Atheism and evil

[Ken-1122]

Sure, but that's true of anyone. You were appealing to an idea of omnipotence such that the outcome would be determined.

Omnipotence means all powerful. Doesn’t your bible say God is all powerful?

the outcome is determined, there is no free will.

Doesn’t your bible say your God knows everything?

You even said you would prefer God make us robots.

No, I did not say that. I said if I were God I would rather take away my creation’s freewill and make them into obedient robots than destroy them if there were no other option.

No. It simply means they agree with your arbitrary opinion to spare a nation in this case and kill them in that case. Agreement with your opinion is not justification.

It is justification for them! Otherwise they wouldn’t agree with me.

Good.

So, God commanded Saul to kill the Amalekites. Had God wanted to determine that outcome, he could have hardened Saul's heart (as you pointed out he did in the case of Pharaoh). But he didn't. As a result Saul didn't kill the Amalekites. So, why was there any need in this case for God to soften someone's heart?

Rather, he showed a passive mercy toward the Amalekites by not overruling Saul's decision and hardening his heart.

So, the slaughter didn't happen. The Amalekites happily lived on to attempt genocide yet again in the book of Esther. So what is it you're upset about? IMO your "disgust" is completely unfounded based on the ethic you have expressed.

Are you saying Saul didn’t kill the Amalekites? 1 Samuel 15:7-9 says Saul killed the Amalekites but spared the King and kept the best of their sheep, cattle, oxen, etc. (today that call that looting) but it is clear he killed the people. Am I missing something here?


Ken

 

[Resha Caner]

Omnipotence means all powerful. Doesn’t your bible say God is all powerful?

I'm quite sure it never uses the word "omnipotent" and even somewhat sure it never uses the phrase "all powerful" (though I could be wrong on that one). Descriptions of God's power often come in more poetic forms (such as Job 37:23) that people interpret as "all powerful". From there people then go on to ascribe all kinds of silliness to these omni-qualities, such as an ability to create contradictions.

I'm pretty sure I don't agree with the way you're using the term "all powerful". Being all powerful doesn't mean God partakes in absurdity. The same goes for your question about omniscience.

So, if you want to make some point to me about what God might or might not do, you'll have to back your specific point with Scripture. For example, you mentioned the case of hardening hearts. Yes, the Scripture gives an example where God hardened someone's heart. So, yes, God can do that.

I don't recall any verses saying God completely removes free will from a person, nor anything about him making robots. Maybe God has a shop somewhere where he tinkers with robots, but if he does, I don't know about it.

No, I did not say that. I said if I were God I would rather take away my creation’s freewill and make them into obedient robots than destroy them if there were no other option.

This reads like an equivocation - a distinction without a difference.

It is justification for them! Otherwise they wouldn’t agree with me.

It is a fallacy to assume that someone who agrees with your conclusion also agrees with how you arrived at that conclusion.

Are you saying Saul didn’t kill the Amalekites? 1 Samuel 15:7-9 says Saul killed the Amalekites but spared the King and kept the best of their sheep, cattle, oxen, etc. (today that call that looting) but it is clear he killed the people. Am I missing something here?

Might it be that Saul and his scribes lied? Or that they were being poetic by using the word "destroy" (which has synonymous meanings of "ruin" and "defeat") rather than "kill"? Samuel seemed pretty upset and convinced Saul had not fulfilled God's command. Chances are Samuel was correct, because the Amalekites show up again later - 1 Samuel 27 & 30, 2 Samuel 1, and, as I mentioned before, Esther.

Or you can just claim that the Bible can't get its story straight and forgot it had supposedly killed all the Amalekites when it mentions them later. That would probably be your preference as an answer.

 

[Ken-1122]

I'm quite sure it never uses the word "omnipotent" and even somewhat sure it never uses the phrase "all powerful" (though I could be wrong on that one). Descriptions of God's power often come in more poetic forms (such as Job 37:23) that people interpret as "all powerful". From there people then go on to ascribe all kinds of silliness to these omni-qualities, such as an ability to create contradictions.

I'm pretty sure I don't agree with the way you're using the term "all powerful". Being all powerful doesn't mean God partakes in absurdity. The same goes for your question about omniscience.

