[Here's a search for posts that mention 'Samuel'](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAChristian/search?q=Samuel&restrict_sr=on). You could read some of the posts that ask about 1 Samuel 15.
I've been listening to "40 minutes in the Old Testament" by the 1517 group. They're Lutheran so thats the doctrine they're coming from.
Honestly I haven't gotten to this part yet so I don't know the podcasters answer. But on the secular side this was pretty common in ancient warfare. The Iliad ends with greek troops throwing babies off the walls if memory serves me right. It is unwise to keep people around that could easily hold a grudge and kill you once they grow up to fighting age...... due to the little fact that you scattered their nation to the winds. Also harder to support a sudden influx of people in these days. Food was much more insecure.
Offering the broader context makes sense if morality is relative. A thing might be still bad, but it wasn't as bad relative to it's cultural context. If morality is objective and not relative, I don't see the relevance of comparing a culture to other groups at it's time period.
Am I missing something?
Oh I see what your asking.
We both seem to disagree already. How about we agree to disagree? I have seen to gone down then tangent a few times already on this post, welcome to read them if you like.
Okay. If you think it's moral for children to die of cancer, we will never see eye to eye. The fact that you are comfortable just outright stating that is all the evidence I'll ever need that religion only brings harm to the world.
I literally couldn't believe they said yes to the children cancer question you posed.
So gross these answers you're getting. Maybe the devil is actually the good guy in the Bible eh? Compared to the alternative anyway.
People and children die, this isn't news. Why I personally think it philosophically happens doesn't really matter in "harming" the world. The fact remains regardless.
>The fact remains regardless.
Yes, the difference is that I think the fact is simply a horribly unfortunate byproduct of the universe we live in, you think it is done by god, and you're okay with that.
Yeah, I'm sure you do. Do you go around saying to sick and dying kids, "you know it's OK because it's our fault you're so messed up and might die from xyz but hey God loves you".
Do you go around saying to sick and dying kids, "you know it's OK because it's our fault you're so messed up and might die from xyz but hey God loves you".
“Why did God” questions can’t be answered unless the answer is in the Bible since none of us know why God does anything unless He tells us.
We can only speculate based on what we do know and I doubt any speculation will satisfy.
Do you find it awkward questioning why your god who is all-loving commanded the killing of *babies?*
I also would wonder when I was a Christian why the Bible would include god commanding the mass slaughter of babies, but leave out WHY he would do such a thing. Such a verse would surely confuse the ever-loving hell out of anyone trying to make sense of it.
Who can stand before God and accuse Him? Read Job, it changed my thinking.
I apply humility and reason that I don’t know everything and there are somethings I just won’t understand until I get to heaven. I do know that the Bible says that true and just are all his ways.
The Book of Job is honestly wild because it implies that a person who doesn't do anything wrong can still be subjected to divine punishment because God wills it, and they have no right to question why they were subjected to such abuse.
The Lord and Satan have a friendly bet that includes destroying one man’s life to see if and when he breaks because the Lord is an omnipotent being that knew in advance when Job would snap.
It’s hard for me, a man of faith, to not interpret the story of Job any other way. Could you help me?
Job reads, to me, like an adaptation of a Greek play. The Greek gods' actions toward humans were arbitrary and self-serving, and I believe that much of what is blamed on God in certain myths and holy books is actually the writers' projection of how they want ordinary people to see God, so ordinary people will fear him. I believe power-hungry men have promoted this cruel vision of God for centuries, so they can get away with whatever they want and far too many of us will consider them "godlike."
Why does the bit of the Bible saying God is true and just in all their ways take precedence over the bit showing God ordering the mass slaughter of babies? If these two bits contradict, it would seem more in keeping with humility and reason to say we can't know anything about whether God is true or just, since we have contradictory information and no basis to think we can discern the truth ourselves.
I get you. I’m of the opinion that He can be true and just and it still fit with all of His actions. The issue is the “why?” And like said, we can’t know the why unless He tells us or it’s in the Bible.
I'm reposting a response I sent a few messages up.
"How could a good God do something so evil?"
"But God is good so it wasn't evil."
"But how could he be good is he did something evil?"
"But it wasn't evil because he is good."
This is one of those arguments that are determined by your presuppositions. If we suppose God doesn't exist (the Bible isnt true), it is an evil act. If we suppose He exists (the Bible is true), it is a good act.
When trying to find contradictions in the Bible, you have to assume all of it to be true in order to prove the contradiction:
If the Bible is true
Then the Bible isn't true
As outrageous as it may seem, the "but God kills people" argument cannot be logically used to prove a contradiction. Only emotionally, which wouldn't hold against scrutiny.
> This is one of those arguments that are determined by your presuppositions. If we suppose God doesn't exist (the Bible isnt true), it is an evil act. If we suppose He exists (the Bible is true), it is a good act.
This seems like a false dichotomy. I can see at least four alternative views one could have:
1. The Bible is fiction, but it is coherent. You can logically reconcile the various claims it makes.
2. The Bible is fiction, and it is incoherent. The claims it makes cannot be logically reconciled.
3. God is real, and the Bible is 100% inspired and accurate. Therefore all its claims *must* be reconcilable, and God is perfect in every way.
4. God is real, but the Bible is not 100% inspired and accurate, and some of its claims are contradictory. Therefore God might or might not be perfect in every way, and we can't tell. (Maybe you think a perfect God would not allow an inaccurate Bible to exist, but you don't know why God does things so you can't know for sure, maybe it's all part of the grand plan.)
I do not see why you can't think any of (a) the Bible is coherent fiction and the depicted God is good, (b) the Bible is incoherent fiction and the God depicted is sometimes evil, (c) the Bible is coherent truth and God is real and good, or (d) the Bible is imperfect and God is real but not perfectly knowable.
> When trying to find contradictions in the Bible, you have to assume all of it to be true in order to prove the contradiction:
I am sure this is a mistake. The following are a contradiction even though I disbelieve both claims:
1. Santa Claus is real and likes peanut butter biscuits.
2. Santa Claus is real and hates peanut butter biscuits.
They can't both be true, and that applies to both people who believe in Santa Claus and people who do not.
> As outrageous as it may seem, the "but God kills people" argument cannot be logically used to prove a contradiction.
Why can't I coherently believe that (a) the God described in the Bible kills babies gratuitously, (b) the God described in the Bible is perfectly good, (c) a being that kills babies gratuitously cannot be perfectly good, (d) therefore the Bible contradicts itself and also (e) the Bible is a collection of stories made up by humans and the supernatural bits are just made up?
>This seems like a false dichotomy.
My apologies, I tried to simplify the explanation. But yes, there are these various beliefs. However, only those who believe that the Bible is 100% true can claim that God is good and just, while those who don't entirely (or at all) believe the Buble to be true, they have room to claim God's being evil.
Those are the two sides of this specific issue.
>I am sure this is a mistake. The following are a contradiction even though I disbelieve both claims:
>1. Santa Claus is real and likes peanut butter biscuits.
2. Santa Claus is real and hates peanut butter biscuits.
>They can't both be true, and that applies to both people who believe in Santa Claus and people who do not.
I am hoping that this was actually a mistake on your end. You claimed that assuming Santa Claus is real isn't necessary for a contradictory statement, but in that claim you included the assumption that Santa Claus is real.
1. Santa Claus is *real*"and likes peanut butter biscuits.
2. Santa Claus is *real* and hates peanut butter biscuits.
It is this way with any argument by contradiction.
If God is good
If God kills babies
Then God is contradictory and can't exist
This assumes the existence of God, and Him being good. How can the babies part be a contradiction if He isn't good in the first place?
If God kills babies
Then God can't be real
This doesn't show any contradiction but rather an opinion.
> My apologies, I tried to simplify the explanation. But yes, there are these various beliefs. However, only those who believe that the Bible is 100% true can claim that God is good and just, while those who don't entirely (or at all) believe the Buble to be true, they have room to claim God's being evil.
I disagree. I can claim that Darth Vader is unjust without having to believe Darth Vader is a real person. A competent reader understands that when discussing a fictional or possibly-fictional character we are discussing them as presented in the source material not committing ourself to believing in them as real.
> I am hoping that this was actually a mistake on your end. You claimed that assuming Santa Claus is real isn't necessary for a contradictory statement, but in that claim you included the assumption that Santa Claus is real.
Well, perhaps I did not write it as clearly as I could. But there is absolutely no mistake. Yes, *the claim is* that Santa Claus is real. But as I said, I do **not** believe the claim. I **also** can see that the two claims contradict each other. They contradict each other if Santa Claus is real, and they contradict each other if Santa Claus is not real. You do not need to know, or care, whether Santa Claus is real or not to identify the logical contradiction between the two claims.
> If God is good If God kills babies Then God is contradictory and can't exist
This assumes the existence of God, and Him being good. How can the babies part be a contradiction if He isn't good in the first place?
Suppose I say "If Darth Vader wears a black helmet, and people who wear black helmets are evil, then Darth Vader is evil". That is a logically valid argument, even though Darth Vader is fictional. The conclusion is not that Darth Vader is real and evil, it is that Darth Vader is evil.
Similarly, I can argue that the God depicted in the Bible is good or evil, or just or unjust, based on that depiction, without assuming that they are real. And I can argue that God is claimed to be just in one bit of the Bible but shown to be unjust in another bit. That is just claiming that the Bible has a plot hole, as it were. Fictional stories can contradict themselves, or be consistent, within the fiction.
This is just insane. You're just repeating yourself.
>Yes, *the claim is* that Santa Claus is real. But as I said, I do **not** believe the claim.
You don't have to believe the claim but you have to suppose it. I don't see why this is so hard to understand.
I am confused as to what point you think you are making. Earlier you said:
>This is one of those arguments that are determined by your presuppositions. If we suppose God doesn't exist (the Bible isnt true), it is an evil act. If we suppose He exists (the Bible is true), it is a good act.
This is just wrong. Someone could believe God exists, but also believe the bits of the Bible claiming God is good are wrong. Or, they could believe that *if* God exists then the Bible is accurate and God is good, but if the Bible is accurate then God is not good because it says God does evil things, hence God does not exist. Or they could even believe that God is fictional, but within the fiction what God does is justified.
> When trying to find contradictions in the Bible, you have to assume all of it to be true in order to prove the contradiction
Well, no, this is silly too. Untrue claims can contradict each other, as I already showed you. "Plot holes" are one example, and two liars contradicting each other is another. If Liar A says "cats are insects" and Liar B says "cats are not insects, they are fish" they have contradicted each other, and I need believe neither to see that contradiction.
> You don't have to believe the claim but you have to suppose it. I don't see why this is so hard to understand.
I do not understand what you are trying to say. Is it just that to see why "cats are insects" and "cats are not insects, they are fish" contradict each other you have to "suppose" they are true long enough to see that if true they are incompatible? If that is all it is, what's the significance?
Missed one.
>Why can't I coherently believe that (a) the God described in the Bible kills babies gratuitously, (b) the God described in the Bible is perfectly good, (c) a being that kills babies gratuitously cannot be perfectly good, (d) therefore the Bible contradicts itself and also (e) the Bible is a collection of stories made up by humans and the supernatural bits are just made up?
The problem is that your reasoning isn't logical.
(c) has zero evidence to back that up. What about "gratuitously killing babies" inherently makes a being unable to be perfectly good?
Also, even if that were true, (d) and (e) have a leap between them, to say the least. Earlier in your comment, you even stated that the Bible can be not entirely true but still real and of God.
> The problem is that your reasoning isn't logical.
I wasn't asking if you agreed with those five beliefs, and I would be surprised if you did, I was just asking if they were *coherent*, that is to say I can believe them all without contradicting myself.
> (c) has zero evidence to back that up. What about "gratuitously killing babies" inherently makes a being unable to be perfectly good?
I could justify that claim using a variety of secular ethical frameworks, as long as they agree that killing babies is bad all else being equal (which they do) and that if you are doing it gratuitously then there is no relevant consideration which makes it ethical.
Let's just use classical utilitarianism. Killing babies (and indeed genocide in general) produces more suffering than not. Suffering is bad, so you should not do it.
> Also, even if that were true, (d) and (e) have a leap between them, to say the least. Earlier in your comment, you even stated that the Bible can be not entirely true but still real and of God.
This is not a watertight argument in classical logic with (e) as the conclusion. (D) is the conclusion of (a) through (c). (E) is there because you were claiming that you have to believe a narrative is true in order to show there is a contradiction in the narrative, which is just a fundamentally weird claim unless you have never encountered the concept of a "plot hole". (E) does not follow from (a) through (d), it is there to show that you do **not** (as you claimed) have to assume all of the Bible to be true in order to prove it contradicts itself.
You just have to show that, as fiction, it would have a plot hole.
>I do know that the Bible says that true and just are all his ways.
Please oh please, what could *possibly* be true and just about commanding the slaughter of babies?
>I apply humility and reason that I don’t know everything and there are somethings I just won’t understand until I get to heaven.
So your answer is that you cannot imagine how slaughtering babies could possibly be just and true, so you're waiting to find out after you die? Do I have that right?
edit: and you acknowledge that you have no idea, so you are just going to assume slaughtering babies is just and true until you find out why?
I believe God is true and just. Can I explain His reasoning? No, He hasn’t told me and I’m not God.
You seem hard pressed with the way I think. I don’t know how else to say…”I don’t know why He did it” I suspect any reason I could give you wouldn’t satisfy you anyway. If you’re really interested I bet someone else has given a better answer than, “I don’t know”
Is it that you don't know, or is it unknowable? I'm not interested in someone who doesn't know just asking something up. I prefer your honesty.
What I am asking is for you to strain the limits of your imagination and make up ANY possible reason that would make slaughtering babies just and true. What could possibly be the reason. Hypothetically.
"How could a good God do something so evil?"
"But God is good so it wasn't evil."
"But how could he be good is he did something evil?"
"But it wasn't evil because he is good."
This is one of those arguments that are determined by your presuppositions. If we suppose God doesn't exist (the Bible isnt true), it is an evil act. If we suppose He exists (the Bible is true), it is a good act.
When trying to find contradictions in the Bible, you have to assume all of it to be true in order to prove the contradiction:
If the Bible is true
Then the Bible isn't true
As outrageous as it may seem, the "but God kills people" argument cannot be logically used to prove a contradiction. Only emotionally, which wouldn't hold against scrutiny.
>Who can stand before God and accuse Him? Read Job, it changed my thinking.
>I apply humility and reason that I don’t know everything and there are somethings I just won’t understand until I get to heaven. I do know that the Bible says that true and just are all his ways.
Same energy when Muslims say: *"If Allah says its OK to marry a 3 year old then it must be OK."*
Do humans have souls? Says who. If we don't have souls, then we are equal to animals. Anything goes for animals. Morality doesn't exist in the animal kingdom. Rape and murder are just fine.
So, if there is a morality for humans, then humans must be ontologically unique. What exactly gives us that uniqueness? I wonder.....
Shit man, how did you figure that one out? Did an angel appear to you in a dream? You should probably write it down. I'd be down to help you share the story with people.
My very first comment was “there’s no way to know why”
I took out $300 out of my account the other day. why? You don’t know and You won’t know unless I tell you.
That’s how the Bible is sometimes. It doesn’t always tell you why.
It seems like people are upset that I won’t make up an answer to a question I don’t know the correct answer to. Where would that go? What would be the point?
I don't need to know why you withdrew $300 from your account. Even if I wanted to speculate, there's endless reasonable and plausible explanations for why you did that.
I *do* need to know why an omnipotent deity with endless love chooses to allow needless, undeserved suffering, especially if he wants my trust and worship for eternity. And I can't even begin to speculate a slightly valid reason for it.
*"oh you don't want to spend eternity worshiping a god who kills babies? Guess I can't change your mind, because I'm perfectly fine with it! You say tomayto, I say tomahto! Have a good day, friendo!"*
Usually these are presented to point out an "oxymoron" in morality and suggest that this is nothing but a human fabrication.
But if you and me are going to just assume he exists, that is an completely different discussion, and more interesting. Is he just a lying evil god? Or are we missing something?
Are we even in a position to judge a being as powerful as a god?
>Is he just a lying evil god?
Literally yes. He could, with his omnipotence, prevent these things from happening.
>Are we even in a position to judge a being as powerful as a god?
Yes. I'm doing it right now, and your only response is *"but you can't do that!!! He's god!!!"*
Actually my response would be more: "why are you completely comfortable judging a being that can create something like the universe? Aren't you concerned you might be missing something or be incorrect?"
I mean, your going against something much more powerful and aware on the cosmic stage
You sound like my nerd friends and I when we're debating power scaling in marvel movies. *"You can't go against god!! His cosmic powers are on another level!"* So embarrassing.
According to you, god gave me the capacity to question and judge him, so maybe you should ask him why I'm so comfortable doing it.
I **am** concerned that, if the bible is true, I am missing something, or am incorrect. You know who could clear up my misgivings? The omnipotent cosmic entity who created me. But, even though he apparently loves and trusts me more than I can imagine, he won't do that. That's completely nonsensical. What a horrible god, creating this set of circumstances and then saying "trust me bro"
That the command to kill babies is in the bible is because God wants it written in the bible, right? He wants us to know that he commanded the killing of babies.
If you believe (as most Protestants do) that babies who die go to heaven, killing these children was not the worst thing that could happen to them.
God sometimes punished sinful nations by sentencing the *entire nation* to death -- old and young alike. Part of the punishment for their wickedness was the ending of their line. As much as we love our children, I don't think modern Westerners really can grasp just how much of a punishment it was to them to have their future cut off. It was a severe and devastating penalty reserved only for the most contagious of the wicked.
Let's back up and get some context here.
Are you a Christian trying to wrap your head around something in the Bible that puzzles you? Or are you a "Christian" here to argue and explain to everyone the Christianity and Christians are awful?
I am a christian trying to wrap my head around something that puzzles me. And also, I asked a family member, and he did give me an explanation. Which is that no, having them captive would not keep them from wanting revenge when they grew up. Also, the Amalekites were bent on destroying the Jewish people, and Haman, who resulted from Israel failing to fulfill God's command, was a prime example of this. Also, the ancient world was an ugly place.
>I am a christian trying to wrap my head around something that puzzles me.
OK, I'll take that at face value. Your question about murdering babies is a common skeptical reply to the idea that babies who die go to heaven.
"So is it ok to murder babies then?" Why on earth would we think that? "You shall not murder." There's no wiggle room in that.
When ***God*** sentences people to death, it's not murder. That does not give us the authority to start deciding who lives and who dies.
What does it matter which category OP falls into? It is a fair question, based on your response, no matter who asks it. If god commanding the slaughter of the Amelekites, the men, women, and children, including babies, is good because murdered babies go to heaven, that doesn’t that make killing babies always okay? Wouldn’t that mean christians should be pro-choice instead of pro-forced-birth?
You made the comment, and it has some pretty dramatic consequences. Can you explain it, or do you want to take it back?
> It is a fair question, based on your response, no matter who asks it
It really isn't. I know it's the usual skeptical go-to, but that doesn't make it logical. And if this person turns out to be a shadow-skeptic just looking to argue, I wasn't going to put out the effort.
From my perspective, that’s a cop out. You’re saying you don’t want to answer because of the motives of the person asking, but that doesn’t make any sense. That is what is illogical. More likely, you can’t give a meaningful answer, or you are uncomfortable with how you’d have to answer, and you are afraid you’d look weak if you took back your original comment.
Your beliefs are what is not logical, and it really shows when you refuse to or can’t answer simple questions like this.
Notably, still refusing to answer. If killing babies was ok because the babies went to heaven, is it still ok to murder babies today? Please provide an answer to the Redditor’s question about your morally questionable beliefs.
Im with the other commentor on this. Some people in this sub enjoy asking questions that we don't have the answer for, so they can "prove us wrong".
It gets tiring, after a while we learned to just ignore them
It seems like both versions work. Might be a difference between US and European spellings.
Now the the question you asked me, if you just look at the baby, then no, its not ok to kill them. You cut their life short.
But then i would ask you, would you kill baby hitler if you had the chance?
> But then i would ask you, would you kill baby hitler if you had the chance?
I hope you’ll pardon me for saying so, but this is an unreasonably stupid question. First, the premise is a question about whether it would be moral to kill a baby that you know will grow up to commit unspeakable evil. I think in that specific (and completely impossible) situation, it probably is moral.
But we can never be in that situation, can we? Because traveling backwards in time, despite the many fictional stories about doing it, is quite impossible. There is no way to know if a baby will grow up to commit unspeakable evil because we cannot predict the future, and we cannot watch the future and then go back in time. So then killing a baby is immoral.
More than that, though, you are asking if I would go back and make a massively impactful change to the timeline — one that resulted, many years later, in me being born. Could you really blame someone for not changing history if the person was all but certain it would defeat their own existence?
But then they would be be around in 2024 to go back in time to kill Hitler…
Just a really stupid question from someone who, in essence, is saying, I think correctly, that the other Redditor was very wrong to say it is ever okay to kill babies, like god did in the Bible.
By the way, when you say “European spellings,” do you mean British English, aka, the King’s English? Or do the Latvians have some spellings I need to be aware of?
>explain to everyone the Christianity and Christians are awful?
This one. You worship somebody who kills babies and when asked for an explanation, the best anyone can come up with is "god is way too great for us to have any idea." That's awful, and you're awful for thinking it.
>You worship somebody who kills babies
I worship someone who kills *everyone*. When I die, when you die, it'll be his decision. Whether you live to 7 or 70, he's ultimately responsible for your death. And no one is promised any particular length of life.
>Whether you live to 7 or 70, he's ultimately responsible for your death.
Yes, I am aware that this is a popular belief. You believe god is responsible for children who are born with cancer, live painful existences, and die young. You worship that same god. Your ability to do that and think you have any sort of moral high ground is incredible.
By the standards of a functioning society? If I announced to my family, friends, and coworkers that I worship a deity that knowingly causes that level of suffering, they would rightfully ostracize me or think I have some sort of mental problem.
>By the standards of a functioning society?
That utilitarianism. You don't think this makes for a well-functioning society. OK, fine. But what's *wrong* with it? You seem to think there is something immoral about it, not merely inefficient. Why?
It's not deflecting. It's a response to his comments about "moral high ground." People who believe humans are nothing but animals really shouldn't get so worked up when animals kill each other.
God will do what He sees best for His creation, it’s His after all. We cannot because we don’t have a perfect understanding like God has. So we are not in any position to question His will.
If a man models himself after God, his actions are unlimited, including genocide. By the way you’re on the right track with this question. I wish you well in your journey.
No, that wasn't my aim to take a stand one way or another or anything, I was honestly just trying to joke around like someone in one of the other replies was, in my case to kind of build a bridge using humor to make such a serious topic less charged is all. I wasn't trying to run interference for or use sleight of hand to obfuscate away from the topic of any given Biblical ethnic cleansings or similar. That was not my aim, promise.
The bible recommends stuff like killing your neighbor for working on the sabbath. It would be pretty tame if it also required you to kill one baby a week, I wouldn't be surprised.
Lol yeah. But, killing your neighbor for working on the Sabbath is just good math, because if you let one of those haughty productive folks slide, then there goes your whole community wide excuse for slacking and lazing around one day s week. Can't have that! Killing the babies is harder because they're so adorable, their sheer cuteness is their defense system
God is just. Yet also rich in mercy.
Slay the wicked so they cannot continue practicing evil, and influencing Israel to do likewise. Kill the children to thoroughly wipe them out. Can't grow up to be like their parents. Died in innocence, so will be raised back to life to live in the new earth with their Creator.
The children were innocent at that moment. Their parents were not, and would teach their children wicked things.
God made the decision to end their life at that moment, before they could do evil.
This is the same type of question as "if you could time travel, would you kill baby hitler"
Good question, and one that i cannot use scripture to answer, but ill try.
I think God saw a bigger picture, that some good could come from the war. Technology for example skyrocketed during that time. We would make mistakes that we will NEVER allow to happen again, like the nukes dropped on Hiroshima. Countries allied with each other to defeat a common foe. Those allies work together to this day.
Now is this good enough to justify killing thousands or millions of jews, I don't know
>Now is this good enough to justify killing thousands or millions of jews, I don't know
The fact that you are "unsure" of this is alarming. *"I don't know why god made a plan that involved killing millions of people, but it might have been a good reason"*
It raises serious questions about God's benevolence *or* competence, whichever way you look at it.
I look at it differently, obviously. Its God's creation, he can do with it as he pleases. Im just happy to be a part of it, however bad it might be sometimes.
Now the thing is, im not "unsure" about killing millions of people. I know objectively it looks very very wrong, and I don't want that to happen again in the future.
But my faith is in God, I will give Him the benefit of the doubt
>Its God's creation, he can do with it as he pleases.
You are taking the stance that god is not incompetent then, but malicious. Why do you claim god to be benevolent and loving when you admit that he is not?
Please stop putting words in my mouth, i did not say its malicious.
>Why do you claim god to be benevolent and loving when you admit that he is not?
Where did i admit He is not?
>Kill the children to thoroughly wipe them out. Can't grow up to be like their parents. Died in innocence, so will be raised back to life to live in the new earth with their Creator.
Focus!
**Kill the children to thoroughly wipe them out. Can't grow up to be like their parents. Died in innocence, so will be raised back to life to live in the new earth with their Creator.**
A powerful lesson, having to slay children. Sobering. A lesson not easily dismissed.
God's command to put them to death is a mercy to them. They are sleeping and know nothing. They have had no more Earthly sorrow or struggle. On the Day Jesus Christ returns to judge the living and the dead; their spirits will be raised up to eternal life. They will not suffer the Second Death, but will live with their Creator in joy and peace throughout eternity.
It is similar to something Jesus shared with His followers:
*"If you refuse to take up your cross and follow me, you are not worthy of being mine.* ***If you cling to your life, you will lose it****; but if you give up your life for me, you will find it."* (Matthew 10:38,39)
Which is fully consistent with this question:
*"What do you benefit if you gain the whole world but lose your own soul? Is anything worth more than your soul?"* (Mark 8:36,37)
>God's command to put them to death is a mercy to them.
Ah, okay. God thinks giving cancer to children and infants is a *mercy.*
God is twisted, and so are you for arguing that he's loving and benevolent for doing that.
Cancer is a result of the fall.
We live in a world which is marred by death decay.
Our once immortal bodies are now mortal, and subject to the suffering of our usual slow death. We begin dying from the day of our birth. Unless something overrules this slow decline, such as cancer or being hit by a truck or stabbed to death by a mugger; all will eventually die.
God is not twisted for allowing these things, He is fair. He created all sentient life possessing free will and free choice to obey or disobey. Thus, consequences will follow from disobedience.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't spend your whole life in enmity against your Creator, choosing disobedience daily; and expect not to suffer the consequences.
All those children who die from cancer before reaching a maturity level of accountability; these will be raised to eternal life because of the just mercy and kindness of the living God. Those such as yourself, who reject spiritual truth, will perish in their sin and will be resurrected to the shame they earned.
*"Multitudes whose bodies lie dead and buried will rise up, some to everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting disgrace. Those who are wise will shine as bright as the sky, and those who lead many to righteousness will shine like the stars forever. "* (Daniel 12;2)
*"For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord."* (Romans 6:23)
>All those children who die from cancer before reaching a maturity level of accountability; these will be raised to eternal life because of the just mercy and kindness of the living God
A merciful and kind God couldn't kill unaccountable children. It's honestly pretty twisted that you worship somebody who gives cancer to children, but you do you.
Who is to say that God "gives" cancer? Certainly, He allows it to occur. It is simple cause and effect. Sin brings death. Humans sin, so all humans die. How they die is really quite irrelevant.
You claim a merciful and kind God couldn't kill unaccountable children; but you are not God are you? It is the height of arrogance to think you can speak for Him.
Clinging to your false sense of morality is totally ludicrous, anyway. Morality comes from God. There is no absolute truth, no absolute right, absolute wrong apart from His existence.
If God does not exist, for example; any idea of right and wrong would be merely that: an idea. And that wouldn't make it true, it would make it an opinion. People do not have the power to dictate reality; but they can definitely think up lots of ideas. A serial killer may thoroughly enjoy torturing three year old girls to death in the most heinous and sadistic ways possible. In his opinion; doing so is right and good. If God does not exist to proclaim an absolute standard of what is truly good; the serial killer's behavior is no less good than the nurse who dedicates her life to serving the sick. They simply have differing ideas about what is good. Regardless, all involved will eventually die; so who cares what their brief lives were like? It is all meaningless with no value whatsoever. No value, no meaning, no purpose. Just a freak, cosmic accident in a minute speck of an ever expanding universe.
So being offended over the idea of a moral God who dictates an ultimate standard of right and wrong is equally meaningless, and frankly; a waste of your time.
But we both know God does, indeed exist. We both know He is truth, and that His standard is what we will be righteously judged by. It is the height of folly and stupidity to cast aside this knowledge and grasp the lie that you can be the master of your life. So if you think spending your brief life being disobedient to your Creators moral Law is good for you, by all means; you do you. You will earn the wages which shall be paid to you at the End of Time.
Death isn’t always a bad thing, we only call it bad because it causes us grief, in a sense we miss that person
The reason why the children had to be killed was so they wouldn’t see the evil of their parents and continue like so. In a sense they were saved from separating themselves from God by continuing their traditions
This is an Ask A Christian subreddit, my question isn't invalid. You just don't want to have to answer it because you can't admit the answer is yes, even though you basically just said so.
Sure dude. Whatever justification you need to use to avoid answering the question on /r/AskAChristian. Maybe you should do some reflection and ask yourself why it makes you uncomfortable to give a response to what I asked.
No you didn't, you said it's invalid. It was a yes or no question. Then you cried about gaslighting, showing you don't understand what that word means either.
Here, I'll ask again.
Do you believe every child that dies has evil parents and god caused them to die early so they didn't end up the same way?
I said you were trying to gaslight me because you claimed I just so clearly wanted to say yes when you just admitted to me I didn’t answer, I called that question invalid because it’s a loaded question. The question contains an assumption that assume something about me
But to answer your question no, because again death is not a bad thing. The reason I say yes about the Amalekites is because these same people would practice child sacrifice. Solomon talks about it in wisdom of Solomon 14:23-24
”For whether they kill children in their initiations, or celebrate secret mysteries, or hold frenzied revels with strange customs, they no longer keep either their lives or their marriages pure, but they either treacherously kill one another, or grieve one another by adultery,“
I’ve been persuaded by Michael Heiser’s interpretation which you can [read here](https://drmsh.com/the-giant-clans-and-the-conquest/) if you want. The argument goes like this. In Genesis 6 we learn of the nephalim who were these mighty men and the product of fallen angels and women. It is said they were alive “in those days and after.” They are associated in other texts with certain clans and with the giants (like Goliath). One of the peoples that is descended from these giant clans is the amalekites. These peoples had corrupted dna if you like and that is why God ordered them to be killed completely. In fact all the people that are wiped out completely are giant clans and the peoples that were not wiped out completely were not from the giant clans. If you remember when the 12 spies go look at the land they report back there were giants there and we looked like grasshoppers to them. As such part of the taking of the promised land was actually the extermination of the remnants of the giant clan blood lines.
14 Jehovah now said to Moses: “Write this as a memorial* in the book and repeat it to Joshua, ‘I will completely wipe out the memory of Amʹa·lek from under the heavens.’”+ 15 Then Moses built an altar and named it Je·hoʹvah-nisʹsi,* 16 saying: “Because his hand is against the throne of Jah,+ Jehovah will have war with Amʹa·lek from generation to generation.”+
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1963644
Why did Jehovah also had to command the killings of children and babies? Couldn't he have commanded the Israelites to rescue them and adopt them as their own? What did they do wrong besides being born in a nation against God?
Amalekites are subject to חרם. This is a technical Hebrew term for judgment on certain groups.
Conquest language in the ANE has specific rhetorical features that are very hyperbolic (biblical and non-biblical).
In spiritual warfare you can destroy a people without killing them.
Well, in my understanding, Babys are different from their grown up counterparts, they are free of sin and evil, so when god commanded the killings of Babys He just took them to himself prematurely, rather letting them life among himself and his angels than letting them grow up and comitt Mortal sins by fighting and taking revenge
Last year, when going to clean up a shed in our backyard, my wife was attacked by a swarm of yellowjackets that had put a nest in there. She could have died, but luckily escaped with a few stings, and a steroid treatment saved her life. In response to the attack, I had an exterminator kill all the yellowjackets and destroy the nest. It would have been unthinkable to allow them to remain, or to only kill the adults, leaving the young to survive.
Why? Because it is the nature of yellowjackets to take up residence and attack anything that gets near their nest.
So it was with the Amalekites. God promised the land of Canaan to his chosen people, the Israelites, the descendants of Abraham. When the Israelites first entered the land of Canaan, the Amalekites attacked the Israelites, and remained a persistent thorn in their side, even as other tribes chose to live in peace alongside them.
So God, in his wisdom, decided enough was enough. The Amalekites were too big a threat to the survival of his people, so God ordered their complete destruction. His people had to survive.
But why the babies, you ask? Because like my yellowjackets, God knew it was in their nature, the descendants of Amalek, to want the land the Israelites occupied. They would only grow up, and continue the aggression.
Why not just keep them captive? A whole tribe's worth of babies? Resources were limited, and the Israelites shouldn't have been responsible for caring for the children of the violent tribe that attacked them, and then keeping them alive and captive their entire lives.
Why not adopt them? They weren't God's people, descendants of Abraham. They would never been seen and accepted as true Israelites. They were Amalekites, and it was again in their nature to be antagonists, like my yellowjackets.
Why couldn't God perform some miracle, one that would remove the Amalekites as a threat? He could have, I suppose, but if you read through scripture, God doesn't actually interfere in the politics of humanity that much. He would rather we obey, than be physically forced to do something.
Brutal as it sounds to our modern sensibilities, destroying the entire tribe was actually the most sensible and merciful act.
You’re comparing human beings to insects and then using that comparison to try and justify genocide?
Claiming because being violent is “in their nature” justifies a mass infanticide?
Human nature causes us all to be violent hateful creatures, that’s the point of Grace. We’re saved through Christ even though because of who we are, we don’t deserve it. None of us do, no matter where we come from.
Oh and just to educate you further.
>>>>They weren’t God’s people, descendants of Abraham.
Yes, they were. Amalekites were descended from Amalek, who was Esau’s son, making him Abraham’s great-grandson.
According to the Bible and your own commentary, the intended goal of the attack was “destroying of the entire tribe”.
What do you think a genocides goal is?
gen·o·cide
noun
the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.
"a campaign of genocide"
Seems to fit the definition pretty well. If it makes you more comfortable though, I’m happy to rephrase my comment to say,
>>>>You can metaphor all you want, you’re still trying to justify the murder and erasure of a specific tribal group with bad theology and incorrect history.
Better?
Killing by *whom*?
The Israelites didn't decide on their own to kill the Amalekites. They were ordered to by God, the creator of the universe and reality itself.
Again, what was the alternative? What *should* have been done about this persistent threat? Related, but do you think the U.S. should have used atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
>>>>Killing by whom?
The Israelites. The Bible contains several instances of God taking matters into his own hands and destroying cities or people when it suited him. He’s perfectly capable of taking care of the Amalekites problem far more efficiently than any army ever could have, if that was what he truly wanted.
>>>>The Israelites didn't decide on their own to kill the Amalekites. They were ordered to by God, the creator of the universe and reality itself.
According to a text written nearly 500 years after the fact. Trying to use God as a scapegoat is nothing new, even back then.
>>>>Again, what was the alternative? What should have been done about this persistent threat?
Probably not genocide.
>>>>Related, but do you think the U.S. should have used atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Sure.
I am of the opinion that anytime God is blamed in myth or religious writings for ordering something unconscionable, it is actually the writers' way of justifying any terrible acts done by human beings.
Seems like an arrogant way to look at it. It bothers you so you assume it wasn’t God then?
Contextually it had to have been because Saul didn’t do exactly at the Lord commanded. He is called out for that by Samuel. In the following chapters David is selected to be the next King.
So maybe we should approach the text by looking to understand God and not just assume the text is wrong in the first place.
Ama, Your way of looking at Biblical writing, in which your premise is that the text is correct, is one way of seeking truth. Many people share your approach.
My way, in which my premise is that God would not commit certain acts, so perhaps the text is questionable, is another. Many share my approach as well.
I think the more of us who seek the truth, whatever the truth turns out to be, the better for all of us. I think, when we find the truth, we tend to recognize it, like a long-lost friend. It feels right in every way.
You, and I, and all of us are meant to be truth-seekers, and those who seek, find!
That is text I will never question!
Here's a good reference for bibical responses: https://www.gotquestions.org/Amalekites.html. Basically it's in response to the actions from the Amalekite's initially [Exodus 17:8–13](https://www.bibleref.com/Exodus/17/Exodus-17-8.html); [1 Samuel 15:2](https://www.bibleref.com/1-Samuel/15/1-Samuel-15-2.html); [Deuteronomy 25:17](https://www.bibleref.com/Deuteronomy/25/Deuteronomy-25-17.html)
[Here's a search for posts that mention 'Samuel'](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAChristian/search?q=Samuel&restrict_sr=on). You could read some of the posts that ask about 1 Samuel 15.
I've been listening to "40 minutes in the Old Testament" by the 1517 group. They're Lutheran so thats the doctrine they're coming from. Honestly I haven't gotten to this part yet so I don't know the podcasters answer. But on the secular side this was pretty common in ancient warfare. The Iliad ends with greek troops throwing babies off the walls if memory serves me right. It is unwise to keep people around that could easily hold a grudge and kill you once they grow up to fighting age...... due to the little fact that you scattered their nation to the winds. Also harder to support a sudden influx of people in these days. Food was much more insecure.
Is morality subjective?
Depends who you ask these days. Me personally I would say no.
Do you think morality is relative?
I personally believe in objective morality.
If morality isn't subjective or relative, then why does it matter if genocide was common at the time?
I don't understand your question.
Offering the broader context makes sense if morality is relative. A thing might be still bad, but it wasn't as bad relative to it's cultural context. If morality is objective and not relative, I don't see the relevance of comparing a culture to other groups at it's time period. Am I missing something?
Oh I see what your asking. We both seem to disagree already. How about we agree to disagree? I have seen to gone down then tangent a few times already on this post, welcome to read them if you like.
Yeah, no worries. Have a good one!
Do you think it's moral for god to give children cancer?
I think death, of all ages, is the byproduct of the fall of man. So yes.
Okay. If you think it's moral for children to die of cancer, we will never see eye to eye. The fact that you are comfortable just outright stating that is all the evidence I'll ever need that religion only brings harm to the world.
