Genocide in 1st Samuel 15:2-3

[TheKnight]

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

Is there a difference between someone who dies in a war and someone who dies as a result of an unjust murder?

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?

I think it's evident from the course that your posts take.

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

Umm...I said "I'd rather be unable to...." That does not mean that I AM unable to....

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

Sure Auto, whatever helps you to fend off that Pintele Yid so that you can sleep at night.

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.

Lol.

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.

This is true. And in a real life situation, I probably would judge you for it.

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

I know.

 

[Autodidact]

Is there a difference between someone who dies in a war and someone who dies as a result of an unjust murder?

Not to the dead person, but to the person doing the killing, yes. Are you saying you cannot distinguish between any homicides, that all are equally culpable or inculpable to you?

I think it's evident from the course that your posts take.

Then cite the post. I have never said any such thing, do not believe any such thing, and strongly object to being slandered. So put up or withdraw, please.

Umm...I said "I'd rather be unable to...." That does not mean that I AM unable to....

I see. You are able to make moral distinctions, but prefer not to. O.K.

Sure Auto, whatever helps you to fend off that Pintele Yid so that you can sleep at night.

On the contrary; I embrace it. I will always be a Jew, regardless of my religious beliefs, and I am proud of my Jewish identity.

I know.

What is your definition of murder?

 

[TheKnight]

Not to the dead person, but to the person doing the killing, yes. Are you saying you cannot distinguish between any homicides, that all are equally culpable or inculpable to you?

I'm saying that the end result, a dead human being, is the same for both scenarios.

I agree that whether or not the fact that a human being is dead is justifiable depends on the conditions under which they died. We have differing conditions. The moment you accept that there are circumstances where it is justifiable for one person to take the life another, you must also accept that different people will have different circumstances under which that is appropriate and it doesn't necessarily make them evil.

Then cite the post. I have never said any such thing, do not believe any such thing, and strongly object to being slandered. So put up or withdraw, please.

As I said, it's obvious from the course of your posts. You lack of answers to the questions posed to you. (Responding by saying "need I say more" is not a logical response to a question asked to you, rather, it is an emotional appeal).

I see. You are able to make moral distinctions, but prefer not to. O.K.

I never said that either.

On the contrary; I embrace it. I will always be a Jew, regardless of my religious beliefs, and I am proud of my Jewish identity.

What makes you any different from a non-Jew if you don't keep any of the traditions that make Jews distinctively Jewish?

What is your definition of murder?

I don't define murder/killing in the same way that contemporary legal systems do. For me, the death of a human is the death of a human. Inducing that death is what I would call killing/murder. I use them interchangebly because the way I look at it, they are the same thing.

 

[Kerr]

I see. You are able to make moral distinctions, but prefer not to. O.K.

Just to be picky, he said if he had the choice between not being able condemn murder, and make moral judgement based on "fickle emotions", he would rather not be able to condemn murder . At last that is if I got it right. Anyway, personally if I had that choice I would rather base my moral judgement on "fickle emotions".

 

[Autodidact]

I'm saying that the end result, a dead human being, is the same for both scenarios.

Yup. So what? What does this have to do with our discussion?

I agree that whether or not the fact that a human being is dead is justifiable depends on the conditions under which they died. We have differing conditions. The moment you accept that there are circumstances where it is justifiable for one person to take the life another, you must also accept that different people will have different circumstances under which that is appropriate and it doesn't necessarily make them evil.

No, I don't. Just because different people have different opinions does not make them equally right.

TK has alleged that I

label people as immoral based solely on my (or anyone's) fickle emotions.

As I said, it's obvious from the course of your posts. You lack of answers to . the questions posed to you. (Responding by saying "need I say more" is not a logical response to a question asked to you, rather, it is an emotional appeal).

So you cannot or will not substantiate your false allegation against me, nor will you withdraw it? Congratulation, you have just sacrificed your credibility here.For the record, my morality has nothing to do with fickle emotions, quite the contrary, it is based on objective science and universal wisdom. He cannot substantiate his allegation, and refuses to retract it. YOu may conclude what you will about his credibility.

I never said that either.

Again, you confuse me. You said that

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

Are you able to condemn murder, or not? Because this post gave me the impression that you're not, or at least not within your moral system, whis is not based on fickle emotions.

What makes you any different from a non-Jew if you don't keep any of the traditions that make Jews distinctively Jewish?

The fact that my mother was Jewish.

I don't define murder/killing in the same way that contemporary legal systems do. For me, the death of a human is the death of a human. Inducing that death is what I would call killing/murder. I use them interchangebly because the way I look at it, they are the same thing.

So you believe that God prohibits any taking of human life by another? Whether in war, capital punishment, or self-defense, all are prohibited and immoral?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

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 :

Thinking may not be your strong suit.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

The example of the attacking tribe.

The total destruction of an entire tribe is by definition genocide.

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

What way is implied by genocide?