So, if you want to make some point to me about what God might or might not do, you'll have to back your specific point with Scripture. For example, you mentioned the case of hardening hearts. Yes, the Scripture gives an example where God hardened someone's heart. So, yes, God can do that.

I don't recall any verses saying God completely removes free will from a person, nor anything about him making robots. Maybe God has a shop somewhere where he tinkers with robots, but if he does, I don't know about it.

So is it your opinion that your God is able to harden hearts but unable to soften them?

It is a fallacy to assume that someone who agrees with your conclusion also agrees with how you arrived at that conclusion.

But it is not a fallacy to assume if someone agrees with my conclusion that they will agree that my conclusion is justified; which is my point.

Might it be that Saul and his scribes lied? Or that they were being poetic by using the word "destroy" (which has synonymous meanings of "ruin" and "defeat") rather than "kill"? Samuel seemed pretty upset and convinced Saul had not fulfilled God's command. Chances are Samuel was correct, because the Amalekites show up again later - 1 Samuel 27 & 30, 2 Samuel 1, and, as I mentioned before, Esther.

Or you can just claim that the Bible can't get its story straight and forgot it had supposedly killed all the Amalekites when it mentions them later. That would probably be your preference as an answer.

Or I can assume it ment what it said; that everyone was killed except the King.

Here is what I do believe and I say this with no offense intended; you can take it for what it’s worth.

I Believe men of war will create and worship a God of war, and men of peace will create and worship a God of peace.

I believe men like Moses, Saul, Joshua, etc. these were men of war, and the God they created reflected their primitive warrior morality. I believe Yahweh was their God of war.

I believe men like you, I and the rest of modern society are men of peace; and when modern men creates a God, it is going to be a God of peace; a God that reflects their peaceful, forgiving morality. I believe Jesus was this God of peace.

I believe the problem comes when men of peace feel obligated to defend the actions of the men of war and their God of war. When this happens they are put in a position of defending a position they do not hold. I suspect this is the position you have found yourself in.

Like I said; I mean no disrespect to your God or religion; this is just how a skeptic like myself see it and you can take it for what it is worth.

Ken

 

[Resha Caner]

So is it your opinion that your God is able to harden hearts but unable to soften them?

I don't understand what you're missing here. As I already said, there is Scripture where God calls people to mercy and forgiveness. If you want to interpret that as "softening their heart" (and further as "don't kill"), that seems reasonable to me. So yes, I think God could do that.

But only temporarily. Even in hardening Pharaoh's heart it was a temporary, not a permanent thing. I don't see any precedent for saying God permanently and totally eliminates someone's free will. Nor does he engage in absurdity.

Or I can assume it ment what it said; that everyone was killed except the King.

So did Saul lie or didn't he? Samuel accuses him of lying in 1 Sam 15:29. And Saul seems to confess to that in 1 Sam 15:30. And then the Amalekites appear again in 1 Sam 27:8.

So, it appears to me Saul didn't kill all the Amalekites. I don't doubt there was a battle, and Saul thought he had dealt them a severe blow (he "destroyed" them), but he didn't kill them all.

But it is not a fallacy to assume if someone agrees with my conclusion that they will agree that my conclusion is justified; which is my point.

No. All they have done is agree with your conclusion. I hate to do this, because it's unfair to essentialsaltes, so I'll be as clear as I can in saying he's not endorsing this, but I want to point to something he said in this thread:

Saying justified assumes (or at least implies) that there is an objective standard to determine whether it is justified or not. It is possible that I would agree with them that a particular use of force was a moral wrong. I agree with the abolitionists that legal slavery is a moral wrong.

As noted in this discussion between he and I, he does not believe in objective standards, and so would not agree a position was "justified" even though he agreed it was a moral wrong.

So, you haven't told me yet why you object to killing the nation of the Amalekites, who were engaged in attempting to murder the Israelites. It is exactly the situation you said you would agree to. Why don't you agree to it?

Why do you think it is acceptable to allow innocent Israelites to die (to allow the genocide of Israel) to avoid killing the Amalekites?

 

[Ken-1122]

I don't understand what you're missing here. As I already said, there is Scripture where God calls people to mercy and forgiveness. If you want to interpret that as "softening their heart" (and further as "don't kill"), that seems reasonable to me. So yes, I think God could do that.