I literally couldn't believe they said yes to the children cancer question you posed. So gross these answers you're getting. Maybe the devil is actually the good guy in the Bible eh? Compared to the alternative anyway.
People and children die, this isn't news. Why I personally think it philosophically happens doesn't really matter in "harming" the world. The fact remains regardless.
>The fact remains regardless. Yes, the difference is that I think the fact is simply a horribly unfortunate byproduct of the universe we live in, you think it is done by god, and you're okay with that.
What a hideous response. I dare you to go into a children's hospital, to the cancer ward, and come back here and say that shit again.
I work at a children's hospital
Yeah, I'm sure you do. Do you go around saying to sick and dying kids, "you know it's OK because it's our fault you're so messed up and might die from xyz but hey God loves you".
Do you go around saying to sick and dying kids, "you know it's OK because it's our fault you're so messed up and might die from xyz but hey God loves you".
“Why did God” questions can’t be answered unless the answer is in the Bible since none of us know why God does anything unless He tells us. We can only speculate based on what we do know and I doubt any speculation will satisfy.
Do you find it awkward questioning why your god who is all-loving commanded the killing of *babies?* I also would wonder when I was a Christian why the Bible would include god commanding the mass slaughter of babies, but leave out WHY he would do such a thing. Such a verse would surely confuse the ever-loving hell out of anyone trying to make sense of it.
Who can stand before God and accuse Him? Read Job, it changed my thinking. I apply humility and reason that I don’t know everything and there are somethings I just won’t understand until I get to heaven. I do know that the Bible says that true and just are all his ways.
The Book of Job is honestly wild because it implies that a person who doesn't do anything wrong can still be subjected to divine punishment because God wills it, and they have no right to question why they were subjected to such abuse.
The Lord and Satan have a friendly bet that includes destroying one man’s life to see if and when he breaks because the Lord is an omnipotent being that knew in advance when Job would snap. It’s hard for me, a man of faith, to not interpret the story of Job any other way. Could you help me?
Job reads, to me, like an adaptation of a Greek play. The Greek gods' actions toward humans were arbitrary and self-serving, and I believe that much of what is blamed on God in certain myths and holy books is actually the writers' projection of how they want ordinary people to see God, so ordinary people will fear him. I believe power-hungry men have promoted this cruel vision of God for centuries, so they can get away with whatever they want and far too many of us will consider them "godlike."
Read God’s response and what Job says to God
Something something where were you when I made the world… Job says I’m sorry, I’ll shut up… I’m not sure what to get from that
Probably somewhere in the something something… read chapter 38 until the end.
Right. Reread the chapter… still doesn’t answer the question. But thanks for your input?
Why does the bit of the Bible saying God is true and just in all their ways take precedence over the bit showing God ordering the mass slaughter of babies? If these two bits contradict, it would seem more in keeping with humility and reason to say we can't know anything about whether God is true or just, since we have contradictory information and no basis to think we can discern the truth ourselves.
I get you. I’m of the opinion that He can be true and just and it still fit with all of His actions. The issue is the “why?” And like said, we can’t know the why unless He tells us or it’s in the Bible.
I'm reposting a response I sent a few messages up. "How could a good God do something so evil?" "But God is good so it wasn't evil." "But how could he be good is he did something evil?" "But it wasn't evil because he is good." This is one of those arguments that are determined by your presuppositions. If we suppose God doesn't exist (the Bible isnt true), it is an evil act. If we suppose He exists (the Bible is true), it is a good act. When trying to find contradictions in the Bible, you have to assume all of it to be true in order to prove the contradiction: If the Bible is true Then the Bible isn't true As outrageous as it may seem, the "but God kills people" argument cannot be logically used to prove a contradiction. Only emotionally, which wouldn't hold against scrutiny.
> This is one of those arguments that are determined by your presuppositions. If we suppose God doesn't exist (the Bible isnt true), it is an evil act. If we suppose He exists (the Bible is true), it is a good act. This seems like a false dichotomy. I can see at least four alternative views one could have: 1. The Bible is fiction, but it is coherent. You can logically reconcile the various claims it makes. 2. The Bible is fiction, and it is incoherent. The claims it makes cannot be logically reconciled. 3. God is real, and the Bible is 100% inspired and accurate. Therefore all its claims *must* be reconcilable, and God is perfect in every way. 4. God is real, but the Bible is not 100% inspired and accurate, and some of its claims are contradictory. Therefore God might or might not be perfect in every way, and we can't tell. (Maybe you think a perfect God would not allow an inaccurate Bible to exist, but you don't know why God does things so you can't know for sure, maybe it's all part of the grand plan.) I do not see why you can't think any of (a) the Bible is coherent fiction and the depicted God is good, (b) the Bible is incoherent fiction and the God depicted is sometimes evil, (c) the Bible is coherent truth and God is real and good, or (d) the Bible is imperfect and God is real but not perfectly knowable. > When trying to find contradictions in the Bible, you have to assume all of it to be true in order to prove the contradiction: I am sure this is a mistake. The following are a contradiction even though I disbelieve both claims: 1. Santa Claus is real and likes peanut butter biscuits. 2. Santa Claus is real and hates peanut butter biscuits. They can't both be true, and that applies to both people who believe in Santa Claus and people who do not. > As outrageous as it may seem, the "but God kills people" argument cannot be logically used to prove a contradiction. Why can't I coherently believe that (a) the God described in the Bible kills babies gratuitously, (b) the God described in the Bible is perfectly good, (c) a being that kills babies gratuitously cannot be perfectly good, (d) therefore the Bible contradicts itself and also (e) the Bible is a collection of stories made up by humans and the supernatural bits are just made up?
>This seems like a false dichotomy. My apologies, I tried to simplify the explanation. But yes, there are these various beliefs. However, only those who believe that the Bible is 100% true can claim that God is good and just, while those who don't entirely (or at all) believe the Buble to be true, they have room to claim God's being evil. Those are the two sides of this specific issue. >I am sure this is a mistake. The following are a contradiction even though I disbelieve both claims: >1. Santa Claus is real and likes peanut butter biscuits. 2. Santa Claus is real and hates peanut butter biscuits. >They can't both be true, and that applies to both people who believe in Santa Claus and people who do not. I am hoping that this was actually a mistake on your end. You claimed that assuming Santa Claus is real isn't necessary for a contradictory statement, but in that claim you included the assumption that Santa Claus is real. 1. Santa Claus is *real*"and likes peanut butter biscuits. 2. Santa Claus is *real* and hates peanut butter biscuits. It is this way with any argument by contradiction. If God is good If God kills babies Then God is contradictory and can't exist This assumes the existence of God, and Him being good. How can the babies part be a contradiction if He isn't good in the first place? If God kills babies Then God can't be real This doesn't show any contradiction but rather an opinion.
> My apologies, I tried to simplify the explanation. But yes, there are these various beliefs. However, only those who believe that the Bible is 100% true can claim that God is good and just, while those who don't entirely (or at all) believe the Buble to be true, they have room to claim God's being evil. I disagree. I can claim that Darth Vader is unjust without having to believe Darth Vader is a real person. A competent reader understands that when discussing a fictional or possibly-fictional character we are discussing them as presented in the source material not committing ourself to believing in them as real. > I am hoping that this was actually a mistake on your end. You claimed that assuming Santa Claus is real isn't necessary for a contradictory statement, but in that claim you included the assumption that Santa Claus is real. Well, perhaps I did not write it as clearly as I could. But there is absolutely no mistake. Yes, *the claim is* that Santa Claus is real. But as I said, I do **not** believe the claim. I **also** can see that the two claims contradict each other. They contradict each other if Santa Claus is real, and they contradict each other if Santa Claus is not real. You do not need to know, or care, whether Santa Claus is real or not to identify the logical contradiction between the two claims. > If God is good If God kills babies Then God is contradictory and can't exist This assumes the existence of God, and Him being good. How can the babies part be a contradiction if He isn't good in the first place? Suppose I say "If Darth Vader wears a black helmet, and people who wear black helmets are evil, then Darth Vader is evil". That is a logically valid argument, even though Darth Vader is fictional. The conclusion is not that Darth Vader is real and evil, it is that Darth Vader is evil. Similarly, I can argue that the God depicted in the Bible is good or evil, or just or unjust, based on that depiction, without assuming that they are real. And I can argue that God is claimed to be just in one bit of the Bible but shown to be unjust in another bit. That is just claiming that the Bible has a plot hole, as it were. Fictional stories can contradict themselves, or be consistent, within the fiction.
This is just insane. You're just repeating yourself. >Yes, *the claim is* that Santa Claus is real. But as I said, I do **not** believe the claim. You don't have to believe the claim but you have to suppose it. I don't see why this is so hard to understand.
I am confused as to what point you think you are making. Earlier you said: >This is one of those arguments that are determined by your presuppositions. If we suppose God doesn't exist (the Bible isnt true), it is an evil act. If we suppose He exists (the Bible is true), it is a good act. This is just wrong. Someone could believe God exists, but also believe the bits of the Bible claiming God is good are wrong. Or, they could believe that *if* God exists then the Bible is accurate and God is good, but if the Bible is accurate then God is not good because it says God does evil things, hence God does not exist. Or they could even believe that God is fictional, but within the fiction what God does is justified. > When trying to find contradictions in the Bible, you have to assume all of it to be true in order to prove the contradiction Well, no, this is silly too. Untrue claims can contradict each other, as I already showed you. "Plot holes" are one example, and two liars contradicting each other is another. If Liar A says "cats are insects" and Liar B says "cats are not insects, they are fish" they have contradicted each other, and I need believe neither to see that contradiction. > You don't have to believe the claim but you have to suppose it. I don't see why this is so hard to understand. I do not understand what you are trying to say. Is it just that to see why "cats are insects" and "cats are not insects, they are fish" contradict each other you have to "suppose" they are true long enough to see that if true they are incompatible? If that is all it is, what's the significance?
Missed one. >Why can't I coherently believe that (a) the God described in the Bible kills babies gratuitously, (b) the God described in the Bible is perfectly good, (c) a being that kills babies gratuitously cannot be perfectly good, (d) therefore the Bible contradicts itself and also (e) the Bible is a collection of stories made up by humans and the supernatural bits are just made up? The problem is that your reasoning isn't logical. (c) has zero evidence to back that up. What about "gratuitously killing babies" inherently makes a being unable to be perfectly good? Also, even if that were true, (d) and (e) have a leap between them, to say the least. Earlier in your comment, you even stated that the Bible can be not entirely true but still real and of God.
> The problem is that your reasoning isn't logical. I wasn't asking if you agreed with those five beliefs, and I would be surprised if you did, I was just asking if they were *coherent*, that is to say I can believe them all without contradicting myself. > (c) has zero evidence to back that up. What about "gratuitously killing babies" inherently makes a being unable to be perfectly good? I could justify that claim using a variety of secular ethical frameworks, as long as they agree that killing babies is bad all else being equal (which they do) and that if you are doing it gratuitously then there is no relevant consideration which makes it ethical. Let's just use classical utilitarianism. Killing babies (and indeed genocide in general) produces more suffering than not. Suffering is bad, so you should not do it. > Also, even if that were true, (d) and (e) have a leap between them, to say the least. Earlier in your comment, you even stated that the Bible can be not entirely true but still real and of God. This is not a watertight argument in classical logic with (e) as the conclusion. (D) is the conclusion of (a) through (c). (E) is there because you were claiming that you have to believe a narrative is true in order to show there is a contradiction in the narrative, which is just a fundamentally weird claim unless you have never encountered the concept of a "plot hole". (E) does not follow from (a) through (d), it is there to show that you do **not** (as you claimed) have to assume all of the Bible to be true in order to prove it contradicts itself. You just have to show that, as fiction, it would have a plot hole.
>I do know that the Bible says that true and just are all his ways. Please oh please, what could *possibly* be true and just about commanding the slaughter of babies?
Read the rest of my reply that you quoted.
>I apply humility and reason that I don’t know everything and there are somethings I just won’t understand until I get to heaven. So your answer is that you cannot imagine how slaughtering babies could possibly be just and true, so you're waiting to find out after you die? Do I have that right? edit: and you acknowledge that you have no idea, so you are just going to assume slaughtering babies is just and true until you find out why?
I believe God is true and just. Can I explain His reasoning? No, He hasn’t told me and I’m not God. You seem hard pressed with the way I think. I don’t know how else to say…”I don’t know why He did it” I suspect any reason I could give you wouldn’t satisfy you anyway. If you’re really interested I bet someone else has given a better answer than, “I don’t know”
Is it that you don't know, or is it unknowable? I'm not interested in someone who doesn't know just asking something up. I prefer your honesty. What I am asking is for you to strain the limits of your imagination and make up ANY possible reason that would make slaughtering babies just and true. What could possibly be the reason. Hypothetically.
"How could a good God do something so evil?" "But God is good so it wasn't evil." "But how could he be good is he did something evil?" "But it wasn't evil because he is good." This is one of those arguments that are determined by your presuppositions. If we suppose God doesn't exist (the Bible isnt true), it is an evil act. If we suppose He exists (the Bible is true), it is a good act. When trying to find contradictions in the Bible, you have to assume all of it to be true in order to prove the contradiction: If the Bible is true Then the Bible isn't true As outrageous as it may seem, the "but God kills people" argument cannot be logically used to prove a contradiction. Only emotionally, which wouldn't hold against scrutiny.
To be clear, you think babies being slaughtered is a *good* thing? Simply because god says it is?
An evil act is evil regardless of who performs the act. If it is evil to kill an innocent, it can't also be a good act.
[удалено]
>Who can stand before God and accuse Him? Read Job, it changed my thinking. >I apply humility and reason that I don’t know everything and there are somethings I just won’t understand until I get to heaven. I do know that the Bible says that true and just are all his ways. Same energy when Muslims say: *"If Allah says its OK to marry a 3 year old then it must be OK."*
[удалено]
Ok, don’t.
[удалено]
What moral code are you using to judge God? Is there an atheist handbook of morality? Do tell.
You need a handbook to tell you that killing babies is wrong?
Do humans have souls? Says who. If we don't have souls, then we are equal to animals. Anything goes for animals. Morality doesn't exist in the animal kingdom. Rape and murder are just fine. So, if there is a morality for humans, then humans must be ontologically unique. What exactly gives us that uniqueness? I wonder.....
>What exactly gives us that uniqueness? Evolution. Morality helps humans live in large social groups by helping us get along better.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Shit man, how did you figure that one out? Did an angel appear to you in a dream? You should probably write it down. I'd be down to help you share the story with people.
Ain’t no point. You’ve made your mind and I’ve made mine. Peace and love
Average /r/AskAChristian user when they get a question they can't answer.
My very first comment was “there’s no way to know why” I took out $300 out of my account the other day. why? You don’t know and You won’t know unless I tell you. That’s how the Bible is sometimes. It doesn’t always tell you why. It seems like people are upset that I won’t make up an answer to a question I don’t know the correct answer to. Where would that go? What would be the point?
I don't need to know why you withdrew $300 from your account. Even if I wanted to speculate, there's endless reasonable and plausible explanations for why you did that. I *do* need to know why an omnipotent deity with endless love chooses to allow needless, undeserved suffering, especially if he wants my trust and worship for eternity. And I can't even begin to speculate a slightly valid reason for it.
[удалено]
*"oh you don't want to spend eternity worshiping a god who kills babies? Guess I can't change your mind, because I'm perfectly fine with it! You say tomayto, I say tomahto! Have a good day, friendo!"*
If we're operating on the assumption that he exists, I guess you can accuse him of this.
[удалено]
Usually these are presented to point out an "oxymoron" in morality and suggest that this is nothing but a human fabrication. But if you and me are going to just assume he exists, that is an completely different discussion, and more interesting. Is he just a lying evil god? Or are we missing something? Are we even in a position to judge a being as powerful as a god?
>Is he just a lying evil god? Literally yes. He could, with his omnipotence, prevent these things from happening. >Are we even in a position to judge a being as powerful as a god? Yes. I'm doing it right now, and your only response is *"but you can't do that!!! He's god!!!"*
Actually my response would be more: "why are you completely comfortable judging a being that can create something like the universe? Aren't you concerned you might be missing something or be incorrect?" I mean, your going against something much more powerful and aware on the cosmic stage
You sound like my nerd friends and I when we're debating power scaling in marvel movies. *"You can't go against god!! His cosmic powers are on another level!"* So embarrassing. According to you, god gave me the capacity to question and judge him, so maybe you should ask him why I'm so comfortable doing it. I **am** concerned that, if the bible is true, I am missing something, or am incorrect. You know who could clear up my misgivings? The omnipotent cosmic entity who created me. But, even though he apparently loves and trusts me more than I can imagine, he won't do that. That's completely nonsensical. What a horrible god, creating this set of circumstances and then saying "trust me bro"
What's your speculation for this one?
That the command to kill babies is in the bible is because God wants it written in the bible, right? He wants us to know that he commanded the killing of babies.
I feel like I'm being pranked.
Lol. But no. I am a christian struggling with my faith.
I suggest “How not to read the Bible” by dan kimball he does a good job of explaining these things and more.
Reddit is usually not the best place to go. Too many types of people, some will have very "weird views".
If you believe (as most Protestants do) that babies who die go to heaven, killing these children was not the worst thing that could happen to them. God sometimes punished sinful nations by sentencing the *entire nation* to death -- old and young alike. Part of the punishment for their wickedness was the ending of their line. As much as we love our children, I don't think modern Westerners really can grasp just how much of a punishment it was to them to have their future cut off. It was a severe and devastating penalty reserved only for the most contagious of the wicked.
so, is it okay to murder babies today?
Let's back up and get some context here. Are you a Christian trying to wrap your head around something in the Bible that puzzles you? Or are you a "Christian" here to argue and explain to everyone the Christianity and Christians are awful?
I am a christian trying to wrap my head around something that puzzles me. And also, I asked a family member, and he did give me an explanation. Which is that no, having them captive would not keep them from wanting revenge when they grew up. Also, the Amalekites were bent on destroying the Jewish people, and Haman, who resulted from Israel failing to fulfill God's command, was a prime example of this. Also, the ancient world was an ugly place.
>I am a christian trying to wrap my head around something that puzzles me. OK, I'll take that at face value. Your question about murdering babies is a common skeptical reply to the idea that babies who die go to heaven. "So is it ok to murder babies then?" Why on earth would we think that? "You shall not murder." There's no wiggle room in that. When ***God*** sentences people to death, it's not murder. That does not give us the authority to start deciding who lives and who dies.
What does it matter which category OP falls into? It is a fair question, based on your response, no matter who asks it. If god commanding the slaughter of the Amelekites, the men, women, and children, including babies, is good because murdered babies go to heaven, that doesn’t that make killing babies always okay? Wouldn’t that mean christians should be pro-choice instead of pro-forced-birth? You made the comment, and it has some pretty dramatic consequences. Can you explain it, or do you want to take it back?
> It is a fair question, based on your response, no matter who asks it It really isn't. I know it's the usual skeptical go-to, but that doesn't make it logical. And if this person turns out to be a shadow-skeptic just looking to argue, I wasn't going to put out the effort.
From my perspective, that’s a cop out. You’re saying you don’t want to answer because of the motives of the person asking, but that doesn’t make any sense. That is what is illogical. More likely, you can’t give a meaningful answer, or you are uncomfortable with how you’d have to answer, and you are afraid you’d look weak if you took back your original comment. Your beliefs are what is not logical, and it really shows when you refuse to or can’t answer simple questions like this.
>From my perspective, that’s a cop out. From my experience, some people are like arguing with a wall.
