Genocide in 1st Samuel 15:2-3

[gwk230]

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

Is that within a controlled area like a city, state or country or as in the entire earthly globe? Because if it is as in the latter then what you are saying in essence is that it would be incorrect for anyone to view the holocaust as genocide right?

 

[Fortunato]

Did you find anywhere that it wasn't ok?
​

The statute pretty much states what genocide is and then says that anyone that does those things is guilty of genocide and will be prosecuted. Here's the summary from the UN website:

"The Convention defines genocide as any of a number of acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
The Convention also declares that there shall be no immunity. Persons committing this crime shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals."
​

 

[TheKnight]

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?

God prohibits the taking of any life. There are exceptions to this rule, but we live by the rule, not the exception.

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.

That's understandable. But personally, I see no reason to classify it as evil simply for the sake of calling it evil. The action itself isn't evil, the action itself is neutral. It is the setting in which the action occurred that affects the perspective of the action.

 

[gnostic]

God prohibits the taking of any life. There are exceptions to this rule, but we live by the rule, not the exception.

And if god order you to take life, that would be an exception, even if it meant killing women and children?

 

[Autodidact]

God prohibits the taking of any life. There are exceptions to this rule, but we live by the rule, not the exception.

What does this even mean? You've contradicted yourself in two sentences. Does God prohibit all killing (except when He commands it) or are there exceptions? Isn't murder when it's not an exception? It's not murder if it's permitted, right?

 

[TheKnight]

And if god order you to take life, that would be an exception, even if it meant killing women and children?

That would be correct.

What does this even mean? You've contradicted yourself in two sentences. Does God prohibit all killing (except when He commands it) or are there exceptions? Isn't murder when it's not an exception? It's not murder if it's permitted, right?

You're looking at it in a different framework. The way I see it, My doing X to end the life of John Doe is prohibited. The only time I am allowed to do X to end the life of John Doe is if John Doe falls into the exception category.

Your last two questions don't work in the way I'm seeing it. You are trying to classify a difference between killing and murdering within my framework. Whereas from my point of view there is no distinction.

 

[Autodidact]

That would be correct.



You're looking at it in a different framework. The way I see it, My doing X to end the life of John Doe is prohibited. The only time I am allowed to do X to end the life of John Doe is if John Doe falls into the exception category.

Your last two questions don't work in the way I'm seeing it. You are trying to classify a difference between killing and murdering within my framework. Whereas from my point of view there is no distinction.

Yes there is. In your system. You distinguish between the times you are prohibited from killing, and the exceptions. The first is murder, the second is not.

If you kill someone in self-defense, is it murder?

Otherwise, among other things, you would have to admit that the Israelites committed thousands upon thousands of murders, all of them on God's commandment.

 

[TheKnight]

Yes there is. In your system. You distinguish between the times you are prohibited from killing, and the exceptions. The first is murder, the second is not.

If you kill someone in self-defense, is it murder?

Otherwise, among other things, you would have to admit that the Israelites committed thousands upon thousands of murders, all of them on God's commandment.

I am more inclined to use the term "taking a life."

If I take a life in self-defense, a life has still been taken.

If a serial killer takes the lives of a family of four, lives have still been taken.

The first scenario is one that would be justified, the second is one that would not be.

 

[Kerr]

That's understandable. But personally, I see no reason to classify it as evil simply for the sake of calling it evil. The action itself isn't evil, the action itself is neutral. It is the setting in which the action occurred that affects the perspective of the action.

To be honest, evil is a concept I rarely use. Here I have used it as a part of the discussion, but I do not actually think of it much. However, I recognise its existence and have no issues when people use it... within proportion (there are some that tend to use it a bit to much).

 

[gnostic]

I am more inclined to use the term "taking a life."

If I take a life in self-defense, a life has still been taken.

If a serial killer takes the lives of a family of four, lives have still been taken.

The first scenario is one that would be justified, the second is one that would not be.

The self defence can be justified in certain cases, but I don't think you can justify killing defenceless children as being "self-defence".

 

[Caladan]

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

Do you think that applying religious laws is what makes a person Jewish?
being a Jew is first about culture, a Jew may or may not be religious. in fact he may be many things: an atheist, a Buddhist, orthodox, traditional, messianic, liberal, conservative, lefty, righty. the amount of strict adherence to religion has nothing to do with his Jewish identity. to me, a person who joins the army, is by far practicing his Jewish identity more than a person who sits on his *** all day in a yeshiva!

The strength of being Jewish is not by sticking to old traditions, its by adapting and evolving!

 

[TheKnight]

The self defence can be justified in certain cases, but I don't think you can justify killing defenceless children as being "self-defence".

I agree.

The strength of being Jewish is not by sticking to old traditions, its by adapting and evolving!

I disagree.

 

[Caladan]

I disagree.

Well that was enlightening.

 

[TheKnight]

Well that was enlightening.

I find that strength, in any culture, combines the traditions of old (which separate that culture from the rest) and the improvements of the new. As far as Jewishness goes I believe that Chabad does very good job of this with their use of technology and what not.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

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?

Nope.

 

[Autodidact]

Nope.

How not? How does it not meet the definition of genocide? God commands the Israelites to kill all the Amalekites, including the children and babies. Isn't that the quintessential example of what genocide is?

And I still have several other questions outstanding to you. I was polite enough to answer yours, and I would appreciate it if you would be so courteous as to respond to mine in turn. Thank you.

 

[Harmonious]

Do you think that applying religious laws is what makes a person Jewish?

It is part of what a Jew is supposed to do.

being a Jew is first about culture,

To you, maybe. It is ALL about Torah and Mitzvot. Culture is nice, too.

a Jew may or may not be religious.

True.

in fact he may be many things: an atheist, a Buddhist, orthodox, traditional, messianic, liberal, conservative, lefty, righty.

You know, Jews who opt to take on other religions are no longer Jews, according to how other Jews can treat them. (And atheism doesn't count as a religion. So, oddly enough, Jewish guys who choose to be atheists are still allowed to be called to the Torah if they show up in shul on days that the Torah is read. The same could not be said for Messianic Jews.) They are always Jews, as far as God is concerned.

the amount of strict adherence to religion has nothing to do with his Jewish identity.

To you, anyway.

to me, a person who joins the army, is by far practicing his Jewish identity more than a person who sits on his *** all day in a yeshiva!

Glad to hear your views on it. Considering the fact that you are living in Israel, I understand where you are coming from, although I favor the Hesder program. (I was there for a year, and Hesder ((for guys)) made the most sense to me.)

The strength of being Jewish is not by sticking to old traditions, its by adapting and evolving!

No, the strength of being Jewish is indeed holding to the old traditions. Understanding how old traditions can be adapted to current situations is where the strength comes in.

 

[Caladan]

This deserves a whole thread of its own, one which I hope I wont ever have to take part in more than I have to.

One sentence though.. religious Jews are but one layer of Jewish society, remember that. they are not the ideal Jewish identity, they are but one sector of the overall culture.

 

[Harmonious]

This deserves a whole thread of its own, one which I hope I wont ever have to take part in more than I have to.

One sentence though.. religious Jews are but one layer of Jewish society, remember that. they are not the ideal Jewish identity, they are but one sector of the overall culture.

If you say so.

 

[gwk230]

Wheres the love? Can't we all just get along? :biglaugh: