Genocide in 1st Samuel 15:2-3

[Kerr]

Whoa whoa whoa...once you admit that there are situations where it is justifiable to kill a human being, you must also admit that the those situations which are considered "appropriate" are dependent on the person doing it.

You have your standard of what makes it justifiable, I have mine. If the reason I don't kill others is because God tells me not to then the reason I would kill another would be because God tells me to.

The morality of it isn't even a question.

There are a few things that can never be justified. Rape is one, another is genocide.

 

[Autodidact]

Whoa whoa whoa...once you admit that there are situations where it is justifiable to kill a human being, you must also admit that the those situations which are considered "appropriate" are dependent on the person doing it.

No, you don't. (Please show your logic.)

You have your standard of what makes it justifiable, I have mine.

that doesn't make them equally correct. For example, "I don't care for the color of your shirt," is not as justifible as "you are running toward me with a big, sharp, knife."

If the reason I don't kill others is because God tells me not to then the reason I would kill another would be because God tells me to.

Like say, Andrea Yates? Moral for her to kill her five children, in your book?

The morality of it isn't even a question.

It's things like this that just amaze me. What you're saying is that because you believe in God, you don't believe that killing people is a moral question. It's statements like that that turn people toward atheism.

 

[Autodidact]

Whoa whoa whoa...once you admit that there are situations where it is justifiable to kill a human being, you must also admit that the those situations which are considered "appropriate" are dependent on the person doing it.

You have your standard of what makes it justifiable, I have mine. If the reason I don't kill others is because God tells me not to then the reason I would kill another would be because God tells me to.

The morality of it isn't even a question.

So by your math if it's ever justified to kill anyone, then it's always justified to kill everyone? Is that what you're saying?

 

[TheKnight]

There are a few things that can never be justified. Rape is one, another is genocide.

If killing is justified, then why not genocide? The two are the same. The only difference is the amount of life lost.

No, you don't. (Please show your logic.)

If you admit that killing is justifiable, then why wouldn't genocide be? Killing people and genocide are the same thing. The only difference is the amount of people killed and the reason why. My point is, you have your reasons for believing that killing is justified and I have mine. It's not a matter of it being correct or incorrect but of it being a matter of perspective.

That doesn't make them equally correct.

Can you show, by using some standard that is objective to both of our standards, that one is more correct than the other?

Like say, Andrea Yates? Moral for her to kill her five children, in your book?

That would be a question of whether or not God actually told her to. If He did, then yes.

It's things like this that just amaze me. What you're saying is that because you believe in God, you don't believe that killing people is a moral question. It's statements like that that turn people toward atheism.

Based on reading your post, I think you're willfully leaving yourself ignorant (because I don't think you're honestly that stupid). I said that the morality of it isn't a question. Why not? Because there's no objective standard of morality by which we can judge other moral values. So for you to say that you have this monopoly on knowing what is/isn't moral is highly arrogant of you.

So by your math if it's ever justified to kill anyone, then it's always justified to kill everyone? Is that what you're saying?

No. By my math, If it's ever justified to kill anyone, then the standards by which you define "justified' change from person to person.

 

[Kerr]

If killing is justified, then why not genocide? The two are the same. The only difference is the amount of life lost.

No, they are not the same. For example, you cannot justify killing a random person on the street for no reason. But it can be justified to kill someone who tries to kill you or someone you love. The difference is a matter of guilt, thread and so on. Genocide includes killing a LOT of innocent people, thereby it is wrong.

 

[Poisonshady313]

So by your math if it's ever justified to kill anyone, then it's always justified to kill everyone? Is that what you're saying?

I think what he's saying is, if the ultimate authority sets the bar for what is justifiable, then by definition the commands of that ultimate authority are justified, even if we don't understand it... or don't want to understand it.

Ever notice that when it seems like a person is making a decision about the life or death of another person, they're accused of "playing God". There's a reason for that.

If you don't believe in God, it's easy to decide that the reported actions of people acting in His name are horrible, because you figure men made those decisions... decisions which men have no right to make.

However, keeping consistent with belief in God as the creator of everything means understanding that He put us here, and He can take us away.

We might not understand certain decisions he makes... we might think them cruel, or unfair, but it's not our call to make.

 

[TheKnight]

I think what he's saying is, if the ultimate authority sets the bar for what is justifiable, then by definition the commands of that ultimate authority are justified, even if we don't understand it... or don't want to understand it.

Ever notice that when it seems like a person is making a decision about the life or death of another person, they're accused of "playing God". There's a reason for that.

If you don't believe in God, it's easy to decide that the reported actions of people acting in His name are horrible, because you figure men made those decisions... decisions which men have no right to make.

However, keeping consistent with belief in God as the creator of everything means understanding that He put us here, and He can take us away.

We might not understand certain decisions he makes... we might think them cruel, or unfair, but it's not our call to make.

You put it better than I could have.

The only logical position an Atheist could take concerning the taking of a life is that it is NEVER justified to take a life. The moment the God-denier claims that it's justifiable to take a life, they will have to show why the criteria they use to define "justifiable" are appropriate. I believe that this cannot be done without also including genocide into that "appropriate" category.

 

[Kerr]

I think what he's saying is, if the ultimate authority sets the bar for what is justifiable, then by definition the commands of that ultimate authority are justified, even if we don't understand it... or don't want to understand it.

Ever notice that when it seems like a person is making a decision about the life or death of another person, they're accused of "playing God". There's a reason for that.

If you don't believe in God, it's easy to decide that the reported actions of people acting in His name are horrible, because you figure men made those decisions... decisions which men have no right to make.

However, keeping consistent with belief in God as the creator of everything means understanding that He put us here, and He can take us away.

We might not understand certain decisions he makes... we might think them cruel, or unfair, but it's not our call to make.

I respectfully disagree. A deity, any deity, does not decide what is right, at last not from my perspective.

 

[Kerr]

You put it better than I could have.

The only logical position an Atheist could take concerning the taking of a life is that it is NEVER justified to take a life. The moment the God-denier claims that it's justifiable to take a life, they will have to show why the criteria they use to define "justifiable" are appropriate. I believe that this cannot be done without also including genocide into that "appropriate" category.

Just as a note, it does not matter if you are an atheist or not. You always have to show why the criteria you use is appropriate. Thing is, it can be done without making genocide appropriate. I explained why earlier.

 

[Poisonshady313]

You put it better than I could have.

Thank you.

The only logical position an Atheist could take concerning the taking of a life is that it is NEVER justified to take a life.

I don't entirely agree with this.

I assert than even an atheist would think it justifiable to take a life for the sake of self defense, though it, for them, would never be justifiable to take a life for any other reason (say, for example, the death penalty), because they'd be talking about a decision they believe no man is qualified to make.

We believe that no man is qualified to order a genocide. We believe that God is qualified. Atheists don't believe in God... so we have an easier time justifying acts that, if perpetrated by the mind of men, would not be justifiable.

 

[Poisonshady313]

I respectfully disagree. A deity, any deity, does not decide what is right, at last not from my perspective.

I'm not sure what your perspective is... but part of what it means to be a deity is to decide what is right... unless any deity you speak of is necessarily a creator deity who set the world in motion, and stepped back to let it run, without being involved in any way with the affairs of man.

The God written about in the Tanach is a God involved in the affairs of man... rewarding, punishing, forgiving...

Any deity who is credited with having any sort of dialogue is obviously described as involved in the affairs of man.... and God,as the one who created us, has the right to decide what is right.

 

[Kerr]

We believe that no man is qualified to order a genocide. We believe that God is qualified. Atheists don't believe in God... so we have an easier time justifying acts that, if perpetrated by the mind of men, would not be justifiable.