Okay; then that’s what I would do; I would soften their hearts rather than kill the innocent women and children.

So did Saul lie or didn't he? Samuel accuses him of lying in 1 Sam 15:29. And Saul seems to confess to that in 1 Sam 15:30. And then the Amalekites appear again in 1 Sam 27:8.

So, it appears to me Saul didn't kill all the Amalekites. I don't doubt there was a battle, and Saul thought he had dealt them a severe blow (he "destroyed" them), but he didn't kill them all.

Weather he killed them all or not is not the issue; my objection is God instructing him to kill everyone even the innocent women and children.

No. All they have done is agree with your conclusion. I hate to do this, because it's unfair to essentialsaltes, so I'll be as clear as I can in saying he's not endorsing this, but I want to point to something he said in this thread:



As noted in this discussion between he and I, he does not believe in objective standards, and so would not agree a position was "justified" even though he agreed it was a moral wrong.

It seems we are using different definitions of the term “justified”.

So, you haven't told me yet why you object to killing the nation of the Amalekites, who were engaged in attempting to murder the Israelites. It is exactly the situation you said you would agree to. Why don't you agree to it?

Why do you think it is acceptable to allow innocent Israelites to die (to allow the genocide of Israel) to avoid killing the Amalekites?

There were other options rather than killing innocent women and children; after getting rid of the men, they could have assimilated the women and children into Israel society, or they could have spared the men but taken away their weapons and rule over their land kinda like they do today, They could have made them slaves, and forced them to accept the God of Israel, they could have put a puppet Government in place, there were plenty of options a wise God could have chosen rather than kill them all; women and children included.

I think Abraham Lincoln said it best when he asked “have I not annihilated my enemies by making them my friends?”

Ken

 

[Resha Caner]

Weather he killed them all or not is not the issue; my objection is God instructing him to kill everyone even the innocent women and children.

This is a sexist statement. Women are innocent just because they're women? I see no reason to say women who are raising, feeding, and equipping Amalekite soldiers, knowing they are about to go out and kill Israelites, are innocent.

And, there are Biblical era examples of women warriors (Deborah, Judith, Jael), so who knows what the Amalekite women did.

Further, there are examples of very young heroes such as David. So, I don't know that you could call the children innocent either ... at least not above a certain age. Our view of "children" is a very modern one. The only one it seems reasonable to call "innocent" were the infants.

So, you kill everyone except the infants. Now what will happen to them? Hmm. Killing their providers is pretty much like killing them as well isn't it?

There were other options rather than killing innocent women and children; after getting rid of the men, they could have assimilated the women and children into Israel society, or they could have spared the men but taken away their weapons and rule over their land kinda like they do today, They could have made them slaves, and forced them to accept the God of Israel, they could have put a puppet Government in place, there were plenty of options a wise God could have chosen rather than kill them all; women and children included.

You overestimate the resources of the time and the willingness of the Amalekites to "assimilate" (or of the Israelites to let them assimilate). That's the idea that has been proposed for solving the Palestinian conflict for as long as I can remember. Hasn't worked very well.

"Oh, but they're not really trying," you might say. That would be a No True Scotsman fallacy.

The only real option for saving them was to enslave them (given that several centuries of trying to make nice had failed) ... and that was an option. In fact, the premier Jewish scholar (Maimonides) points out that Saul had that option and chose not to use it.

"Did he?" you might ask. "Or would God have accused him of failing to fulfill the command?"

Hmm. Is there a precedent for someone bargaining with God to save the lives of those he intends to punish? Hmm. Think. Think. What about Genesis 18 (Abram at Sodom)? Saul should have known that story. Or, we have the later example that all the Bible is leading up to (1 John 2:2).

So, yes, there were options, but as I read it Saul wasn't interested in such things. He wanted the spoils of war.

 

[Ken-1122]

This is a sexist statement. Women are innocent just because they're women? I see no reason to say women who are raising, feeding, and equipping Amalekite soldiers, knowing they are about to go out and kill Israelites, are innocent.

And, there are Biblical era examples of women warriors (Deborah, Judith, Jael), so who knows what the Amalekite women did.

