Isn't it Ironic?

[Xeno.of.athens]

The story of Saul and the Amalekites highlights some deep ironies and moral complexities. Saul's disobedience to God's command, driven by greed and self-interest, contrasts sharply with the divine directive for total destruction. This act of selective obedience not only undermined his kingship but also revealed the corrupt nature of his rule, as the scriptures point out. It's a story that underscores the consequences of prioritizing personal gain over divine instruction and the broader implications for leadership and governance.

Richard Dawkins and other new atheists have argued that the commands in the Old Testament to destroy certain groups, such as the Canaanites, amount to divine genocide or ethnic cleansing. However, careful reading of the scriptures reveals that these actions were ironic lessons against dictatorial rule by greedy ungodly leaders.

The story of Amalek and the Amalekites appears in various passages throughout the Bible, from Genesis to the Psalms. Amalek, a grandson of Esau, is first mentioned in Genesis 36:12. The Amalekites are depicted as a nomadic tribe and adversaries of the Israelites, with notable conflicts recorded in Exodus and other books. Psalm 83:7 also references Amalek among the enemies of Israel.

 

[Clare73]

The story of Saul and the Amalekites highlights some deep ironies and moral complexities. Saul's disobedience to God's command, driven by greed and self-interest, contrasts sharply with the divine directive for total destruction. This act of selective obedience not only undermined his kingship but also revealed the corrupt nature of his rule, as the scriptures point out. It's a story that underscores the consequences of prioritizing personal gain over divine instruction and the broader implications for leadership and governance.

Richard Dawkins and other new atheists have argued that the commands in the Old Testament to destroy certain groups, such as the Canaanites, amount to divine genocide or ethnic cleansing. However, careful reading of the scriptures reveals that these actions were ironic lessons against dictatorial rule by greedy ungodly leaders.

The story of Amalek and the Amalekites appears in various passages throughout the Bible, from Genesis to the Psalms. Amalek, a grandson of Esau, is first mentioned in Genesis 36:12. The Amalekites are depicted as a nomadic tribe and adversaries of the Israelites, with notable conflicts recorded in Exodus and other books. Psalm 83:7 also references Amalek among the enemies of Israel.

God ordered total destruction of their enemies so that none would survive to eventually seek to harm Israel.

 

[FireDragon76]

God ordered total destruction of their enemies so that none would survive to eventually seek to harm Israel.

I think that's a dangerous reading of the Scriptures in a modern context. It's not moral to kill human beings just because they practice a different religion from you or aren't part of your ethnic group. If one were to receive such a command, even a divine command, one would be justified in refusing to obey it, because it would go against a formed Christian conscience.

This is a case of where biblical literalism, as the scholar Peter Enns points out, makes the Bible "impossible".

 

[jamiec]

God ordered total destruction of their enemies so that none would survive to eventually seek to harm Israel.

If Hitler does that, it's called a crime against humanity. Applauding the extermination of an entire people is an abomination, whetherit is ascribed to he command of a deity, or not. To defend it, amounts to defending the crimes of folk like Hitler, Stalin Mao, & other "bloody and deceitful men". Genocide, extermination & murder do not become holy and righteous by being ascribed to God in the Bible. The God of 1 Samuel 15 is not the God revealed in Christ Crucified.

There is plenty of evil in the Bible, & Richard Dawkins is to be congratulated for re-acting against it, as indeed he should; even though his re-action goes too far, & throws out the good with the bad. To defend evil deeds is extremely corrupting; not least because evil deeds are totally incompatible with the Gospel. If "he who hates his brother is a murderer", how is that man to be described who represents the total extermination of enemies as the will of God, as Samuel is described as doing in 1 Sam 15 ? It is appalling to represent such abominable immorality as the will of a Good & Holy God; and moral suicide to defend such acts in the OT, while condemning the same kinds of acts when they happen in real life.

It is grossly immoral to kill people on the plea that, at some unspecified future time, they might kill their killers. Such a perverse idea could be used to justify endless crimes. A command to do such a thing cannot possibly bei from God. A billion universes stuffed to overflowing with Bibles cannot make such a command anything but wrong.

