Genocide in 1st Samuel 15:2-3

[Kerr]

Which example?

The example of the attacking tribe.

I guess I'm back to asking what you define as "sytematic" or what is the meaning of "sytematic" in the definition.

To put something into system. Wars are systematic in one way, but not the way implied by genocide.

 

[Kerr]

Yet all of the Amalekites were not killed.

Genocide does not mean all have to be killed.

 

[Autodidact]

Yet all of the Amalekites were not killed.

He captured Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword.

Not that it would matter; that would only get you attempted genocide, which is no better, morally.

 

[Autodidact]

You are persistant. Repetitive as well. Impatient also. The red for empasis is a nice touch.

You are evasive. Rude, as well.

So I take it that my questions are so penetrating, so brilliantly astute and intellectually devastating, that you cannot answer them without revealing how utterly bankrupt your argument is? That's what I thought.: hamster :

 

[TheKnight]

Some killings in some wars; not all killings in all wars. Certainly never infanticide or genocide in any war.

All I'm looking for is for you to say that there is an acceptable context in which murder is justifiable. Is that the case?

And there I leave you to wallow in your moral relativism where not even murder can be condemned.

I'd rather be unable condemn murder than to label people as immoral based solely on my (or anyone's) fickle emotions.

Maybe, but that does not man all killings has the same morality or nature. Which is why murder and killing is not the same, in my assessment.

Yes. I said that it doesn't mean all killings have the same morality/nature. My point is that the end result is the same. And the end result is what we consider a tragedy in Judaism. The fact that a life is gone (any life, whether it was taken justifiably or not) is a tragedy. We would prefer that no life be taken at all.

So you have your standard of "justifiable to take a life" and I have mine. Why should either one of us judge the other as immoral? Why not simply accept the fact that we operate under different standards? If you kill someone in a manner that I find injustifiable that does not mean that I will hate you or consider you to be "immoral". Because I realize that within your own standard, taking the life you took was justified.

This discussion really only has any merit when it comes to enforcement of moral rules. And as I already said, the most logical enforcement of moral rules would be in a context of general social acceptance of those moral rules.

You, I, and our society all accept murder as wrong. Therefore, when it comes to enforcing those rules, we as a society have a right to punish those who also desire to be a part of that society and also accept those rules.

Agreed.

That's all that matters.

 

[Autodidact]

All I'm looking for is for you to say that there is an acceptable context in which murder is justifiable. Is that the case?

I can't think of one, no.

I'd rather be unable condemn murder than to label people as immoral based solely on my (or anyone's) fickle emotions.

Who is taking that position? Certainly not me.

So you have your standard of "justifiable to take a life" and I have mine. Why should either one of us judge the other as immoral?

It's not you that I'm juding as immoral, TheKnight, it's the genocide and infanticide in 1 Samuel 15.

Why not simply accept the fact that we operate under different standards?

So, just to be clear, are you advocating a pure post-modernist relativism, in which all moral standards are equally valid, including, say a Satanic one that values killing and rape most highly?

If you kill someone in a manner that I find injustifiable that does not mean that I will hate you or consider you to be "immoral".

No one's asking you to hate anyone, but I think it's tragic that your religion has reduced you to a condition where you cannot make any moral judgments about anything, because if you did you would have to condemn the actions of your God.

This discussion really only has any merit when it comes to enforcement of moral rules.

Why is that?

And as I already said, the most logical enforcement of moral rules would be in a context of general social acceptance of those moral rules.

Yes, that's why it's important to discuss and promulgate sound moral standards.

You, I, and our society all accept murder as wrong.

You do? I thought you were opposed to moral judgments, and criticized me for saying that murder is wrong. Now I'm confused.



That's all that matters.[/quote]

 

[TheKnight]

I can't think of one, no.

Did you not just say that taking a life in war is justifiable?

Who is taking that position? Certainly not me.

You base your prohibition of murder on the fact that you don't like it. Pure and simple.

It's not you that I'm juding as immoral, TheKnight, it's the genocide and infanticide in 1 Samuel 15. So, just to be clear, are you advocating a pure post-modernist relativism, in which all moral standards are equally valid, including, say a Satanic one that values killing and rape most highly? No one's asking you to hate anyone, but I think it's tragic that your religion has reduced you to a condition where you cannot make any moral judgments about anything, because if you did you would have to condemn the actions of your God.

Cannot? I can make moral judgments. I make them all the time. The criteria I use for moral judgments is based upon God's authority.

You do? I thought you were opposed to moral judgments, and criticized me for saying that murder is wrong. Now I'm confused.

You should be. You haven't been reading a thing I've written since that first thread when we discussed genocide. You have your criteria for moral judgments and I have mine. This is what I have been saying ALL along.

Under your criteria (which I consider illogical) the commands of God are immoral. That's fine. However, under my criteria they're not. Pure and simple.

 

[Autodidact]

double post problem

 

[Autodidact]

Did you not just say that taking a life in war is justifiable?

I said some lives, in some wars. Not murder, which is something quite different.

You base your prohibition of murder on the fact that you don't like it. Pure and simple.

I find that if I make my opponent's arguments, I can usually win. Instead of telling me what I think, ask me. Unless you want to produce a post where I said that?

Cannot? I can make moral judgments. I make them all the time. The criteria I use for moral judgments is based upon God's authority.

And yet you said,

I'd rather be unable condemn murder than to label people as immoral based solely on my (or anyone's) fickle emotions.

So you can make moral judgments, but they don't include condemning murder?

You should be. You haven't been reading a thing I've written since that first thread when we discussed genocide. You have your criteria for moral judgments and I have mine. This is what I have been saying ALL along.

Well duh.

I must have gotten confused because of the posts where you questioned whether murder was evil, asked why we must classify it as evil, and said you preferred that we just say it's unacceptable in our society.

Under your criteria (which I consider illogical) the commands of God are immoral. That's fine. However, under my criteria they're not. Pure and simple.

Right. And under your criteria, building a house without parapets is immoral, but stabbing a baby to death is moral. Pure and simple.

 

[Kerr]

Yes. I said that it doesn't mean all killings have the same morality/nature. My point is that the end result is the same. And the end result is what we consider a tragedy in Judaism. The fact that a life is gone (any life, whether it was taken justifiably or not) is a tragedy. We would prefer that no life be taken at all.

I never said it was not a tragedy. Ok, I confess I do not think that in all cases. Can remember once I ever hurrayed... but that was a movie and she was a pain! I guess am not perfect .

Seriously, though, I do not like when people die in real life.

So you have your standard of "justifiable to take a life" and I have mine. Why should either one of us judge the other as immoral? Why not simply accept the fact that we operate under different standards? If you kill someone in a manner that I find injustifiable that does not mean that I will hate you or consider you to be "immoral". Because I realize that within your own standard, taking the life you took was justified.

To be honest I expect to be judged. I cannot please anyone, and it only seem natural for me that if you find me acting in a way that breaks your moral in cases like murder, you would judge me as immoral. Being aware that we work under different moral frameworks is an important insight, but that does not mean I do not think you shouldn´t label someone who breaks your moral values as immoral. Not saying we should be judging, but we are talking about murder here. Murder is not just anything.

Did you not just say that taking a life in war is justifiable?

Think this is a case of what I mentioned erlier . Do not think she defines murder the same way as you.

 

[Kerr]

I'd rather be unable condemn murder than to label people as immoral based solely on my (or anyone's) fickle emotions.

I am not sure I agree with you on that one.

 

[gnostic]

Yet all of the Amalekites were not killed.

Genocide doesn't necessarily mean absolutely everyone. But to even massacre 50%, like say all the men, and the rest being sold into slavery, still do constitute as being a genocide.

In the case with the Amalekites. The only one to be spared in the genocide by Saul, was the king himself, not a single woman and child. However, later in 1 Samuel 15, Samuel ordered the king's death, hence completing the cycle of the genocide. Hence, not one survived the genocide in the Israelite attack.

Samuel (and God) made it quite clear that the genocide was not for any attack that the Amalekites made between the Israel conquest on Canaan and to Saul's time. It was to punish for the action that happened when Moses' (and the Israelites) first encounter them in battle, some centuries ago.

 

[Poisonshady313]

In the case with the Amalekites. The only one to be spared in the genocide by Saul, was the king himself, not a single woman and child. However, later in 1 Samuel 15, Samuel ordered the king's death, hence completing the cycle of the genocide. Hence, not one survived the genocide in the Israelite attack.

That's not entirely true.

The King fathered a child shortly before his death to a woman unknown. We know this because Haman, from the book of Esther, is identified as being a descendant of Agag, the king of Amalek.