Further, there are examples of very young heroes such as David. So, I don't know that you could call the children innocent either ... at least not above a certain age. Our view of "children" is a very modern one. The only one it seems reasonable to call "innocent" were the infants.

1 Samuel 15:3 specifically mentioned killing the infants.

You overestimate the resources of the time and the willingness of the Amalekites to "assimilate" (or of the Israelites to let them assimilate). That's the idea that has been proposed for solving the Palestinian conflict for as long as I can remember. Hasn't worked very well.

Did Jesus say "bless those who curse you, and pray for those who hurt you unless they refuse to assimilate?"
Perhaps you should go back and read Luke 6:28-30 and see what Jesus instructed.

Ken

 

[bhsmte]

1 Samuel 15:3 specifically mentioned killing the infants.




Did Jesus say "bless those who curse you, and pray for those who hurt you unless they refuse to assimilate?"
Perhaps you should go back and read Luke 6:28-30 and see what Jesus instructed.

Ken

Well stated.

 

[Resha Caner]

1 Samuel 15:3 specifically mentioned killing the infants.

Yes, I know.

Did Jesus say "bless those who curse you, and pray for those who hurt you unless they refuse to assimilate?"
Perhaps you should go back and read Luke 6:28-30 and see what Jesus instructed.

You don't even have to go to the NT. Take a look at Deuteronomy 10:18-19. Further, Solomon collected the Proverbs (the wisdom) of his time - which followed quickly on the heels of this event with Saul - so look at Proverbs 24, especially verses 11, 17, and 29.

So what's going on here, then? Well, also consider Numbers 14:33 (and the surrounding text). As I said, children were viewed differently in that time, and the head of a household had a weightier responsibility than we think of it today. There was no social service agency from the federal government to step in and alleviate bad parenting. If the father was blessed, the children were blessed. If the father was cursed, the children were cursed. They were totally dependent. If the father deserved punishment, the children were going to suffer even if they were innocent.

I'm not sure adopted infants would have fared that well. Everyone would remember who they were. They would grow up knowing they were Amalekite and what their nation thought of the Israelites. I would expect a lot of bitterness in their lives. It just so happens I've seen kids who grow up in adopted families knowing their biological father was a murderer. I've seen it go bad.

But I'm not saying that means people should give up. The question is: How much responsibility are you going to place for those children with the parents who are murderers vs. those who mete out justice on the murderers?

There is an anthropomorphic sequence playing out here. Does a god whose power is "beyond our reach" really need to go through all these steps? No. But the finite people to whom he speaks do need to go through these steps. God is constantly saying to remember this and remember that, but it seems Saul doesn't remember anything about mercy until 1 Sam 15:24 when it's his neck on the line.

As I've pointed out, others such as Abram didn't have to wait to be prompted. They immediately began pleading for mercy for the guilty. Softening the hearts of the Israelites for a moment just wasn't going to do it. After centuries of war with the Amalekites they had had it. They wanted them dead. They wanted the spoils of war. I can understand why they might feel that way, but I'm not saying it's right. The Bible isn't saying that's right.

 

[Ken-1122]

Softening the hearts of the Israelites for a moment just wasn't going to do it. After centuries of war with the Amalekites they had had it. They wanted them dead. They wanted the spoils of war. I can understand why they might feel that way, but I'm not saying it's right. The Bible isn't saying that's right.

Are you saying God didn't order the destruction of the Amalekites; that Saul was acting on his own?

Ken

 

[Resha Caner]

Are you saying God didn't order the destruction of the Amalekites; that Saul was acting on his own?

No, I'm saying there is a tension in the narrative - a conflict. The next question, then, is how Hebrews dealt with such things - what is the rubric here? Not every culture deals with this the same way.

I'm having the same conversation with Paradoxum in a different thread, so I hope we can merge the 2.

But I'll lay out the basic issues that I see to get it started here:
1) There is guilt in this story which justifies the use of deadly force - the Amalekites are trying to exterminate the Israelites.
2) God tells Saul to apply that deadly force - to kill all the Amalekites.
3) You and I think it possible there may have been some innocent infants in the Amalekite nation.