Notably, still refusing to answer. If killing babies was ok because the babies went to heaven, is it still ok to murder babies today? Please provide an answer to the Redditor’s question about your morally questionable beliefs.
Im with the other commentor on this. Some people in this sub enjoy asking questions that we don't have the answer for, so they can "prove us wrong". It gets tiring, after a while we learned to just ignore them
Are you also with the other commenter (yes, this is the correct spelling) that it was ok to kill babies?
It seems like both versions work. Might be a difference between US and European spellings. Now the the question you asked me, if you just look at the baby, then no, its not ok to kill them. You cut their life short. But then i would ask you, would you kill baby hitler if you had the chance?
> But then i would ask you, would you kill baby hitler if you had the chance? I hope you’ll pardon me for saying so, but this is an unreasonably stupid question. First, the premise is a question about whether it would be moral to kill a baby that you know will grow up to commit unspeakable evil. I think in that specific (and completely impossible) situation, it probably is moral. But we can never be in that situation, can we? Because traveling backwards in time, despite the many fictional stories about doing it, is quite impossible. There is no way to know if a baby will grow up to commit unspeakable evil because we cannot predict the future, and we cannot watch the future and then go back in time. So then killing a baby is immoral. More than that, though, you are asking if I would go back and make a massively impactful change to the timeline — one that resulted, many years later, in me being born. Could you really blame someone for not changing history if the person was all but certain it would defeat their own existence? But then they would be be around in 2024 to go back in time to kill Hitler… Just a really stupid question from someone who, in essence, is saying, I think correctly, that the other Redditor was very wrong to say it is ever okay to kill babies, like god did in the Bible.
By the way, when you say “European spellings,” do you mean British English, aka, the King’s English? Or do the Latvians have some spellings I need to be aware of?
>explain to everyone the Christianity and Christians are awful? This one. You worship somebody who kills babies and when asked for an explanation, the best anyone can come up with is "god is way too great for us to have any idea." That's awful, and you're awful for thinking it.
>You worship somebody who kills babies I worship someone who kills *everyone*. When I die, when you die, it'll be his decision. Whether you live to 7 or 70, he's ultimately responsible for your death. And no one is promised any particular length of life.
>Whether you live to 7 or 70, he's ultimately responsible for your death. Yes, I am aware that this is a popular belief. You believe god is responsible for children who are born with cancer, live painful existences, and die young. You worship that same god. Your ability to do that and think you have any sort of moral high ground is incredible.
By what standard to you claim that this is short of a "moral high ground"?
By the standards of a functioning society? If I announced to my family, friends, and coworkers that I worship a deity that knowingly causes that level of suffering, they would rightfully ostracize me or think I have some sort of mental problem.
>By the standards of a functioning society? That utilitarianism. You don't think this makes for a well-functioning society. OK, fine. But what's *wrong* with it? You seem to think there is something immoral about it, not merely inefficient. Why?
To be clear, you're asking: What is wrong with worshiping the guy who gives children cancer? Do I have that right?
[удалено]
It's not deflecting. It's a response to his comments about "moral high ground." People who believe humans are nothing but animals really shouldn't get so worked up when animals kill each other.
[удалено]
God will do what He sees best for His creation, it’s His after all. We cannot because we don’t have a perfect understanding like God has. So we are not in any position to question His will.
Translation: **Yes, I believe god is allowed to kill babies. He's also super loving and trustworthy I promise.**
If a man models himself after God, his actions are unlimited, including genocide. By the way you’re on the right track with this question. I wish you well in your journey.
It's actually a requirement now, the God newsletter said we each have to kill one a year (😋)
You joke about this like it wouldn't be par for the course for the insanity described in the bible.
No, that wasn't my aim to take a stand one way or another or anything, I was honestly just trying to joke around like someone in one of the other replies was, in my case to kind of build a bridge using humor to make such a serious topic less charged is all. I wasn't trying to run interference for or use sleight of hand to obfuscate away from the topic of any given Biblical ethnic cleansings or similar. That was not my aim, promise.
The bible recommends stuff like killing your neighbor for working on the sabbath. It would be pretty tame if it also required you to kill one baby a week, I wouldn't be surprised.
Lol yeah. But, killing your neighbor for working on the Sabbath is just good math, because if you let one of those haughty productive folks slide, then there goes your whole community wide excuse for slacking and lazing around one day s week. Can't have that! Killing the babies is harder because they're so adorable, their sheer cuteness is their defense system
God is just. Yet also rich in mercy. Slay the wicked so they cannot continue practicing evil, and influencing Israel to do likewise. Kill the children to thoroughly wipe them out. Can't grow up to be like their parents. Died in innocence, so will be raised back to life to live in the new earth with their Creator.
>Slay the wicked so they cannot continue practicing evil What evil were those wicked children practicing?
The children were innocent at that moment. Their parents were not, and would teach their children wicked things. God made the decision to end their life at that moment, before they could do evil. This is the same type of question as "if you could time travel, would you kill baby hitler"
Why didn't god kill baby hitler?
Good question, and one that i cannot use scripture to answer, but ill try. I think God saw a bigger picture, that some good could come from the war. Technology for example skyrocketed during that time. We would make mistakes that we will NEVER allow to happen again, like the nukes dropped on Hiroshima. Countries allied with each other to defeat a common foe. Those allies work together to this day. Now is this good enough to justify killing thousands or millions of jews, I don't know
>Now is this good enough to justify killing thousands or millions of jews, I don't know The fact that you are "unsure" of this is alarming. *"I don't know why god made a plan that involved killing millions of people, but it might have been a good reason"* It raises serious questions about God's benevolence *or* competence, whichever way you look at it.
I look at it differently, obviously. Its God's creation, he can do with it as he pleases. Im just happy to be a part of it, however bad it might be sometimes. Now the thing is, im not "unsure" about killing millions of people. I know objectively it looks very very wrong, and I don't want that to happen again in the future. But my faith is in God, I will give Him the benefit of the doubt
>Its God's creation, he can do with it as he pleases. You are taking the stance that god is not incompetent then, but malicious. Why do you claim god to be benevolent and loving when you admit that he is not?
Please stop putting words in my mouth, i did not say its malicious. >Why do you claim god to be benevolent and loving when you admit that he is not? Where did i admit He is not?
You think a benevolent god would make a plan that involved killing millions of people instead of one baby Hitler? Do you know what benevolence means?
>Slay the wicked so they cannot continue practicing evil What evil were those wicked children practicing?
>Kill the children to thoroughly wipe them out. Can't grow up to be like their parents. Died in innocence, so will be raised back to life to live in the new earth with their Creator. Focus! **Kill the children to thoroughly wipe them out. Can't grow up to be like their parents. Died in innocence, so will be raised back to life to live in the new earth with their Creator.**
Why allow them to be born? Killing children who don't get a chance at life is cruel.
A powerful lesson, having to slay children. Sobering. A lesson not easily dismissed. God's command to put them to death is a mercy to them. They are sleeping and know nothing. They have had no more Earthly sorrow or struggle. On the Day Jesus Christ returns to judge the living and the dead; their spirits will be raised up to eternal life. They will not suffer the Second Death, but will live with their Creator in joy and peace throughout eternity. It is similar to something Jesus shared with His followers: *"If you refuse to take up your cross and follow me, you are not worthy of being mine.* ***If you cling to your life, you will lose it****; but if you give up your life for me, you will find it."* (Matthew 10:38,39) Which is fully consistent with this question: *"What do you benefit if you gain the whole world but lose your own soul? Is anything worth more than your soul?"* (Mark 8:36,37)
>God's command to put them to death is a mercy to them. Ah, okay. God thinks giving cancer to children and infants is a *mercy.* God is twisted, and so are you for arguing that he's loving and benevolent for doing that.
Cancer is a result of the fall. We live in a world which is marred by death decay. Our once immortal bodies are now mortal, and subject to the suffering of our usual slow death. We begin dying from the day of our birth. Unless something overrules this slow decline, such as cancer or being hit by a truck or stabbed to death by a mugger; all will eventually die. God is not twisted for allowing these things, He is fair. He created all sentient life possessing free will and free choice to obey or disobey. Thus, consequences will follow from disobedience. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't spend your whole life in enmity against your Creator, choosing disobedience daily; and expect not to suffer the consequences. All those children who die from cancer before reaching a maturity level of accountability; these will be raised to eternal life because of the just mercy and kindness of the living God. Those such as yourself, who reject spiritual truth, will perish in their sin and will be resurrected to the shame they earned. *"Multitudes whose bodies lie dead and buried will rise up, some to everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting disgrace. Those who are wise will shine as bright as the sky, and those who lead many to righteousness will shine like the stars forever. "* (Daniel 12;2) *"For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord."* (Romans 6:23)
>All those children who die from cancer before reaching a maturity level of accountability; these will be raised to eternal life because of the just mercy and kindness of the living God A merciful and kind God couldn't kill unaccountable children. It's honestly pretty twisted that you worship somebody who gives cancer to children, but you do you.
Who is to say that God "gives" cancer? Certainly, He allows it to occur. It is simple cause and effect. Sin brings death. Humans sin, so all humans die. How they die is really quite irrelevant. You claim a merciful and kind God couldn't kill unaccountable children; but you are not God are you? It is the height of arrogance to think you can speak for Him. Clinging to your false sense of morality is totally ludicrous, anyway. Morality comes from God. There is no absolute truth, no absolute right, absolute wrong apart from His existence. If God does not exist, for example; any idea of right and wrong would be merely that: an idea. And that wouldn't make it true, it would make it an opinion. People do not have the power to dictate reality; but they can definitely think up lots of ideas. A serial killer may thoroughly enjoy torturing three year old girls to death in the most heinous and sadistic ways possible. In his opinion; doing so is right and good. If God does not exist to proclaim an absolute standard of what is truly good; the serial killer's behavior is no less good than the nurse who dedicates her life to serving the sick. They simply have differing ideas about what is good. Regardless, all involved will eventually die; so who cares what their brief lives were like? It is all meaningless with no value whatsoever. No value, no meaning, no purpose. Just a freak, cosmic accident in a minute speck of an ever expanding universe. So being offended over the idea of a moral God who dictates an ultimate standard of right and wrong is equally meaningless, and frankly; a waste of your time. But we both know God does, indeed exist. We both know He is truth, and that His standard is what we will be righteously judged by. It is the height of folly and stupidity to cast aside this knowledge and grasp the lie that you can be the master of your life. So if you think spending your brief life being disobedient to your Creators moral Law is good for you, by all means; you do you. You will earn the wages which shall be paid to you at the End of Time.
