Genocide in 1st Samuel 15:2-3

[Just_me_Mike]

Are you claiming that Carico is not an adult?

OK I was assuming.
That gets me into trouble all the time.

 

[TheKnight]

These verses say "Thus says the Lord of Hosts, "I will punish the Amalekites for what they did in opposing the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt. (3) Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey". This story says God told the Israelites to commit genocide against the Amalekites. If you believe the Bible to be the inerrant, infallible word of your god then you would have to believe this story is accurate, that your god DID tell the Israelites to commit genocide against a neighboring ethnic group. If you believe god really did say this how do you reconcile it with the idea of God being a god of justice and love? The Christians I have spoken to about this have said the Amalekites were bad people and needed to be gotten rid of . How do you know they were all bad as a group? How do you know the infants and children deserved to die also? The above verse says to kill the children and infants too. I think the Israelites wanted to get the Amalekites out of their way and they concocted this self serving story of God ordering them to commit genocide. Any thoughts from Christians and Jews?

Are you asking how God could command this? Or are you asking for proof of God's asking this?

Your response to what I said is valid only if God actually DID tell the Israelites to kill those people. You said nothing to back up your claim that God told the Israelites to kill the Amalekites. I think, once again, that the Israelites put those words in Gods mouth to make it ok for them to commit genocide against the Amalekites.

You're more than welcome to believe that, what then, is the purpose of this thread?

Have you read anything I have written here? I did not say those people didn't exist or that all of 1st and 2nd Samuel are myths. I said that if the Amalekite genocide happened, that I am guessing that the Israelites had their own reasons for wanting to get rid of the Amalekites and then made up a self serving story about God ordering it to make it ok. I don't absolutely know this but know that people massacre other people and we don't absolutely know that God tells people to do anything so I think it is more reasonable to believe the story of God ordering the genocide is a made up story. Who initiated the propoganda? I don't know.

If you believe the stories in Samuel are myths, then why even believe that the genocide took place? If you don't believe that the story in Samuel is true, then you have no reason to assume that it took place.

 

[keithnurse]

Are you claiming that Carico is not an adult?

No. I am claiming that her reasoning on this forum is very poor. She needs to learn some critical thinking skills, how to tell a sound argument from an unsound one. She makes many statements that are either begging the question, or a nonsequitor or the argument from silence and many other errors of logic.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Ketihnurse are you going to answer my post?

 

[Poisonshady313]

These verses say "Thus says the Lord of Hosts, "I will punish the Amalekites for what they did in opposing the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt. (3) Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey". This story says God told the Israelites to commit genocide against the Amalekites. If you believe the Bible to be the inerrant, infallible word of your god then you would have to believe this story is accurate, that your god DID tell the Israelites to commit genocide against a neighboring ethnic group. If you believe god really did say this how do you reconcile it with the idea of God being a god of justice and love? The Christians I have spoken to about this have said the Amalekites were bad people and needed to be gotten rid of . How do you know they were all bad as a group? How do you know the infants and children deserved to die also? The above verse says to kill the children and infants too. I think the Israelites wanted to get the Amalekites out of their way and they concocted this self serving story of God ordering them to commit genocide. Any thoughts from Christians and Jews?

First of all... if you don't believe God had anything to do with it, why bother believing it even happened at all?

Second... you mentioned justice and love. Key word here being justice. You might not like it, but God, being God, has the authority to execute judgment upon whole nations if the situation calls for it.

 

[Autodidact]

First of all... if you don't believe God had anything to do with it, why bother believing it even happened at all?

Second... you mentioned justice and love. Key word here being justice. You might not like it, but God, being God, has the authority to execute judgment upon whole nations if the situation calls for it.

No, I don't like it, and I can't imagine any meaning of justice in which it is just to slaughter little babies because of something their ancestors did, can you?

 

[gnostic]

Okay since you believe that the Jews are the only group of people who are lying about their history (which is anti-semitic), then please tell us the real history of the Jews. You need to back up your claims or you're a slanderer. My claims have been backed up by the bible. So let's hear some facts from you to support your position. So tell us who the real kings of Israel and Judah were, when they lived and what they did.

Look, carico.

You're not thinking logical at all.

You are using the bible to make your claim.

