Genocide in 1st Samuel 15:2-3

[gwk230]

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.

Thats o.k. I am more than happy with looking through the 30 some odd translations that I do already have.

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

I really feel no need to being you are the one who called me out first with your comment of my reply to Gnostic but being that you seem not able to answer the simple question I offered i'll just have to understand. :sad4:

 

[Poisonshady313]

Thats o.k. I am more than happy with looking through the 30 some odd translations that I do already have.




I really feel no need to being you are the one who called me out first with your comment of my reply to Gnostic but being that you seem not able to answer the simple question I offered i'll just have to understand. :sad4:

Which simple question? This all started off as a bunch of assertions which went back and forth... and it is generally off topic from this thread.

 

[gwk230]

Which simple question? This all started off as a bunch of assertions which went back and forth... and it is generally off topic from this thread.

I've posted why it hasn't been off topic but you started this facade and I intend to finish it unless you haven't the back bone to do so???????????

The question is AGAIN as thus...........

　
Question……..
　
Where all is it stated that common man, not a priest or prince nor king, was so commanded to bring such a “meal offering”?

　

Same difference. Specifically to do with the so called obligatory minchah. Again, mind you to do with someone other than a priest, prince, king or any type of leader. I’m looking for just the common everyday Joe blow here.

 

[Poisonshady313]

... unless you haven't the back bone to do so???????????

That's rude and uncalled for. If this is the tone you take... the conclusion you come to... I have no need to deal with someone so petty.


I have the backbone. I just don't think you're worth my time anymore.

Well done.

Have a nice day.

 

[Poisonshady313]

By the way... of the 7 types of obligatory minchot, 5 of them are brought by someone other than a priest, prince, king or any type of leader. Possibly 6, if you consider that any male descendant of Aaron is a priest, therefore being a priest doesn't make one any less of a common everyday Joe blow. The only mincha obligated for a particularly important person is the one for the High Priest.

 

[TheKnight]

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.

I don't know. I think I'd be able to find flaws in arguing for that position.

 

[Autodidact]

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

Nope. Let's say that you believe that the only justification for killing someone else is that it's unavoidable to prevent someone else (such as yourself) from being killed, and that you are justified in making that judgment--that you're very sure that the prospective homicide victim is going to kill someone, and it is necessary to kill them to prevent that. First, I point out that this situation is so rare that most of us will never encounter it. Then, to justify genocide, you would need to show that each and every person you're killing must be killed to prevent someone else's death, including the women, children, toddlers and infants. Since there's no way that you would have to kill a baby to prevent it from killing you, babies being tiny and powerless, this would never be the case.

So you can't get from "There is a conceivable but rare situation in which it might be moral to kill someone," to "It's moral to kill everyone."

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.

The fact that we disagree does not mean we're equally correct. If you believe that it's justifiable to kill anyone who has the temerity to wear lavender, and I believe that it might concievably be justified to kill someone in the extremely rare situation that it is absolutely necessary to prevent them from killing someone else, we are not equally correct about that. The law recognizes this distinction as well.

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

I'm not sure I know what you mean by "objective to both of our standards." Do you believe that your God prohibits murder?

 

[gwk230]

That's rude and uncalled for. If this is the tone you take... the conclusion you come to... I have no need to deal with someone so petty.
I have the backbone. I just don't think you're worth my time anymore.
Well done.
Have a nice day.

　
You have done nothing but ignore my question for the past SIX replies and if that isn’t “rude” and “uncalled for” as well as very, very “petty” I don’t know what is. There is no other conclusion that seemed right to fit those type of actions except lacking of reasoning and fortitude, or just plain lack of backbone, to reply with any substance. I know it all to well as being the typical reply from those with no real answers who only want to skirt the issues, that they themselves started to begin with, for their own misguided and fictional agenda’s.
　
Oh and no, you have a nice day. I’m having a GREAT day. :beach:

 

[gwk230]

By the way... of the 7 types of obligatory minchot, 5 of them are brought by someone other than a priest, prince, king or any type of leader. Possibly 6, if you consider that any male descendant of Aaron is a priest, therefore being a priest doesn't make one any less of a common everyday Joe blow. The only mincha obligated for a particularly important person is the one for the High Priest.

Hogwash!

 

[Poisonshady313]

Hogwash!

Would you care to attempt to support your charge of "hogwash"?

Or do you not have the backbone?

 

[gwk230]

Would you care to attempt to support your charge of "hogwash"?