Questions:
A) What should we (had we been in Saul's place) do? Did Saul do those things?
B) Would God allow us to ask if He thinks there are innocents in the Amalekite nation?
C) Should we take the risk of asking the question even if might make God angry, or should we try to hide what we think is the right thing to do from God? What did Saul do?

Points:
i) It is the Amalekite parents of those infants who are legally responsible for those infants, not the Israelites. It is the Amalekite parents who need to consider the impact of their choices on those infants, not the Israelites.
ii) Regardless of i), even if the Israelites chose not to put the infants to the sword, they would die given their parents are killed.
iii) Saul indicates he's having trouble getting the Israelites to take the moral high road. Even though plunder is not the military objective, they insist on plunder. The Israelites are not demonstrating a warm, tender attitude indicative of adopting Amalekite infants.
iv) Magic wands are an unlikely solution.

 

[PsychoSarah]

No, I'm saying there is a tension in the narrative - a conflict. The next question, then, is how Hebrews dealt with such things. Not every culture deals with this the same way.

I'm having the same conversation with Paradoxum in a different thread, so I hope we can merge the 2.

But I'll lay out the basic issues that I see to get it started here:
1) There is guilt in this story which justifies the use of deadly force - the Amalekites are trying to exterminate the Israelites.
2) God tells Saul to apply that deadly force - to kill all the Amalekites.
3) You and I think it possible there may have been some innocent infants in the Amalekite nation.

Questions:
A) What should we (had we been in Saul's place) do? Did Saul do those things?
B) Would God allow us to ask if He thinks there are innocents in the Amalekite nation?
C) Should we take the risk of asking the question even if might make God angry, or should we try to hide what we think is the right thing to do from God? What did Saul do?

Points:
i) It is the Amalekite parents of those infants who are legally responsible for those infants, not the Israelites. It is the Amalekite parents who need to consider the impact of their choices on those infants, not the Israelites.
ii) Regardless of i), even if the Israelites chose not to put the infants to the sword, they would die given their parents are killed.
iii) Saul indicates he's having trouble getting the Israelites to take the moral high road. Even though plunder is not the military objective, they insist on plunder. The Israelites are not demonstrating a warm, tender attitude indicative of adopting Amalekite infants.
iv) Magic wands are an unlikely solution.

Well, to answer question B, yes, god would let you ask. Consider the whole incident with Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot was spared because another person asked god to check and see if there were any innocent people within the city and spare them. Which kinda answers question C, although to be fair the OT god can be pretty capricious. And A, obviously ask questions to avoid killing innocents.

 

[Resha Caner]

Well, to answer question B, yes, god would let you ask. Consider the whole incident with Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot was spared because another person asked god to check and see if there were any innocent people within the city and spare them. Which kinda answers question C, although to be fair the OT god can be pretty capricious. And A, obviously ask questions to avoid killing innocents.

I agree the question should be asked, and that there is precedent for doing it. That's where the problem with this example comes. Saul didn't ask the question. He went the route of trying to hide his actions. So, what should have happened becomes a matter of speculation.

 

[Paradoxum]

You didn't like my answer so now you have to try again?

It was an avoidance answer, so I asked it again.

You continue to load your statements. Until you see that, this isn't going anywhere. In this case, the word "murder" presumes guilt, so your argument is circular. You would need to start with the word "kill" and justify it as murder.

Sure, fair enough.

Becca killed a child. Do you think she's a bad person?

'Becca is a nice girl, so why would I see her a bad?'

Do you see how the reply avoids thinking about it?

I think you missed my point - the irony I was noting. You think God was wrong to punish the Amalekites (which you label genocide). And yet you seem to overlook that the Amalekites were attempting the genocide of the Israelites. I just went through this whole discussion with Ken in another thread. Is there some way we can cut to the chase?

What is there to overlook? So the Amalekites (or their leaders) want to kill of the Israelites... do you think that justifies killing off a city?

If Jews could have killed all Germans after WW2, would that have been just?

Bottom line: Saul didn't kill all the Amalekites. Neither did he advocate for them. I can point to verses Saul would have had at his disposal, which say he should have helped the Amalekites, not kill them. So, we have a conflict here.

So do you think God ever commanded the killing of all men, women, and children?