IMHO, that chapter of the OT is a warning of the degree to which religion can be perverted by a false and immoral theology; it is also a warning of the degree to which God can be misidentified by His adorers as demonic and evil, and as no better than His adorers.

 

[FireDragon76]

If Hitler does that, it's called a crime against humanity. Applauding the extermination of an entire people is an abomination, whetherit is ascribed to he command of a deity, or not. To defend it, amounts to defending the crimes of folk like Hitler, Stalin Mao, & other "bloody and deceitful men". Genocide, extermination & murder do not become holy and righteous by being ascribed to God in the Bible. The God of 1 Samuel 15 is not the God revealed in Christ Crucified.

There is plenty of evil in the Bible, & Richard Dawkins is to be congratulated for re-acting against it, as indeed he should; even though his re-action goes too far, & throws out the good with the bad. To defend evil deeds is extremely corrupting; not least because evil deeds are totally incompatible with the Gospel. If "he who hates his brother is a murderer", how is that man to be described who represents the total extermination of enemies as the will of God, as Samuel is described as doing in 1 Sam 15 ? It is appalling to represent such abominable immorality as the will of a Good & Holy God; and moral suicide to defend such acts in the OT, while condemning the same kinds of acts when they happen in real life.

It is grossly immoral to kill people on the plea that, at some unspecified future time, they might kill their killers. Such a perverse idea could be used to justify endless crimes. A command to do such a thing cannot possibly bei from God. A billion universes stuffed to overflowing with Bibles cannot make such a command anything but wrong.

IMHO, that chapter of the OT is a warning of the degree to which religion can be perverted by a false and immoral theology; it is also a warning of the degree to which God can be misidentified by His adorers as demonic and evil, and as no better than His adorers.

Reading about the work of Claire Graves and Integral theory in the development of human consciosuness helps me to understand the Bible as containing different layers of human consciousness of the divine. Divinity in the copper and early bronze age was about allegiance to power, and morality was restricted to what was good for you and your tribe. Universal morality was a later idea revealed by Zarathustra or the Hebrew Prophets.

 

[Clare73]

I think that's a dangerous reading of the Scriptures in a modern context. It's not moral to kill human beings just because they practice a different religion from you or aren't part of your ethnic group.

Read my statement again, with more understanding of its Biblical point.

 

[Clare73]

If Hitler does that, it's called a crime against humanity. Applauding the extermination of an entire people is an abomination, whetherit is ascribed to he command of a deity, or not. To defend it, amounts to defending the crimes of folk like Hitler, Stalin Mao, & other "bloody and deceitful men". Genocide, extermination & murder do not become holy and righteous by being ascribed to God in the Bible. The God of 1 Samuel 15 is not the God revealed in Christ Crucified.

Your issue is with Almighty God--Creator, Owner and Lawgiver of the Universe, who commanded the total destruction. . .your issue is not with me.

 

[Laodicean60]

Richard Dawkins and other new atheists have argued that the commands in the Old Testament to destroy certain groups, such as the Canaanites, amount to divine genocide or ethnic cleansing. However, careful reading of the scriptures reveals that these actions were ironic lessons against dictatorial rule by greedy ungodly leaders.

I believe this to be true from the OT a lot I don't understand but it's all about Israel besides exterminating evil in God's eyes. Jesus changed history. We talk about all the killings and death and we are hurt but to the Creator, there is no death. So is it bad or good if they are removed from earth?

 

[FireDragon76]

Your issue is with Almighty God--Creator, Owner and Lawgiver of the Universe, who commanded the total destruction, your issue is not with me. . .

Skewered on Euthyphro's dilema.

Whatever we take from the Bible, certainly shouldn't be a notion that any decent person would find morally reprehensible.

 

[Clare73]

Whatever we take from the Bible, certainly shouldn't be a notion that any decent person would find morally reprehensible.

Who made that rule? . . .Certainly not God.

"Your ways are not my ways. . .my ways (1 Sa 15:3) are higher than your ways," (Isa 55:8-9).

Infinite and all-wise Creator must now submit to his creatures' ways?
What could ever be wrong there?