Genocide in 1st Samuel 15:2-3

[sandy whitelinger]

Which means you must be able to determine which deity is the right one. This also means that a deity does not decide what is right or wrong, for in the end it still boils down to our ability to tell which deity is the right one... or rather, which deity that acts morally.

Sure, but if you pick the wrong deity then you are wrong. Is that moral? Justifiable? Doesn't the "right" Deity still preside over righteousness?

 

[Kerr]

Sure, but if you pick the wrong deity then you are wrong. Is that moral? Justifiable? Doesn't the "right" Deity still preside over righteousness?

There do not exist any objective standard. Besides, it is our actions, and not our choice of deity, that determines if we are "moral" or not.

 

[Kerr]

Okay, so if their entire tribe attacks my side it is only justifiable if I leave someone alive? Even if it means my tribe will suffer?

Will think about that.

 

[averageJOE]

(I'm speaking in times of Modern Warfare)

Okay, so some killing is justifiable. Is killing in time of war justifiable?

Even during war there can and are illegal killings. Even during Vietnam.

You have it right. The morality of it is not the issue.

For example, in a time of war when the mother and the father have been killed and it is impossible to take care of the baby. Is it more moral to not kill the child than to leave it to suffer alone in the dessert? Is it justifiable. It's not a black and white issue and it is arrived at by most, who are given the responsiblity of the situation, through a process and not an emotion.

Neither. A soldier is duty bound to aid any and all wounded enemies. If after a fire fight soldiers realized that they killed a mother and father and a crying baby is left remaning, those soldiers have the DUTY to bring that baby back with them and render aid to that baby until they figure out what to do. Leaving the baby there to die brings the same consequences as shooting it.

 

[averageJOE]

Why must I label murder as evil? Why not simply say "I live my life by a certain standard, with certain goals, and murder is antithetical to that goal and standard."?

It's easy for someone who has never had to handle unnessessary deaths to make comments like this. If TheKnight spent time here in the Middle Eastern combat zones where death is everywhere he'd quickly take comments like this back. If he walked down the streets and saw murdered bodies of men, women, and children he wouldn't say things like this anymore. If he had to clear a building and opened a door to a room filled with dead men, women, and children he'd change his mind.

If a family member of his that he loves the most was murdered and after the police captured the killer said "I was only doing what God told me! I can even show you 100% proof that God told me!!" I can promise that TheKnight would NOT say "Oh well in that case I understand. It's not your fault. It's morally justified if God told you!"

On the other hand, he probably would.

 

[Kerr]

Okay, so if their entire tribe attacks my side it is only justifiable if I leave someone alive? Even if it means my tribe will suffer?

Ok, I have looked into it more. This is what wikipedia say:

Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.

To defend yourself against the example you took would not qualify as genocide according to this, because it would simply be self-defence, and not a deliberate and systematic extermination of ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.

And beyond that, I think if you can spare someone you should.

 

[Autodidact]

Autodidact to Sandy:

And what might that situation be? Not by others, Sandy, by you? When do you think it's morally justified for a soldier to stab a baby to death with his sword?

You said that the people were ordered executed not because of who they were, but because of what they did. So what did the babies and children do that merited them being executed? Are you saying that children should be killed because of what their parents do? Come to think of it, could you cite the verse where it even says what their parents did exactly?

How about you tell us your definition of genocide, Sandy.

Quote:
Again, when is it justified for a soldier to stab a baby to death? In your view?

 

[Autodidact]

You have it right. The morality of it is not the issue.

For example, in a time of war when the mother and the father have been killed and it is impossible to take care of the baby.

First, how did the mother and father happen to be killed? Because you killed them. Were they attacking you? No. Why was it a time of war? Because you attacked them. Anyway, why is it impossible to take care of the baby? Just bring it back to your nearby camp with the booty.

Is it more moral to not kill the child than to leave it to suffer alone in the dessert?

There are many more than two choices.

Is it justifiable. It's not a black and white issue and it is arrived at by most, who are given the responsiblity of the situation, through a process and not an emotion.

As I say, only a religionist could say that the issue of whether it's right or wrong for an soldier to take his sword and run it through a newborn baby is not black or white. It's all post-modern situational ethics with you guys. To me it's pretty clear cut--it's wrong, wrong, as wrong as you can get, there is nothing more wrong. But that's just me.

 

[Autodidact]

A whole tribe attacks my tribe. My tribe kills them all. By definition it's genocide. Is it justifiable?

