Genocide in 1st Samuel 15:2-3

[gwk230]

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.

　
By no means. I used it to show a little known fact to your brother. Even your own people cannot agree. He stated that in no way did "minchah" mean "gift" and this showed he was incorrect. It stated that "minchah" in fact was defined "gift".
　

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.

　
And, of course, you neglected to read where I posted about my conceding to that fact. I'm more than satisfied that it is used predominately more as a voluntary gift than anything else. I am also so satisfied that these "minchah offerings" were considered so small and inexpensive that it was considered a poor mans offering. And it was so considered this only because he couldn't afford the regular offering. I still do not see something so small and inexpensive being considered in any shape form or fashion a “sacrifice“.
　
Question……..
　
Where all is it stated that common man, not a priest or prince nor king, was so commanded to bring such a “meat offering”?

NOW back to the regularly scheduled discussion on Amalek.........

 

[gnostic]

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

But if you read the Book of Judges, God actually wanted the Amalekites to attack the Israelites, because the Israelites have stopped worshipping him. God is being punitive because he demanded worship, and refusal would result in attack by one of Israel's neighbours (Egyptians, Canannites, Midanites, Philistines, Aram, Moabites, etc), even if it is not the Amalekties attacking them.

The Israelites and the enemies are like pawns in the games of chess, but it is God who making all the moves. If the Israelites displeased him (like straying to a different religion), then he would sacrifice them to one of the enemies. Each Judge acts like the queen, the most powerful piece in a chess game, and he only sent a powerful piece, if they (Israelites) returned to worship him again.

Either way it makes God look petty and cruel - a despotic tyrant.

 

[Poisonshady313]

　
　
Question……..
　
Where all is it stated that common man, not a priest or prince nor king, was so commanded to bring such a “meat offering”?

To what do you refer when you say "such a 'meat offering'"?

Or are you asking when a common man was ever commanded to bring any sort of a meat offering?

 

[gwk230]

To what do you refer when you say "such a 'meat offering'"?

　
What have you been talking about? Obligatory meat offerings correct?
　

Or are you asking when a common man was ever commanded to bring any sort of a meat offering?

　
Same difference. Specifically to do with the so called obligatory minchah. Again, mind you to do with someone other than a priest, prince, king or any type of leader. I’m looking for just the common everyday Joe blow here.

 

[Poisonshady313]

　
What have you been talking about? Obligatory meat offerings correct?

I've been talking about obligatory MEAL offerings.

Are YOU now talking about obligatory MEAT offerings?

 

[gwk230]

Originally Posted by gwk230
　
See if we always obeyed the Torah then there would be no need to sacrifice.

That's not true. Your statement is based on the erroneous assumption that atonement was the only reason for sacrifice.

Ladies and Gentlemen,


I have to apologize for seemingly taking my conversation with various members away from the OP here but I felt that I must defend the fact that a sacrifice was for the intent and purpose of gaining something from Yah. I made the above statement in trying to explain a critical point to Gnostic and was repudiated by Poisonshady313. Maybe it would have been better that Gnostic not make such a statement as he did which had no relevance to the OP when he stated……..

Then if this is case (in regarding to obedience and sacrifice), then is Jesus' sacrifice is for naught?

I may not have felt an obligation to correct such misunderstandings with my reply and Poisonshady313 wouldn’t have found it in his misunderstanding of my post to share with us his reply.


All in all the only thing that I was so trying to express is that if we all obeyed and did not sin then there would be no need to sacrifice. I use the word sacrifice as it means that one has to give up something that they might not ordinarily have and being that one sin’s and commits an act that somehow displeases Yah then one is told how to try and rectify such actions through sacrifice. Now that being said one can still offer up “gifts” and “presents” which Abel offered and I have clearly shown that more often than not are widely considered “Minchah” just to praise and thank Yah and do homage unto him for whatever reasons without actually expecting anything in return. Just thanking him for knowing his true name. Just thanking him for another day of breath with the grace of time to better get it right. Just thanking him for his love. You haven’t asked for anything nor do you expect anything in return. You are just thanking him for the sake of thanking him.


At first the argument that was ensued over the definitions of the words “Zebach” and “Minchah” was in tune with what I understood to do with the overall picture of the OP and in explaining the differences in what Saul said to Samuel as to the reason of keeping the choice animals alive to Gnostic as to do with his comments. He stated that they were for a “Zabach” for Yah. This “Zabach” meaning simply to slaughter or kill in no way meant a sacrifice. I understand that these animals that were saved could never be considered sacrifices because they were not owned by the ones that would offer them up and could not be something that they themselves would have to sacrifice of their own. At the best they could only be a “minchah” but as Yah had commanded that they all be destroyed they could never be either. They in fact have become a stumbling block of Saul for which he disobeyed the direct command of Yah through his prophet Samuel. As well as one of the various reasons that he eventually lost his throne and his life. Loss of life as also did the Amalekites for their disobedience to Yah.