 

[Kerr]

It may be an eye opener, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I need to classify the experiences as evil.

Ok, have thought about it now. It is not about need, as much as clarity, to recognise what is bad and destructive and see it for what it is. To me, that is evil so I view it as such. I will confess that it is not one-sided, though. Even though the experience may be horrible it can bring forth good things as well. That does not make them less horrible, or wars less evil, but nothing has only one side.

That is the best I can explain, I think.

 

[Autodidact]

Well, Sandy, so far you've argued that Amalekite babies were slaughtered because of what they did, although you can't (or won't?) tell us what it is that they did, that Amalekites were annihilated because they were attacking Israelites, although you can't (or won't) cite any evidence that they were attacking anyone, and that wiping out the Amalekites was not geneocide, although you can't (or won't?) define genocide. If the problem is not that answering my questions will reveal the paucity of your argument, meanwhile peppering everyone else in the thread with questions, what is it, lack of manners?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

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.

By whose definition?

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.

The attack was limited to a certain area which may or may not have included all of the Amalekites. There is no no mention that any of the the Amalikites, or their descendants, who were taken in to Israel, were killed. There seemed to be quite a number of Amalekites for David to slay in later chapters.

 

[Autodidact]

By whose definition?

Can you tell us your definition? Thanks.

The attack was limited to a certain area which may or may not have included all of the Amalekites. There is no no mention that any of the the Amalikites, or their descendants, who were taken in to Israel, were killed. There seemed to be quite a number of Amalekites for David to slay in later chapters.

7So Saul defeated the Amalekites, from Havilah as you go to Shur, which is east of Egypt.
8He captured Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Quote:
7So Saul defeated the Amalekites, from Havilah as you go to Shur, which is east of Egypt.
8He captured Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword.

Then why were there still Amalekites afterward?

 

[Kerr]

The total destruction of an entire tribe is by definition genocide.

Not if it is made in such a direct case of self-defence, which was the case you took. If I make an own ethnic group with a handful of people, and we all attack you and die when you defend yourself, you have not commited genocide, you have killed in self-defence.

What way is implied by genocide?

To systematically try and kill an entire population is different from attempting to win a militant victory over that people in order to protect the own population.

By whose definition?

Definitions are irrelevant in this case, it is just to look at a few historical examples. The most known one is the one that happened under Nazi-Germany. But there is also Rwanda. These are examples of genocide where everyone where not killed.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Not if it is made in such a direct case of self-defence, which was the case you took. If I make an own ethnic group with a handful of people, and we all attack you and die when you defend yourself, you have not commited genocide, you have killed in self-defence.
To systematically try and kill an entire population is different from attempting to win a militant victory over that people in order to protect the own population..

Could you show me where these distinction are made in definition?

Definitions are irrelevant in this case, it is just to look at a few historical examples. The most known one is the one that happened under Nazi-Germany. But there is also Rwanda. These are examples of genocide where everyone where not killed.

I love it when definitions are irrelevant. It makes everything irrelevant.

If something is not genocide by definition then it's not genocide.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Can you tell us your definition? Thanks.

From merriam-webster.com
: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

 

[Kerr]

Could you show me where these distinction are made in definition?

I have already said that definition, we interpret that definition differently.

I love it when definitions are irrelevant. It makes everything irrelevant.

If something is not genocide by definition then it's not genocide.

I said they where irrelevant because there where cases that proved that everyone does not have to be killed.

the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

Does not mean everyone has to die.

 

[Autodidact]

Then why were there still Amalekites afterward?

Hey, it's your Bible, you make sense of it. I'm just quoting the verse that says they killed them all.

 

[Autodidact]

From merriam-webster.com
: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

Great. I can agree to that, so let's just use that.

Note that it does not require that each and every member of the group be killed.

 

[Autodidact]

So, after much discussion, I think we can agree that what God commanded in 1 Samuel 15 (and many, many other places in the OT) and which the Israelites carried out, was genocide, right?

So, Jews and Christians, where does that leave you?

Genocide is moral?

Your God is immoral?

Or how do you resolve this problem?

 

[gwk230]

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.

　
And 20 years isn't so bad. For some can grasp things better and understand them fully than a lot that may read it thousand times a year or more. Some are just slow like that. What is that old saying? I've cut it three times and it is still to short?
　
I still see and understand that the word that I previously posted “Agagiy” that shows in the Tanach could also reflect the meaning "servant of". Whether he was a direct descendant or servant is really besides the point. The point you made was fully understandable kept within the context which you meant without someone reading their own thoughts and feelings into it as many do the whole of the entire book. There was many Amalekites left for later on even king Daweed had to fight against them. Wonder who their Agag was then? Wonder who the Agag was at the time of Haman? Just because it states that he was an Agagiy doesn’t mean that he was a son of, or descended from, the same Agag that was killed by Saul. He could have been a son or servant of any one of the Agag’s.