Genocide in 1st Samuel 15:2-3

[sandy whitelinger]

No, according to the stipulations presented in the article, that would more than likely be considered genocide because it's retributive.

If it's retributive it's not genocide.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

The U.N. definition for genocide is (taken from Wikipedia):

"...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

It would therefore seem to me that based on points which Glenn Miller brings up in his own article and also our current definition of the terms, that Isreal did in fact commit genocide against the Amalekites. The fact that the Amalekites were a threat to Israel does not absolve them of their actions. Nowhere in the U.N. definition or articles could I find any mention that genocide might be OK in a retributive sense.
​

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

 

[Autodidact]

Is killing an innocent baby always unjustified?

It is in my book, and it's rather shocking to me that religionists ask this question.

I suppose I could dream up some bizarre scenario in which aliens hold the entire planet hostage unless you kill a particular baby, but I'm not interested in bizarre scenarios. In real life, I cannot think of a situation in which this would be justified.

 

[Autodidact]

You are seriously misinformed (maybe reading the article more closely would help). The action against the Amelekites was due to their actions against Israel and God and not because of who they were.

Actually isn't it because of the actions of their remote ancestors? So in fact completely because of who they were--descendants of someone else? Or are you suggesting that you should be responsible for the actions of your great-great-great-grandparents?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

It is in my book, and it's rather shocking to me that religionists ask this question.

I suppose I could dream up some bizarre scenario in which aliens hold the entire planet hostage unless you kill a particular baby, but I'm not interested in bizarre scenarios. In real life, I cannot think of a situation in which this would be justified.

How about when an enemy is coming and you mercifully kill your own child instead of leaving them to the ravages of the enemy?

 

[Autodidact]

If it's retributive it's not genocide.

Why not? Isn't genocide deliberately murdering an entire tribe, clan, or ethnic group? What difference does it make whether it's done in retribution or not?

 

[Autodidact]

How about when an enemy is coming and you mercifully kill your own child instead of leaving them to the ravages of the enemy?

Again, rather bizarre, but sounds like a bad idea to me, since you don't know what will happen when the enemy gets here, but if you kill the child, it's dead. What does this scenario have to do with deliberately slaughtering innocent babies just because they are Amalekite?

 

[Autodidact]

It's these kinds of conversations that persuade me that religion is a bad thing. It seems to have a very debilitating effect on people's moral sense. I mean, it's downright bizarre to have a conversation about whether genocidal infanticide is wrong or right. Uh, yeah, it's about the most wrong thing there is. Duh.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Actually isn't it because of the actions of their remote ancestors?

The Biblical account of the Amelekites shows a continual pattern of action against Israel up to that present.

 

[Kerr]

If it's retributive it's not genocide.

Genocide describes an action of deliberatly murdering an ethnic group. The motive is actually irrelevant to if it is genocide or not.

You are seriously misinformed (maybe reading the article more closely would help). The action against the Amelekites was due to their actions against Israel and God and not because of who they were.

Does not justify genocide, I am afraid.

 

[Autodidact]

The Biblical account of the Amelekites shows a continual pattern of action against Israel up to that present.

What exactly was the horrible thing that the babies and children did? Please cite the actual verses.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

It's these kinds of conversations that persuade me that religion is a bad thing. It seems to have a very debilitating effect on people's moral sense. I mean, it's downright bizarre to have a conversation about whether genocidal infanticide is wrong or right. Uh, yeah, it's about the most wrong thing there is. Duh.

You are allowed your view that all killing of a child is morally wrong. the same view might be held that the killing of an unborn child is morally abhorent by some. Others might feel that it is allowable when the health of the mother is at risk. All I am attempting to show is that, unlike your view, their are situations where the killing of a child is morally justified by others.

 

[Autodidact]

You are allowed your view that all killing of a child is morally wrong. the same view might be held that the killing of an unborn child is morally abhorent by some. Others might feel that it is allowable when the health of the mother is at risk. All I am attempting to show is that, unlike your view, their are situations where the killing of a child is morally justified by others.

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?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

What exactly was the horrible thing that the babies and children did? Please cite the actual verses.

God passed judgement on the whole of the Amelekites due to the continual action of the people. I believe this has already been established in this thread.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

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 are sidestepping the issue I presented.

 

[Harmonious]

　
Well lets see what your guys say about all that………….Emphasis mine ………
　

The Korban Minchah​

(Part 1)
(Adapted mainly from the Seifer ha'Chinuch)​

Perhaps the flour-offering is called Minchah, the Chinuch suggests, because it is the least costly of all the Korbanos, much like a small gift, which translates as 'minchah'. Or perhaps it is because it often comes as a voluntary Korban, and what one gives voluntarily is often referred to as a Minchah, too.
All types of Menachos (flour-offerings) are Kodesh Kodshim (the highest level of sanctity), and can therefore only be eaten in the Azarah by male Kohanim.

*​

http://www.shemayisrael.com/parsha/chrysler/archives/tzav63.htm
　
See even by this we see that “minchah” means gift which one gives voluntarily. That said, I do concede that there are those certain obligatory menachos which, as is already stated, was so small and such a low cost that it was considered a small gift even though it really isn’t a minchah at all but just considered it because it is so small of an offering.

I find it fascinating that you said that you find all texts outside of the OT and NT as irrelevant, but you decided to use this bit. Not because it is meaningful to you, as you have so eloquently stated, but because you think it will agree with you.

But, I will have you notice that it the Sefer HaChinuch didn't say that a Mincha was ONLY a voluntary Korban. It DID, however, say " often comes" as a voluntary Korban.

Back to the regularly scheduled discussion on Amalek...

 

[sandy whitelinger]

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?

Keithnurse, your position is fraught with problems in your presentation of it.

Before addressing them I would like to know what you consider genocide to be and give non-Biblical examples of it.

Also, who, according to your knowledge, are the Amelekites?

 

[Autodidact]

God passed judgement on the whole of the Amelekites due to the continual action of the people. I believe this has already been established in this thread.

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?

 

[Autodidact]

Keithnurse, your position is fraught with problems in your presentation of it.

Before addressing them I would like to know what you consider genocide to be and give non-Biblical examples of it.

Also, who, according to your knowledge, are the Amelekites?

How about you tell us your definition of genocide, Sandy. I'm good with

murder of entire ethnic group: the systematic killing of all the people from a national, ethnic, or religious group, or an attempt to do this.

(dictionary.com)

 

[Autodidact]

You are sidestepping the issue I presented.

What issue is that?

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