As far as I'm concerned, you're just looking for a way out. It feels as if you're just going to deflect everything I offer. Yes, I have more than examples of hell, but examples of hell are perfectly relevant ... as are Jesus' words endorsing the OT. You can't cherry-pick mean words from the OT and nice words from the NT to make your case.

Hell is relevant if Jesus meant it literally, and even then, saying hell is moral isn't the same as commanding a killing here and now. If someone today told me that they thought hell was moral, I wouldn't think they were on par with a torturer. I wouldn't worry about them torturing me in my sleep. I'd think they probably hadn't thought about how messed up that is, or the idea of hell isn't real enough for them to take morally seriously (even though they say they do).

So that would be why I don't take Jesus talking about hell as seriously as God commanding a killing. In the latter, that is definitely their active morality. In the former, it isn't necessarily their active morality (what they would actually act on).

So look at Luke 17:29, where Jesus refers to Sodom. Since God was the one who brought destruction on Sodom, I doubt he is using the example while at the same time thinking it's a bad idea.

But again, this isn't a moral rule (or principle) for future moral action.

I were to take Jesus really seriously, then I would say that he justifies city-wide killing, just like OT God. But I don't consider justifying past events as being the same advocating similar future events. People don't think about them the same way.

Look at Matthew 12:39 where he calls the entire generation to whom he's speaking wicked and a brood of vipers. He uses the same term again in Matthew 23:33, calling the entire sect of Pharisees snakes and a brood of vipers. And there he states what happens to such people - they are condemned to hell.

Well I don't think insults are that bad.

I think you realize I was applying it much more broadly than that. I was speaking of the creator of all. And in that regard I am equating morality with proper use.

I knew you were equating morality to proper use. But I don't think that morality is 'proper use' in the same way as know how a car works. Making something likely means you know how it works... but morality isn't a question of 'how it works'.

 

[Paradoxum]

But I'll lay out the basic issues that I see to get it started here:
1) There is guilt in this story which justifies the use of deadly force - the Amalekites are trying to exterminate the Israelites.

Deadly force in self-defence (ie: to stop the army).

3) You and I think it possible there may have been some innocent infants in the Amalekite nation.

And innocent older non-combatants.

Questions:
A) What should we (had we been in Saul's place) do? Did Saul do those things?

Defeat the army.

B) Would God allow us to ask if He thinks there are innocents in the Amalekite nation?

I don't know, and I'm not sure God is a good judge of whether someone is innocent (innocent enough not to be killed).

C) Should we take the risk of asking the question even if might make God angry, or should we try to hide what we think is the right thing to do from God? What did Saul do?

If a question angers God, we as a species have big problems anyway.

Points:
i) It is the Amalekite parents of those infants who are legally responsible for those infants, not the Israelites. It is the Amalekite parents who need to consider the impact of their choices on those infants, not the Israelites.

We have a moral responsibility to consider all people, regardless of nationality.

ii) Regardless of i), even if the Israelites chose not to put the infants to the sword, they would die given their parents are killed.

Could keep all non-combatants alive.

iv) Magic wands are an unlikely solution.

Why? Is God not omnipotent at this time? It would be possible for him to teleport children to someone who would happily take them in, right?

 

[Resha Caner]

First, thanks for moving your reply here.

Becca killed a child. Do you think she's a bad person?

'Becca is a nice girl, so why would I see her a bad?'

The first statement/question seems fair now. My reply would be that I don't engage in judging whether a person is good or bad. My focus would be on what punishment should be levied, and what could be done to help Becca once that punishment has been served.

So, I wouldn't reply like the second statement. I don't understand why you think I replied that way ... or what it has to do with what we were talking about.

Well I don't think insults are that bad.

This was not some casual modern society. It wasn't a game of "your mamma wears army boots". Accusations such as these were taken seriously, and it was Jesus' words here that put the Jewish authorities in motion to kill him. Why? Because by OT law wickedness deserved death. He was making a very serious accusation here.

What is there to overlook? So the Amalekites (or their leaders) want to kill of the Israelites... do you think that justifies killing off a city?

If Jews could have killed all Germans after WW2, would that have been just?

The problem with your question is it's reference to after the conflict, which implies a settlement or surrender of some sort. It would be wrong to violate an agreement that has concluded a war. But no such thing occurred in the Amalekite case. The Amalekites had pressed the war for centuries, and it was still underway when this event occurred ... and went on after this event.