Did Yah actually say these things to Samuel? All we have is what we have written in the Tanach and, for me personally, I haven’t any reason to doubt it. Now one, and many have, can say the exact same thing but opposite as in they see no reason to believe it but that is entirely up to that individual. I for one do believe it as well as the rest of what I have thus posted on these subjects.

 

[gwk230]

I've been talking about obligatory MEAL offerings.

Are YOU now talking about obligatory MEAT offerings?

Oh, my bad. :foot: I stand corrected. I made the mistake of looking at my bible program in the KJV and not the JPS which differ on this point where in the KJV it is a "Meat-Offering" while in the JPS it is stated as a "Meal-Offering". I do understand that the old English word as Meat simply meant Food so I see the reasoning behind it. Sorry you didn't and therefore misunderstood my question.

For your understanding then replace "Meat-Offering" in my question with what you understand as "Meal-Offering".

 

[Poisonshady313]

Oh, my bad. :foot: I stand corrected. I made the mistake of looking at my bible program in the KJV and not the JPS which differ on this point where in the KJV it is a "Meat-Offering" while in the JPS it is stated as a "Meal-Offering". I do understand that the old English word as Meat simply meant Food so I see the reasoning behind it. Sorry you didn't and therefore misunderstood my question.

That's a rather significant mistake, considering the things the KJV may be referring to as "meat offering" would have no meat in them whatsoever.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

But if you read the Book of Judges, God actually wanted the Amalekites to attack the Israelites, because the Israelites have stopped worshipping him. God is being punitive because he demanded worship, and refusal would result in attack by one of Israel's neighbours (Egyptians, Canannites, Midanites, Philistines, Aram, Moabites, etc), even if it is not the Amalekties attacking them.

I believe that was only in one instance.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

What issue is that?

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

The issue is whether or not there is ever a situation where it is justified to kill an infant. It's a yes or no question.

I'll back up a little bit and ask you, is it ever justified to kill anyone?

 

[Autodidact]

The issue is whether or not there is ever a situation where it is justified to kill an infant. It's a yes or no question.

I'll say the likelihood of such a situation arising is so unlikely that we can reasonably call it "no."

I'll back up a little bit and ask you, is it ever justified to kill anyone?

Not so fast. You owe me several outstanding answers first, starting by telling us when YOU think it's justified to deliberately kill a baby.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

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?

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

I'll concede that is the definition. Yet, it seems inherent to the concept that the intent to destroy is based on who the group is and not what they have done.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I'll say the likelihood of such a situation arising is so unlikely that we can reasonably call it "no."

Then there is no debate with you. Yet others feel different.

Not so fast. You owe me several outstanding answers first, starting by telling us when YOU think it's justified to deliberately kill a baby.

Not so fast. Start at the beginning. Is it ever justifiable to kill anyone?

 

[Poisonshady313]

Not so fast. Start at the beginning. Is it ever justifiable to kill anyone?

Killing in self defense is certainly justifiable.

And don't make the mistake of thinking that I'm claiming Jews felt they were defending themselves from Amalekite babies...

I'm just answering the basic and simple question put forth in your post.

 

[Autodidact]

I'll concede that is the definition. Yet, it seems inherent to the concept that the intent to destroy is based on who the group is and not what they have done.

Nope.

 

[Autodidact]

Then there is no debate with you. Yet others feel different.

Uh uh, so what?

Not so fast. Start at the beginning. Is it ever justifiable to kill anyone?

That's not the beginning; that's the end--of our conversation.
Yes. So what; that's not the question. The question is, is it morally justified for soldiers to take their swords and stab little babies just because they belong to a different tribe whose remote ancestors attacked your people hundreds of years ago.
Now,

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 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?

How about you tell us your definition of genocide, Sandy.

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

 

[elisheba]

Some of these nations were totally infected with sexually transmitted diseases which would have infected and destroyed the whole planet.

 

[Autodidact]

I'm trying to decide whether elisheba is serious or a parody. What do you think?

 

[Kerr]

Some of these nations were totally infected with sexually transmitted diseases which would have infected and destroyed the whole planet.

So far we have survived the plague, aids, ebola, smallpox (or whatever it is called) and so on. Doubt those you mention would have destroyed the planet.

 

[TheKnight]

Uh uh, so what?

That's not the beginning; that's the end--of our conversation.
Yes. So what; that's not the question.

Whoa whoa whoa...once you admit that there are situations where it is justifiable to kill a human being, you must also admit that the those situations which are considered "appropriate" are dependent on the person doing it.

You have your standard of what makes it justifiable, I have mine. If the reason I don't kill others is because God tells me not to then the reason I would kill another would be because God tells me to.

The morality of it isn't even a question.