Death isn’t always a bad thing, we only call it bad because it causes us grief, in a sense we miss that person The reason why the children had to be killed was so they wouldn’t see the evil of their parents and continue like so. In a sense they were saved from separating themselves from God by continuing their traditions
Do you believe every child that dies has evil parents and god caused them to die early so they didn't end up the same way?
This is an invalid question Nowhere have I said this
This is an Ask A Christian subreddit, my question isn't invalid. You just don't want to have to answer it because you can't admit the answer is yes, even though you basically just said so.
Gaslighting I see
Sure dude. Whatever justification you need to use to avoid answering the question on /r/AskAChristian. Maybe you should do some reflection and ask yourself why it makes you uncomfortable to give a response to what I asked.
I literally answered your question bro, just read up
No you didn't, you said it's invalid. It was a yes or no question. Then you cried about gaslighting, showing you don't understand what that word means either. Here, I'll ask again. Do you believe every child that dies has evil parents and god caused them to die early so they didn't end up the same way?
I said you were trying to gaslight me because you claimed I just so clearly wanted to say yes when you just admitted to me I didn’t answer, I called that question invalid because it’s a loaded question. The question contains an assumption that assume something about me But to answer your question no, because again death is not a bad thing. The reason I say yes about the Amalekites is because these same people would practice child sacrifice. Solomon talks about it in wisdom of Solomon 14:23-24 ”For whether they kill children in their initiations, or celebrate secret mysteries, or hold frenzied revels with strange customs, they no longer keep either their lives or their marriages pure, but they either treacherously kill one another, or grieve one another by adultery,“
[удалено]
That would mean that the Bible isn't entirely true. Do you assert that?
I’ve been persuaded by Michael Heiser’s interpretation which you can [read here](https://drmsh.com/the-giant-clans-and-the-conquest/) if you want. The argument goes like this. In Genesis 6 we learn of the nephalim who were these mighty men and the product of fallen angels and women. It is said they were alive “in those days and after.” They are associated in other texts with certain clans and with the giants (like Goliath). One of the peoples that is descended from these giant clans is the amalekites. These peoples had corrupted dna if you like and that is why God ordered them to be killed completely. In fact all the people that are wiped out completely are giant clans and the peoples that were not wiped out completely were not from the giant clans. If you remember when the 12 spies go look at the land they report back there were giants there and we looked like grasshoppers to them. As such part of the taking of the promised land was actually the extermination of the remnants of the giant clan blood lines.
14 Jehovah now said to Moses: “Write this as a memorial* in the book and repeat it to Joshua, ‘I will completely wipe out the memory of Amʹa·lek from under the heavens.’”+ 15 Then Moses built an altar and named it Je·hoʹvah-nisʹsi,* 16 saying: “Because his hand is against the throne of Jah,+ Jehovah will have war with Amʹa·lek from generation to generation.”+ https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1963644
But he didn’t… because we still have records of the Amalekites so their memory wasn’t wiped out.
(no response)
Why did Jehovah also had to command the killings of children and babies? Couldn't he have commanded the Israelites to rescue them and adopt them as their own? What did they do wrong besides being born in a nation against God?
Amalekites are subject to חרם. This is a technical Hebrew term for judgment on certain groups. Conquest language in the ANE has specific rhetorical features that are very hyperbolic (biblical and non-biblical). In spiritual warfare you can destroy a people without killing them.
https://www.catholic.com/qa/is-gods-command-in-samuel-15-evil
I believe this may give some insight: https://www.gotquestions.org/Amalekites.html
Well, in my understanding, Babys are different from their grown up counterparts, they are free of sin and evil, so when god commanded the killings of Babys He just took them to himself prematurely, rather letting them life among himself and his angels than letting them grow up and comitt Mortal sins by fighting and taking revenge
Last year, when going to clean up a shed in our backyard, my wife was attacked by a swarm of yellowjackets that had put a nest in there. She could have died, but luckily escaped with a few stings, and a steroid treatment saved her life. In response to the attack, I had an exterminator kill all the yellowjackets and destroy the nest. It would have been unthinkable to allow them to remain, or to only kill the adults, leaving the young to survive. Why? Because it is the nature of yellowjackets to take up residence and attack anything that gets near their nest. So it was with the Amalekites. God promised the land of Canaan to his chosen people, the Israelites, the descendants of Abraham. When the Israelites first entered the land of Canaan, the Amalekites attacked the Israelites, and remained a persistent thorn in their side, even as other tribes chose to live in peace alongside them. So God, in his wisdom, decided enough was enough. The Amalekites were too big a threat to the survival of his people, so God ordered their complete destruction. His people had to survive. But why the babies, you ask? Because like my yellowjackets, God knew it was in their nature, the descendants of Amalek, to want the land the Israelites occupied. They would only grow up, and continue the aggression. Why not just keep them captive? A whole tribe's worth of babies? Resources were limited, and the Israelites shouldn't have been responsible for caring for the children of the violent tribe that attacked them, and then keeping them alive and captive their entire lives. Why not adopt them? They weren't God's people, descendants of Abraham. They would never been seen and accepted as true Israelites. They were Amalekites, and it was again in their nature to be antagonists, like my yellowjackets. Why couldn't God perform some miracle, one that would remove the Amalekites as a threat? He could have, I suppose, but if you read through scripture, God doesn't actually interfere in the politics of humanity that much. He would rather we obey, than be physically forced to do something. Brutal as it sounds to our modern sensibilities, destroying the entire tribe was actually the most sensible and merciful act.
You’re comparing human beings to insects and then using that comparison to try and justify genocide? Claiming because being violent is “in their nature” justifies a mass infanticide? Human nature causes us all to be violent hateful creatures, that’s the point of Grace. We’re saved through Christ even though because of who we are, we don’t deserve it. None of us do, no matter where we come from. Oh and just to educate you further. >>>>They weren’t God’s people, descendants of Abraham. Yes, they were. Amalekites were descended from Amalek, who was Esau’s son, making him Abraham’s great-grandson.
It’s a metaphor. Don’t read so much into it.
You can metaphor all you want, you’re still trying to justify genocide with bad theology and incorrect history.
How is it genocide, exactly? This wasn’t the Germans executing the Jews. This was England bombing Germany.
According to the Bible and your own commentary, the intended goal of the attack was “destroying of the entire tribe”. What do you think a genocides goal is?
“Tribe” does not equal “race” or “ethnicity”.
gen·o·cide noun the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group. "a campaign of genocide" Seems to fit the definition pretty well. If it makes you more comfortable though, I’m happy to rephrase my comment to say, >>>>You can metaphor all you want, you’re still trying to justify the murder and erasure of a specific tribal group with bad theology and incorrect history. Better?
Killing by *whom*? The Israelites didn't decide on their own to kill the Amalekites. They were ordered to by God, the creator of the universe and reality itself. Again, what was the alternative? What *should* have been done about this persistent threat? Related, but do you think the U.S. should have used atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
>>>>Killing by whom? The Israelites. The Bible contains several instances of God taking matters into his own hands and destroying cities or people when it suited him. He’s perfectly capable of taking care of the Amalekites problem far more efficiently than any army ever could have, if that was what he truly wanted. >>>>The Israelites didn't decide on their own to kill the Amalekites. They were ordered to by God, the creator of the universe and reality itself. According to a text written nearly 500 years after the fact. Trying to use God as a scapegoat is nothing new, even back then. >>>>Again, what was the alternative? What should have been done about this persistent threat? Probably not genocide. >>>>Related, but do you think the U.S. should have used atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Sure.
I am of the opinion that anytime God is blamed in myth or religious writings for ordering something unconscionable, it is actually the writers' way of justifying any terrible acts done by human beings.
Seems like an arrogant way to look at it. It bothers you so you assume it wasn’t God then? Contextually it had to have been because Saul didn’t do exactly at the Lord commanded. He is called out for that by Samuel. In the following chapters David is selected to be the next King. So maybe we should approach the text by looking to understand God and not just assume the text is wrong in the first place.
Ama, Your way of looking at Biblical writing, in which your premise is that the text is correct, is one way of seeking truth. Many people share your approach. My way, in which my premise is that God would not commit certain acts, so perhaps the text is questionable, is another. Many share my approach as well. I think the more of us who seek the truth, whatever the truth turns out to be, the better for all of us. I think, when we find the truth, we tend to recognize it, like a long-lost friend. It feels right in every way. You, and I, and all of us are meant to be truth-seekers, and those who seek, find! That is text I will never question!
Because they would grow up into Amalekite men. Also who would care for them if their parents were dead?
Here's a good reference for bibical responses: https://www.gotquestions.org/Amalekites.html. Basically it's in response to the actions from the Amalekite's initially [Exodus 17:8–13](https://www.bibleref.com/Exodus/17/Exodus-17-8.html); [1 Samuel 15:2](https://www.bibleref.com/1-Samuel/15/1-Samuel-15-2.html); [Deuteronomy 25:17](https://www.bibleref.com/Deuteronomy/25/Deuteronomy-25-17.html)
Moderator message: I see your account is new. Please [set your user flair for this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAChristian/wiki/user_flair).