That can't be your proof.

For in order to you have proof, you need other sources independent of the bible, either literary (like from other historical writings or inscriptions) or physical (like archaeological evidences), that can verify the passages of the bible or events in the bible. If you don't have independent evidences with regard to the biblical passages, then your claim is most unverified speculation at best. At worse, it is simply misguided propaganda.

You claimed in post #33 that the history of the Jews are backup by the history of the Assyria, Babylonica and Egypt:

Okay since you believe that the Jews are the only group of people who are lying about their history (which is anti-semitic), then please tell us the real history of the Jews. You need to back up your claims or you're a slanderer. My claims have been backed up by the bible. So let's hear some facts from you to support your position. So tell us who the real kings of Israel and Judah were, when they lived and what they did.

This topic, however, is about Keithnurse's genocide found on 1 Samuel 15.

Since you are the one who think that the history of the Jews, then can you verify 1 Samuel 15 from other independent historical records?

I certainly could find no records of the genocide of the Amalekites (as stated in 1 Samuel 15) in Egyptian or Assyro-Babylonian history. Can you?

Do you have independent records that were any king, named Saul?

The only record of Saul come from Abrahamic religious literature, not within any historical record of Egypt or the Mesopotamia.

Unless you have independent evidences, then I rest my case.

 

[gnostic]

To keithnurse:

TheKnight have brought up important questions, keithnurse.

Are you asking how God could command this? Or are you asking for proof of God's asking this?

You're more than welcome to believe that, what then, is the purpose of this thread?

If you believe the stories in Samuel are myths, then why even believe that the genocide took place? If you don't believe that the story in Samuel is true, then you have no reason to assume that it took place.

I hoped to you would take the time to answer his questions, keithnurse, because I would like to know myself - such as the purpose of this thread.

 

[keithnurse]

To keithnurse:

TheKnight have brought up important questions, keithnurse.



I hoped to you would take the time to answer his questions, keithnurse, because I would like to know myself - such as the purpose of this thread.

First of all... if you don't believe God had anything to do with it, why bother believing it even happened at all?

Second... you mentioned justice and love. Key word here being justice. You might not like it, but God, being God, has the authority to execute judgment upon whole nations if the situation calls for it.

Because that would be poor reasoning. I don't believe God told the Israelites to commit genocide against the Alalekites. It would be bad reasoning to say "since I don't believe God ordered the genocide then that must mean the genocide never happened at all. I don't know whether it happened, it may or may not have happened. If the Israelites did commit genocide against the Amalekites, I would say that was a war crime. It is wrong to kill children and infants and women too who are noncombatants on purpose and/or as punishment for something their ancestors may or may not have done.

 

[keithnurse]

Are you asking how God could command this? Or are you asking for proof of God's asking this?


You're more than welcome to believe that, what then, is the purpose of this thread?



If you believe the stories in Samuel are myths, then why even believe that the genocide took place? If you don't believe that the story in Samuel is true, then you have no reason to assume that it took place.

Before I would ask "how could God command this genocide" I would need to see evidence that God commanded it. Yes, I am asking if there is any evidence that God commanded this. I think the Israelites were wrong to commit genocide against the Amalekites, Canaanites and any other ethnic groups they committed genocide against. Sorry, it is late, I have to go to bed to go to work eary in the morning. I will be back on Sunday, 7/19.

 

[TheKnight]

Before I would ask "how could God command this genocide" I would need to see evidence that God commanded it. Yes, I am asking if there is any evidence that God commanded this. I think the Israelites were wrong to commit genocide against the Amalekites, Canaanites and any other ethnic groups they committed genocide against. Sorry, it is late, I have to go to bed to go to work eary in the morning. I will be back on Sunday, 7/19.

That's not the point. My point is, if you don't believe the part where God tells them to do it, why believe the part where it says that they did it? Especially, if there is no evidence to support either position?

Do you always go around criticizing events you don't believe happened?