The babies attacked you? How did they do that?

Sandy: these are not even close to the facts of the Biblical story. In the Bible, WE are attacking THEM for something their remote ancestors did centuries ago. They're not attacking us at all.

Throughout the OT, the most common reason for God commanding genocide is "This land which I gave you, kill everyone in it."

32We met Sihon and his army in battle at Jahaz, 33and the LORD our God helped us defeat them. We killed Sihon, his sons, and everyone else in his army. 34Then we captured and destroyed every town in Sihon's kingdom, killing everyone, 35but keeping the livestock and everything else of value...we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:

[Numbers 21] What horrible thing did The Sihonese do to justify us killing all of them, including their children? They did not allow us to cross their land to make war on the people on the other side.

Deuteronomy 7

1People of Israel, the LORD your God will help you take the land of the Hittites, the Girga****es, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites. These seven nations have more people and are stronger than Israel, but when you attack them, 2the LORD will force them out of the land. Then you must destroy them without mercy.

Deuteronomy 20

16Whenever you capture towns in the land the LORD your God is giving you, be sure to kill all the people and animals. 17He has commanded you to completely wipe out the Hittites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites.

note: no attack. Their problem was that they lived on land that God wanted to give us.

Joshua 6

Then the Lord spoke to Joshua. He said, "I have handed Jericho over to you. I have also handed its king and its fighting men over to you…17 The city and everything that is in it must be set apart to the Lord in a special way to be destroyed…So they took the city. 21 They set it apart to the Lord in a special way to be destroyed. They destroyed every living thing in it with their swords. They killed men and women. They wiped out young people and old people. They destroyed cattle, sheep and donkeys.

[summary of Joshua, too long and tedious to quote verbatim: JS 8:22-25 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly smites the people of Ai, killing 12,000 men and women, so that there were none who escaped.
JS 10:10-27 With the help of the Lord, Joshua utterly destroys the Gibeonites.
JS 10:28 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly destroys the people of Makkedah.
JS 10:30 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly destroys the Libnahites.
JS 10:32-33 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly destroys the people of Lachish.
JS 10:34-35 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly destroys the Eglonites.
JS 10:36-37 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly destroys the Hebronites.
JS 10:38-39 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly destroys the Debirites.
JS 10:40 (A summary statement.) "So Joshua defeated the whole land ...; he left none remaining, but destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel commanded."

Joshua 11: 10

At that time Joshua turned back. He captured Hazor. He killed its king with his sword. Hazor was the most important city in all of those kingdoms. 11 The army of Israel killed everyone in Hazor with their swords. Its people had been set apart to the Lord in a special way to be destroyed. Israel's army didn't spare anything that breathed. Then Joshua burned up the city.
12 Joshua took all of those royal cities and their kings. He and his men killed everyone in those cities with their swords. He totally destroyed them. He did just as Moses, the servant of the Lord, had commanded. 13 Many cities were built on top of earlier cities that had been destroyed. Israel didn't burn up any of those except Hazor. Joshua burned it up.14 The army of Israel kept for themselves the livestock and everything else they took from those cities. But they killed all of the people with their swords. They completely destroyed them. They didn't spare anyone who breathed.
15 The Lord had commanded his servant Moses to do all of those things. Moses had passed that command on to Joshua. And Joshua carried it out.

Well, I could go on. And on. And on. My point is; no mention of these people being in the course of attacking us. Rather, they're on our land and worship the wrong God. Sound familiar? Sound moral?

 

[Autodidact]

:bow:We all bow down to your higher moral authority, oh goddess, Auto.

You are welcome.

 

[Autodidact]

Would it not be seen in another view that by taking the life of an Amalekite child, that God has deprived it of the ability to possibly kill Israelis in the future, possibly reject God in the future, possibly[fill in the blank with any obsene act], and instead given that child an eternity of sinless perfection with God in heaven (in the view of some interpretations of Scripture). Which position is moral, to kill the child or not?

Not. Frankly, this rationalization of infanticide is disgusting and reprehensible. Please continue though, it is helping to drive people away from Christianity. Why would anyone want to join a religion that justifies infanticide and genocide as moral?

btw, this idea that it's o.k. to kill children because they'll be better off in heaven with Jesus is one of the most appalling aspects of Christianity.

I wish you could see how horrifying what you are advocating is. How can I get you to see it like a normal moral person? :idea: I know, imagine it's your baby, and a Muslim fanatic is coming at it with a sword, as well as a justification just like yours for why stabbing it to death is the right thing to do. Does that sound right to you?