So is it just to destroy the entire city of an enemy during an active war? Yes. And it happened to the Germans - the firebombing of Dresden.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II

So do you think God ever commanded the killing of all men, women, and children?

It's pretty obvious he did. Are you sure you know enough about the situation to determine - from a distance of thousands of years - who was innocent and who was guilty?

When nation A makes war on nation B, why is nation B suddenly responsible for the "innocents" of nation A? Doesn't nation A bear some responsibility? Why do you think a nation that goes to war has "innocents"? [edit] What do you think of the attack on the English baggage train at Agincourt? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt#Attack_on_the_English_baggage_train

I should probably say "tribe", which is a better descriptor in this case than "nation".

Defeat the army.

Which means what? After centuries of war, what does "defeat the army" mean? And who was the army? We're not talking about a modern military here, but a militant society like Sparta.

We have a moral responsibility to consider all people, regardless of nationality.

You're going to have to answer the OP for this thread before this will mean anything. In short, is this a statement about objective morality? Or is morality subjective?

 

[Ken-1122]

No, I'm saying there is a tension in the narrative - a conflict. The next question, then, is how Hebrews dealt with such things - what is the rubric here? Not every culture deals with this the same way.

I'm having the same conversation with Paradoxum in a different thread, so I hope we can merge the 2.

But I'll lay out the basic issues that I see to get it started here:
1) There is guilt in this story which justifies the use of deadly force - the Amalekites are trying to exterminate the Israelites.
2) God tells Saul to apply that deadly force - to kill all the Amalekites.
3) You and I think it possible there may have been some innocent infants in the Amalekite nation.

Questions:
A) What should we (had we been in Saul's place) do? Did Saul do those things?
B) Would God allow us to ask if He thinks there are innocents in the Amalekite nation?
C) Should we take the risk of asking the question even if might make God angry, or should we try to hide what we think is the right thing to do from God? What did Saul do?.

My problem has nothing to do with Saul. Saul was a man of war doing what men of war did during those times.

My problem is with #2; God telling Saul to use deadly force. Jesus and God are the same; right? Jesus said to bless those who curse you; and to pray for those who hurt you!
Either Jesus should have never made that statement or God should have never allowed his children to be put in a position where slaughter and genoside was the only option.

K

 

[bhsmte]

My problem has nothing to do with Saul. Saul was a man of war doing what men of war did during those times.

My problem is with #2; God telling Saul to use deadly force. Jesus and God are the same; right? Jesus said to bless those who curse you; and to pray for those who hurt you!
Either Jesus should have never made that statement or God should have never allowed his children to be put in a position where slaughter and genoside was the only option.

K

I always get a kick out of the psychological gymnastics some christians go through, to justify this stuff.

 

[Resha Caner]

My problem has nothing to do with Saul. Saul was a man of war doing what men of war did during those times.

My problem is with #2; God telling Saul to use deadly force. Jesus and God are the same; right? Jesus said to bless those who curse you; and to pray for those who hurt you!
Either Jesus should have never made that statement or God should have never allowed his children to be put in a position where slaughter and genoside was the only option.

I don't understand why you clipped the part asking what responsibility the Amalekites bear for this situation. Regardless, your reply misrepresents what Jesus said. Unbelievers continually present statements from the Bible about love, blessing, etc. as requiring one to be a doormat who surrenders the world to injustice. Luke 18:1-8 indicates that is not the case. Love and permissiveness are not the same thing.

 

[Ken-1122]

I don't understand why you clipped the part asking what responsibility the Amalekites bear for this situation.

Because I am not judging the Amalekites just as I am not judging Saul. These were men of war doing what men of war did during those times. It would not be fair to judge the morality of ancient men of war by today's standards; if I lived during that time and was taught by the standards of that day I would have probably done the same thing.

Regardless, your reply misrepresents what Jesus said. Unbelievers continually present statements from the Bible about love, blessing, etc. as requiring one to be a doormat who surrenders the world to injustice. Luke 18:1-8 indicates that is not the case. Love and permissiveness are not the same thing.

So do you think perhaps Jesus should not have made that statement? And what did I say that misrepresented what Jesus said?

Ken