 

[mippop]

These verses say "Thus says the Lord of Hosts, "I will punish the Amalekites for what they did in opposing the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt. (3) Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey". This story says God told the Israelites to commit genocide against the Amalekites. If you believe the Bible to be the inerrant, infallible word of your god then you would have to believe this story is accurate, that your god DID tell the Israelites to commit genocide against a neighboring ethnic group. If you believe god really did say this how do you reconcile it with the idea of God being a god of justice and love? The Christians I have spoken to about this have said the Amalekites were bad people and needed to be gotten rid of . How do you know they were all bad as a group? How do you know the infants and children deserved to die also? The above verse says to kill the children and infants too. I think the Israelites wanted to get the Amalekites out of their way and they concocted this self serving story of God ordering them to commit genocide. Any thoughts from Christians and Jews?

If you choose to question God and you believe in The Scriptures, then before you condemn God, you should carefully search for the answers to your questions in scripture. The battle between Israel and Amalek is a classic battle between the forces of good and evil in the world. Amalek was and is the icon for evil as designated by God. Here is some background. Amalek was the grandson of Esau (Gen. 36:12). His enmity of Israel not only stemmed from his legacy as being Esau's grandson, but also from what he represented. The evil prophet Balaam referred to Amalek as "the first among nations"(Num. 24:20), i.e. the leading force of evil, just as Israel was the leading force of good. Consequently, the struggle between Israel and Amalek represents the eternal struggle of good versus evil. God declared this to Moses in Ex. 17:14

And the Lord said to Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and recite it in the ears of Joshua; for I will completely put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.

However distastful parts of the Hebrew Bible might sound, one should realize that because the Hebrew language is highly metaphoric, descriptions of events in the Hebrew Bible are metaphoric as well. The Hebrew Bible is not intended as a history text book, but rather as a manual on life. Many of the descriptions of contained events are written more for teaching and affect that as a recording of history.

 

[keithnurse]

That's not the point. My point is, if you don't believe the part where God tells them to do it, why believe the part where it says that they did it? Especially, if there is no evidence to support either position?

Do you always go around criticizing events you don't believe happened?

That would be a nonsequitor (it doesn't necessarily follow). If I don't believe God really commanded the Israelites to commit genocide why would that REQUIRE me to believe the genocide didn't happen either? It seems to me that even if God didn't command the genocide the Israelites still could have committed the genocide because they wanted to do it or felt they needed to do it. Of course I am completely open to the possibility that the genocide ALSO did not happen.

 

[keithnurse]

If you choose to question God and you believe in The Scriptures, then before you condemn God, you should carefully search for the answers to your questions in scripture. The battle between Israel is a classic battle between the forces of good and evil in the world. Amalek was and is the icon for evil as designated by God. Here is some background. Amalek was the grandson of Esau (Gen. 36:12). His enmity of Israel not only stemmed from his legacy as being Esau's grandson, but also from what he represented. The evil prophet Balaam referred to Amalek as "the first among nations"(Num. 24:20), i.e. the leading force of evil, just as Israel was the leading force of good. Consequently, the struggle between Israel and Amalek represents the eternal struggle of good versus evil. God declared this to Moses in Ex. 17:14
However distastful parts of the Hebrew Bible might sound, one should realize that because the Hebrew language is highly metaphoric, descriptions of events in the Hebrew Bible are metaphoric as well. The Hebrew Bible is not intended as a history text book, but rather as a manual on life. Many of the descriptions of contained events are written more for teaching and affect that as a recording of history.

Your metaphorical interpretation of the story certainly makes better sense to me than the statements of others on this thread insisting that God literally commanded a literal genocide. I am well aware of metaphorical interpretations of the bible and certainly have much more respect for those interpretations than literal interpretations that insist that there really was a literal world wide flood and that Noah litterally had two of every creature on a boat or that Jesus literally physically rose from the dead. I think metaphorical interpretations of the bible are a very good thing indeed.

 

[keithnurse]

KEITHNURSE,
The only problem I have with this thread is you are using a single event or section of the bible for your agenda.
Your agenda clearly is to tell everyone the bible isn't true and if anyone believes in it they are ... well you can fill in the blanks.

You are asserting the the Israelites made up the story. OK, so what? That would mean that the whole bible could be made up!!!! So why not just say that????? You are not alone, many people feel the bible is entirely fictitious. Maybe you believe some of it is.

At any rate, after reading all of the posts on this thread, what is your point? No one can prove God wrote that or the Jews wrote that. As adults don't we ALL already know that?