 

[TheKnight]

It's easy for someone who has never had to handle unnessessary deaths to make comments like this. If TheKnight spent time here in the Middle Eastern combat zones where death is everywhere he'd quickly take comments like this back. If he walked down the streets and saw murdered bodies of men, women, and children he wouldn't say things like this anymore. If he had to clear a building and opened a door to a room filled with dead men, women, and children he'd change his mind.

If a family member of his that he loves the most was murdered and after the police captured the killer said "I was only doing what God told me! I can even show you 100% proof that God told me!!" I can promise that TheKnight would NOT say "Oh well in that case I understand. It's not your fault. It's morally justified if God told you!"

On the other hand, he probably would.

That was a cute emotional appeal. However, I'm interested in logical discussion. I might, in the heat of an emotionally traumatic experience, say that we must classify actions as either evil or good.

However, when I am not being emotionally subdued by an experience, my logic and rationality tells me that we don't have to call an action evil to say that it is undesirable.

The reason I advocate teaching it as something other than evil is because you cannot prove to me that killing people is evil. All you can say is "Oh, you don't see killing people as evil? Well, something is wrong with you" and that's not an argument.

Now, maybe you'll be more inclined to logic than Autodidact and maybe you can answer me:

What is intrinsically evil about murder?

 

[Autodidact]

What is intrinsically evil about murder?

It's the very definition of evil.

e·vil

adjective
Definition: 1. morally bad: profoundly immoral or wrong

2. harmful: deliberately causing great harm, pain, or upset
This evil act is clearly the work of terrorists.

3. causing misfortune: characterized by, bringing, or signifying bad luck
an evil omen

4. malicious: characterized by a desire to cause hurt or harm
an evil mood

5. devilish: connected with the devil or other powerful destructive forces
evil spirits

6. disagreeable: very unpleasant
What an evil smell!

You really can't cause greater harm than killing someone.

 

[TheKnight]

It's the very definition of evil. You really can't cause greater harm than killing someone.

So then your definition of evil means harming someone. And I'm sure that there are some actions you do that harm people, but that you don't consider evil.

Harm, in and of itself, is a subjective word and is dependent on the person being harmed and the person preforming the action.

 

[Kerr]

The babies attacked you? How did they do that?

Lol, didn´t think of that one. Good point.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

(I'm speaking in times of Modern Warfare)
Even during war there can and are illegal killings. Even during Vietnam.

So, to answer my question, killing is justifiable in times of war?

Neither. A soldier is duty bound to aid any and all wounded enemies. If after a fire fight soldiers realized that they killed a mother and father and a crying baby is left remaning, those soldiers have the DUTY to bring that baby back with them and render aid to that baby until they figure out what to do. Leaving the baby there to die brings the same consequences as shooting it.

Did you miss the part where I said that to take the child and care for it was impossible?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Ok, I have looked into it more. This is what wikipedia says: Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.

To defend yourself against the example you took would not qualify as genocide according to this, because it would simply be self-defence, and not a deliberate and systematic extermination of ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.

And beyond that, I think if you can spare someone you should.

Why would it not qualify as genocide? Is not war deliberate and sytematic? There is no mention of the reason for the destruction.

 

[Autodidact]

So then your definition of evil means harming someone. And I'm sure that there are some actions you do that harm people, but that you don't consider evil.

Harm, in and of itself, is a subjective word and is dependent on the person being harmed and the person preforming the action.

No, not my definition, one of the definitions from dictionary.com, and not just harming someone, but harmful: deliberately causing great harm, pain, or upset and no, I do not make a practice of deliberately harming people.

If you're really desperate to cloud the waters and obscure the fact that you basically have no morality, I guess you could call harm subjective, but then so would almost everything be. I think most of us would agree that murdering someone is harmful. So, in the commonly accepted definitions, murder is evil. Can we agree on all that? (This is so tedious.)

 

[Kerr]

Why would it not qualify as genocide? Is not war deliberate and sytematic? There is no mention of the reason for the destruction.

It is not systematic, no. Systematic means I have to put into system to murder them, I would not do that. I would defend my life and the life of the other ones in my tribe. That is not genocide, even if their entire people attacks. Besides, war does not mean equal genocide.

 

[Kerr]

So, to answer my question, killing is justifiable in times of war?

In battle, yes. But not if you are a soldier, and decides to randomly kill a few kids for fun. Context matters.