has nothing to do with my moral pedestal. Maybe for once you should use your clairvoyance instead of relying on your bipartisan faith. Just think about it. Every effect can produce 1 effect, sometimes 2 or even 100 effects. Everyone uses the excuse, "he started it". Then people use this excuse, "well I will finish what he started". Both actions can easily produce myriad effects. And in the end you can point the finger this way, or that way, or even a thousand ways. Now instead of having one solution to the problem, you have to now create more solutions to the overall problem.

Was Iraq worth it? Ask yourself that question. In order to remove 1 dictator, civilians were sacrificed, military soilders killed, terrorists flocking to the war zone, trillions of dollars spent, political instability, creation of more jihadists and even sympathizers, and thousands of soilders suffering depression syndromes. Do you honestly believe the future generations will not inherit these problems. It will be ongoing and endless until the world finally ends.

Let me ask you this. If you were in George Bush's shoes, and you had a vision of the effects that we see today, would you still go into Iraq? Therefore, you ask me what the solution is. But George Bush's original solution to oust Saddam has now demanded more solutions to fix the problem. I will then tell you, the only solution is to do nothing. Leave it be.

Such a question is out of order. Monday night quarter backing is cheap. George Bush AND THE ENTIRE WORLD believed that Saddam has WMD. Saddam had violated the terms of surrender from the earlier gulf war. These are th things the invasion was based upon because that is what was known then. Any arguments made for or against the invasion of Iraq must be predicated on these two facts of that time.

 

[mikkyo]

Gee, that sounds nothing like what you decribed. It is apparent to me that you decided in advance that Israel's G-d is some kind of bloodthirsty deity, and then went looking for quotes to prove your prejudice. Sorry. the passage speaks for itself.

So if you were a Jew living during that time, would you have killed the women and slay innocent children?

Also, your god did not order the Jews to only wipe out the Amalkelites. In general, he said kill infidels and even the towns they lived in.

Deut 13:13-15 says, “13Certain base fellows are gone out from the midst of thee, and have drawn away the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known; 14then shalt thou inquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in the midst of thee, 15thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword.”[/font]

 

[GeratTzedek]

So according to today's standards is it wrong? And if you were a Jew, would you have murdered women and children?

Well, that is the question. That is why i opened this thread. Let's say that going on the assumption G-d actually did command it, I would hope that I would obey even if I didn't understand. But I don't know what I would have done. In addition, it is confusing to me how much of this mandate applies to all of today's "Amalekites." I had hope to have a more well rounded discussion, but this IS passover week after all, and most of the Jews here are Orthodox, and VERY involved in things at their synagogues and in their homes.

 

[mikkyo]

George Bush AND THE ENTIRE WORLD believed that Saddam has WMD.

The UN inspectors told US Saddam did not have WMD, and they refused to believe it. The following video speaks for itself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=803apgVhMDQ

Saddam had violated the terms of surrender from the earlier gulf war. These are th things the invasion was based upon because that is what was known then. Any arguments made for or against the invasion of Iraq must be predicated on these two facts of that time.

You say your god is all-knowing, correct? Ok then, would you believe George Bush was under divine guidance when choosing to go to war with Iraq?

 

[GeratTzedek]

Also, your god did not order the Jews to only wipe out the Amalkelites. In general, he said kill infidels and even the towns they lived in.

Strike three. You quote yet again another passage which refers to JEWS, and then tell us it is about gentile peoples. I showed you with the chapter you yourself quoted that generally speaking, G-d instructed Israel to not bother the other peoples. You can insist to the contrary all you want and spout your bigotry and prejudice til the cows come home. Scripture speaks for itself.

Strike three means, btw, that you are too irrational for me to continue conversing with. I am a teacher. I teach others how to read for comprehension and to respond. You get an F.

 

[mikkyo]

Well, that is the question. That is why i opened this thread. Let's say that going on the assumption G-d actually did command it, I would hope that I would obey even if I didn't understand. But I don't know what I would have done. In addition, it is confusing to me how much of this mandate applies to all of today's "Amalekites." I had hope to have a more well rounded discussion, but this IS passover week after all, and most of the Jews here are Orthodox, and VERY involved in things at their synagogues and in their homes.

But this is no different than Islamic fundamentalists justifying their cause. In today's world, you have to be very mindful in how you use violence even when using self-defense. Honestly, this is not a joke anymore. Nuclear warheads can easily be unleashed. That saying still resonates in peoples'minds, "he started it, so I will finish it".

 

[CaDan]

Such a question is out of order. Monday night quarter backing is cheap. George Bush AND THE ENTIRE WORLD believed that Saddam has WMD. Saddam had violated the terms of surrender from the earlier gulf war. These are th things the invasion was based upon because that is what was known then. Any arguments made for or against the invasion of Iraq must be predicated on these two facts of that time.

Not me. And probably not Gump Worsley.

But that is quite far afield, I'm afraid.