Sorry I didn't answer sooner but I have to go to work to make a living to pay my bills. I thought the thread would be too unwieldy if I tried to cover the ENTIRE bible, so I picked one story. Why would the whole bible have to be either entirely mythology or entirely literal historical fact? Why could it not be mixture of fact and legend? That's what I don't understand about what you are saying. To claim that God literally commanded the Israelites to commit literal genocide against another ethnic group, I think, is an unverifiable claim. Someone else on this thread said the entire Hebrew Bible should be understood metaphorically so that the Israelites and Amalekites are symbols. That makes much better sense to me than to say God commanded a literal genocide. Genocide is evil, period.

 

[Poisonshady313]

That would be a nonsequitor (it doesn't necessarily follow). If I don't believe God really commanded the Israelites to commit genocide why would that REQUIRE me to believe the genocide didn't happen either?

Because they're recorded in the same book. If you don't believe the first sentence, what reason have you to believe the second?


Sure... you could choose to believe the second... but why? If you don't believe the book when it says God commanded it... why believe anything the book says?

 

[keithnurse]

Because they're recorded in the same book. If you don't believe the first sentence, what reason have you to believe the second?


Sure... you could choose to believe the second... but why? If you don't believe the book when it says God commanded it... why believe anything the book says?

Because human beings are capable of writing books that have a true statement followed by a false statement. It is silly to say that if a book contains a false statement that means none of what it says is true. It seems to me that this is just VERY VERY elementary logic. BTW, I am NOT insisting that the genocide really did happen, it could very well be metaphorical, like another post on this thread said.

 

[keithnurse]

I know people probably don't like following link or even reading an article that has a bit of length to it but this seemed like a good piece of information after I went through it all. It is broken down by commonly asked questions in regards to this issue so maybe you'll find some good background information on Israel and the Amalakites.

shouldn't the butchering of the Amalekite children be considered war crimes?

Thanks for the article, very interesting. I have to read the whole thing when I have time. There is just one question: The author says it wasn't a "genocide" as experts define genocide today because the Amalekites were not a minority or internal group, but 1st Samuel says kill all the men women, children and infants of the Amalekites. Isn't that by definition genocide?

 

[gnostic]

I think the whole issue of treating the past (ancient or mythical) wars, particularly genocide, as war crimes, is a bit of lunacy.

War crimes, are modern legal concept, and have no bearing of the past. Any ancient civilisation would not see genocide as being war crime, because each civilisation, particularly their leader, believe they have the right to expand beyond the boundary of the borders. They think it is within their rights, if they are victorious in wars, to kill everyone, or kill some and enslave the others, or make the losing side pay tributes or demand hostages.

The ancient Israelites were no different.

I don't think you can actually put modern concept of "war crime" into ancient scenario, because there were no such as human rights, as such.

As to those thinking that God couldn't possibly have

Have you not forgotten that in the book of Joshua, that everyone is killed and everything is destroyed in Jericho, except for Rahab's family, because the prostitute was the only one who aided the Israelite spies.

The city and all that is in it are to be devoted to the LORD. Only Rahab the prostitute and all who are with her in her house shall be spared, because she hid the spies we sent.

Do you think the women and children were spared in Jericho?

Joshua was a prophet and the current leader of the Israelites, during the invasion of Canaan, lands that no longer belonged to the people of Israel, but they took the land by force.

 

[TheKnight]

That would be a nonsequitor (it doesn't necessarily follow). If I don't believe God really commanded the Israelites to commit genocide why would that REQUIRE me to believe the genocide didn't happen either? It seems to me that even if God didn't command the genocide the Israelites still could have committed the genocide because they wanted to do it or felt they needed to do it. Of course I am completely open to the possibility that the genocide ALSO did not happen.

Poisonshady said it well. And you still didn't answer my question. If you don't believe a particular part of a story (probably because it doesn't suit your tastes) then why believe another part of that same story? If they are written in the same work, then there has to be a reason for you to accept one part and not the other. Especially when the second part is based on the first part.

It is not logical to say "Hmm, this book says that the Isralites killed the Amalakites because God told them to. Well, I don't believe in God so why did they kill the Amalakites?"

That, my friend, is not logic, but failure at reading comprehension.