 

[gwk230]

Not to veer off the beaten path of the OP as some do but to correct an incorrect assumption of a misconception. :sarcastic
　
The word as written in the Tanach is "אגגי" or "Agagiy" which could be rendered as a descendent of Agag but it can just as well be rendered as being a servant of Agag as well. Only those that were in that area at that time was killed and who might know how many Amalekites might have been in other places at the time of the slaughter? Whose to say that even the Kenites might have stolen away a few of their Amalekite friends or even loved ones as it seems that were close at that time? There is nothing in the Tanach that would ever be construed as of the Agag, which is the title and not the name of a Amalekite king, ever fathered a child just prior to his death by Saul.
　
So Gnostic you are correct :yes: when you stated that the, “Agag”, king of the Amalekites was the only one spared. Just remember the only one spared within the area that was so named in 1 Samuel 15:7
　
1Sa 15:7 And Saul smote the Amalekites from Havilah until thou comest to Shur, that is over against Egypt.

 

[ayani]

KN ~

God does command a lot of killing in the OT, yet He also smites and takes life in the New.

these are not a random people, but a people whose hearts were set against God, against His people, and against opportunities to do the right thing.

God does take life, sometimes on a mass scale. God's judgement is tied up with His love, but that doesn't mean that God is always passive or tolerant of sin, wrong, arrogance, and hostility. God doesn't punish people for things they fail completely to understand, but for what they knwongly grasp and then reject or do the opposite of. when the Creator is trying to get your attention, or ask you to help someone out whom he loves and has a plan for, it's a good idea to listen.

and yes, sometimes Biblically God whipes out entire societies and ethnic groups. not because of their ethnicity, but because of who these people are, and what they have decided to do and be.

 

[Poisonshady313]

The word as written in the Tanach is "אגגי" or "Agagiy" which could be rendered as a descendent of Agag but it can just as well be rendered as being a servant of Agag as well. Only those that were in that area at that time was killed and who might know how many Amalekites might have been in other places at the time of the slaughter? Whose to say that even the Kenites might have stolen away a few of their Amalekite friends or even loved ones as it seems that were close at that time? There is nothing in the Tanach that would ever be construed as of the Agag, which is the title and not the name of a Amalekite king, ever fathered a child just prior to his death by Saul.

Just because YOU don't believe it, doesn't mean it's not true. Your theory is quite a stretch... whereas thousands of years of Jewish scholars agree that Haman is a descendant of the king spared by Saul.

But go ahead. Let yourself believe that you know these things better than people who were masters of the text and the language it was written in.

 

[gwk230]

Just because YOU don't believe it, doesn't mean it's not true. Your theory is quite a stretch... whereas thousands of years of Jewish scholars agree that Haman is a descendant of the king spared by Saul.

But go ahead. Let yourself believe that you know these things better than people who were masters of the text and the language it was written in.

Hey, he could have been a descendant of the Agag. I'm not debating that. I'm just debating that you don't have any proof that he was but a bunch of guys who think themselves masters when, to me, they are no more than masters of lies.

 

[gnostic]

That's not entirely true.

The King fathered a child shortly before his death to a woman unknown. We know this because Haman, from the book of Esther, is identified as being a descendant of Agag, the king of Amalek.

So Gnostic you are correct :yes: when you stated that the, “Agag”, king of the Amalekites was the only one spared. Just remember the only one spared within the area that was so named in 1 Samuel 15:7

That is certainly possible. Yes.

Nevertheless it was a massacre in that area, or even town or towns, genocide had still taken place. If Agag's family were grouped together, then most likely they were all killed.

As to the descendant of Agag. I supposed that possible. I didn't pay that much attention to Esther. It may have been 20 or more years since the last I've read Esther.

 

[Harmonious]

That is certainly possible. Yes.

Nevertheless it was a massacre in that area, or even town or towns, genocide had still taken place. If Agag's family were grouped together, then most likely they were all killed.

As to the descendant of Agag. I supposed that possible. I didn't pay that much attention to Esther. It may have been 20 or more years since the last I've read Esther.

Poisonshady and I read the Book of Esther no fewer than twice a year. Sometimes, more.

 

[Autodidact]

KN ~

God does command a lot of killing in the OT, yet He also smites and takes life in the New.

these are not a random people, but a people whose hearts were set against God, against His people, and against opportunities to do the right thing.

God does take life, sometimes on a mass scale. God's judgement is tied up with His love, but that doesn't mean that God is always passive or tolerant of sin, wrong, arrogance, and hostility. God doesn't punish people for things they fail completely to understand, but for what they knwongly grasp and then reject or do the opposite of. when the Creator is trying to get your attention, or ask you to help someone out whom he loves and has a plan for, it's a good idea to listen.

and yes, sometimes Biblically God whipes out entire societies and ethnic groups. not because of their ethnicity, but because of who these people are, and what they have decided to do and be.

Including babies?