Or do you not have the backbone?

My charge is in direct reply to your claims that you have yet to prove. When you have done the task then I will comply otherwise do as Gordon Ramsay say's when he wants you to leave the room.

 

[TheKnight]

The fact that we disagree does not mean we're equally correct. If you believe that it's justifiable to kill anyone who has the temerity to wear lavender, and I believe that it might concievably be justified to kill someone in the extremely rare situation that it is absolutely necessary to prevent them from killing someone else, we are not equally correct about that. The law recognizes this distinction as well.

Eh, I'll give you that. There's no point debating this because we agree.

I'm not sure I know what you mean by "objective to both of our standards." Do you believe that your God prohibits murder?

I mean is there some sort of objective standard by which we can measure up our subjective individual standards.

Yes. God prohibits murder.

 

[Autodidact]

Quote:
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.

So for you, killing your own children can be a moral act, as long as God commands you to do it. Wow. Just wow.

How can we ever know whether God commanded her to do it?

How can Andrea Yates know whether it's God commanding her to do it, or her own brain?

How sure does she have to be? Just >50% probability enough?

 

[Kerr]

I mean is there some sort of objective standard by which we can measure up our subjective individual standards.

Yes. God prohibits murder.

Depends on who you ask. I do not believe there is any form of objective standard, morality is as I see it a human construct and exist only inside of our minds. However, if you ask an objectivist, to take one example, he or she would provide a different answer. And that answer would not have anything to do with any deity.

 

[TheKnight]

So for you, killing your own children can be a moral act, as long as God commands you to do it.

Is that an illogical conclusion?

How can we ever know whether God commanded her to do it?

I'm fairly certain that He didn't. When He revealed Himself to the Jewish people He set criteria for any revelations following the initial one. In essence, we know God commands something if:

1. As many spectacular events occur in the same fashion before just as many or more people than were present at Sinai.

-or-

2. A prophet tells us that God commands something. (There is criteria for a person being a prophet).

Neither of these apply to Andrea Yates and therefore we can logically conclude that God did NOT command her to kill her children.

 

[Autodidact]

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



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.



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


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



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.



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.

Eh, I'll give you that. There's no point debating this because we agree.

I mean is there some sort of objective standard by which we can measure up our subjective individual standards.

No. There is no great rulebook inscribed on the sky. You have to figure it out for yourself.

Yes. God prohibits murder.

Yes. Unfortunately, He gives us not guidance as to what is and is not murder, so we have to figure that out for ourselves. So for you, is stabbing a crying baby with your sword murder?

 

[TheKnight]

Depends on who you ask. I do not believe there is any form of objective standard, morality is as I see it a human construct and exist only inside of our minds. However, if you ask an objectivist, to take one example, he or she would provide a different answer. And that answer would not have anything to do with any deity.

I agree. I don't believe in an objective standard. There are only subjective perspectives of what we experience. We can't do any more than that.

Because of that, I think we should refrain from making moral judgments (outside of our own internal moral system).

Instead, we should, as a society, realize that our moral compasses are subjective and come to a conclusion (that everyone would accept) as to what our ethical values are concerning actions.

 

[TheKnight]

No. There is no great rulebook inscribed on the sky. You have to figure it out for yourself.

Alrighty then.

Yes. Unfortunately, He gives us not guidance as to what is and is not murder, so we have to figure that out for ourselves. So for you, is stabbing a crying baby with your sword murder?

He does. We are prohibited from taking lives, and God lists the exceptions to that rule.

Remember, we don't live by the exception, but by the rule itself.

For me, stabbing a baby with a sword is murder.

 

[Autodidact]

I agree. I don't believe in an objective standard. There are only subjective perspectives of what we experience. We can't do any more than that.

Because of that, I think we should refrain from making moral judgments (outside of our own internal moral system).

So you just don't believe in making moral judgments at all? Anything goes with you? Frying toddlers for breakfast? Slaughtering all left-handed people? It's all good?

Instead, we should, as a society, realize that our moral compasses are subjective and come to a conclusion (that everyone would accept) as to what our ethical values are concerning actions.

What on earth is the difference between a conclusion as to what our ethical values are and a moral judgment?

 

[Autodidact]

He does. We are prohibited from taking lives, and God lists the exceptions to that rule.

Where? What are they?

For me, stabbing a baby with a sword is murder.

(emphasis added)

So: Your God commands murder. You believe that murder is moral, if your God commands it.