Actually my belief in a deity does not change my position . I would say the same if I believed in God.

 

[Kerr]

I'm not sure what your perspective is... but part of what it means to be a deity is to decide what is right... unless any deity you speak of is necessarily a creator deity who set the world in motion, and stepped back to let it run, without being involved in any way with the affairs of man.

The God written about in the Tanach is a God involved in the affairs of man... rewarding, punishing, forgiving...

Any deity who is credited with having any sort of dialogue is obviously described as involved in the affairs of man.... and God,as the one who created us, has the right to decide what is right.

I have to disagree with your opinion. I will assume for a moment God exist. God may be a deity, but I do not know anything about him. He might be a compassionate and very warm hearted God who cares for mankind, but he may also be a monster. As a monster, following him would be nothing but insanity. As a good God, following him would be good. And a good God would not promote a genocide.

 

[gwk230]

That's a rather significant mistake, considering the things the KJV may be referring to as "meat offering" would have no meat in them whatsoever.

Ummmmm........Tell me that you can read plain English again? Did you not understand a thing that I posted? Do I need to further explain this extremely simple concept on the old English word "meat"? Do we really need go down this road as well even though you have neglected to stay on the one we are currently on with your misunderstandings of my rather simple question? :slap: Stay on topic. LOL or start another thread on the meaning of the word "Meat" as opposed to the word "Meal".

 

[Poisonshady313]

Ummmmm........Tell me that you can read plain English again? Did you not understand a thing that I posted? Do I need to further explain this extremely simple concept on the old English word "meat"? Do we really need go down this road as well even though you have neglected to stay on the one we are currently on with your misunderstandings of my rather simple question? :slap: Stay on topic. LOL or start another thread on the meaning of the word "Meat" as opposed to the word "Meal".

I understood everything just fine.

I happen to think using the KJV is a mistake.

 

[gwk230]

I'm not sure what your perspective is... but part of what it means to be a deity is to decide what is right... unless any deity you speak of is necessarily a creator deity who set the world in motion, and stepped back to let it run, without being involved in any way with the affairs of man.

The God written about in the Tanach is a God involved in the affairs of man... rewarding, punishing, forgiving...

Any deity who is credited with having any sort of dialogue is obviously described as involved in the affairs of man.... and God,as the one who created us, has the right to decide what is right.

:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap I would give you frubals but since you are the only one I have ever given frubals to it won't let me so I will just have to owe you.

 

[gwk230]

I understood everything just fine.

The jury is still out on that I'm afraid.

I happen to think using the KJV is a mistake.

Oh I agree when it comes to exacting the understanding of the Hebrew but for everyday use in the culture that I happen to find myself in I use to for the benifit of those that cannot read or understand at this point and time the Hebrew.

Now would you please get back on topic sir?

 

[Harmonious]

:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap I would give you frubals but since you are the only one I have ever given frubals to it won't let me so I will just have to owe you.

I think this is the first time I've agreed with you this whole thread.

It's a beautiful thing.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Oh I agree when it comes to exacting the understanding of the Hebrew but for everyday use in the culture that I happen to find myself in I use to for the benifit of those that cannot read or understand at this point and time the Hebrew.

I'll tell you what. I'll consult a friend of mine who is fluent in biblical Hebrew as well as modern Hebrew... and I'll find out what Christian version of the bible is the most reliable.

He'll either give me an answer, or he might recommend that you use Jewish translations when referring to what you call the "Old Testament".

One example of such that I like, that I can find online, is the Judaica Press Complete Tanach.

The one I have in book form (I have a couple, but there's one I prefer for the sake of readability and commentary) is the Artscroll Stone Edition Tanach.

Now would you please get back on topic sir?

I gather we have similar thoughts regarding the topic of this thread. To go on about offerings, perhaps you could start a separate thread.

 

[gwk230]

I think this is the first time I've agreed with you this whole thread.

It's a beautiful thing.

Well you should silly, it's your brother.