18 Nov 11
Originally posted by KellyJayYou can study the OT all you want but what you really have there is people writing BS to control other people. Obviously a god would not want to kill off an entire population, such a god would be by definition, insane. So the whole bible is filled with man made tales designed to control people and subjugate women. A god would NEVER say a man is worth 50 shekels and a woman only 35 shekels. Men for sure WOULD and DO say such things all the time.
Yes, but if you study OT you'll find God spends a great deal of time tellng
them about the difference between the Holy and common, and He stressed a
great deal about family lines. We know who was born into what house and
so on. They had a part to play in how they responded to God and the Law.
Kelly
18 Nov 11
Originally posted by jaywilli see the point you're trying to make, but it's not working well. bottom line is that we still only have the hebrews side of the story.we only know the hebrew's side of the story.
Like we only have the Hebrew side of the story about herioic King David's adultery and murder ?
Like we only have the Hebrew side of the story in God being so disgusted at Israel that prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel are FILLED with divine words of chastizement, forsaking them ...[text shortened]... to Babylon ?
You mean like we only have the Hebrew side of the story on those accounts too ?
the rest of it is just the hebrews trying to inject god into various misadventures that happen to them.
" The Amalekites attacked the Israelites without apparent provocation as they were travelling during the Exodus (Ex 17:8). "When you were weary and worn out, they met you on your journey and cut off all who were lagging behind" (Dt 25:17-18). " Glenn Miller
inform glenn miller that we only have the hebrew's side of the story. besides, this does not justify the war crimes committed against future generations of amelakites. no act of the amelakites could justify what the hebrews allegedly did to them.
A nations witnesses an act of another nation being led by God out of Egypt, miraculously across the Red Sea, and astoundingly through the wilderness for 40 years only to attack them from behind in a most cowardly way.
I don't think God regarded it only as a tribal dispute though it is mentioned what they did to the tribe. By the time we get to First Samuel God is dealing with a fiercly unrepentant nation.
it doesn't matter how those involved in the events would regard it. in the grand scheme of humanity, it was a petty tribal dispute.
"The revenge was in fact punishment from God on an unrepentant nation. As noted above, they were given ample time to change their ways. While it was the descendents of the original attackers who were punished, they led the same evil lifestyle that their ancestors had (and possibly one that was worse - in dealing with evil nations in the OT, God often withheld punishment until their wickedness reached a particularly high level). Furthermore, it was God who was avenging the Israelites, not the Israelites themselves. God, who has perfect knowledge, wisdom and justice, has the authority to avenge; humans, including the Israelites, do not have this authority." - Glenn Miller
yet it was revenge. what we have is a case of tribal memory. the hebrews had some kind of tribal dispute with the amelakites, so they waited until they were strong enough to exact their revenge and used the name of their tribal deity to justify horrible acts of violence.
Never heard the "bait" theory. If the remaining people lived outside of the fortress they would probably have their own animals.
um, no. the captured king would be used as bait/held for ransom, not the animals.
Paul Copan says the Amalekites were a nomadic people.
so were the hebrews, yet they still settled down and built cities...or in the case of the hebrews, stole cities built by others.
going by the biblical description, we will have to assume that the amelakites did have a city and paul copan is completely wrong, or that paul copan is right and the bible is completely wrong.
Somehow one way or another, some had to have gone free. Agag, had a descendent still alive to fight Israel another day another way in the book of Esther. And other Amalekites existed for David to be able to pursue them latter in the book of First Samuel. So we should to understand the intructions of the utter destruction of them to have some unrecorded but understood limits.
yes, the limits would have been the ability of the hebrews to carry out the orders of genocide to fulfillment. they simply would not have the resources to chase down every straggler and refugee.
It wasn't genocide. The details of the event would not match in all respects those wars designated in the 20th and 21rst Century as genocide. Though the punishment was harsh we should also compare the Amalekites' defeat to modern designated "genocides" :
"utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. "
genocide: "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group"
it was genocide.
Can I believe every man, woman, and child had been literally exterminated by Saul at the instructions of the prophet Samuel ? Can I assume that for 250 years the survivors had no sheep, oxen or other cattle left after they were all utterly destroyed ?
no, you can't literally believe that. what you must literally believe however, if you consider the bible an accurate source, is that there was an attempted genocide of the amelakite people carried out during the reign of saul, allegedly working under orders from god, as vengeance for some past transgression.
True, concerning that battle.
As a careful student of the Bible I have to always consider not only what was written but what else was written, to get a fullest possible picture.
I am not saying that I know no women or children were killed.
well okay, but if you want to carefully consider the bible, then you must carefully consider that the orders given the hebrews were to slay every man, woman, child and beast and that they at the very least, tried to carry out those orders to fulfillment, excepting the king and beasts.
18 Nov 11
Originally posted by jaywillall things considered, we have different eras, different leadership, different political situations and different social influences during the course of hebrew accounts recorded in the bible. some were brutal xenophobic brutes, others were merciful, reasonable and wise.
All things considered the warfare tackets orgained by God for the Israelites were less "horrific" than those for many typical ancient Near East empires.[/b]
i would say that it was pretty typical of other near east tribes and kingdoms.
19 Nov 11
5 edits
Originally posted by VoidSpirit
i see the point you're trying to make, but it's not working well. bottom line is that we still only have the hebrews side of the story.
the rest of it is just the hebrews trying to inject god into various misadventures that happen to them.
[quote] " The Amalekites attacked the Israelites without apparent provocation as they were travelling during t d to carry out those orders to fulfillment, excepting the king and beasts.
i see the point you're trying to make, but it's not working well. bottom line is that we still only have the hebrews side of the story.
the rest of it is just the hebrews trying to inject god into various misadventures that happen to them.
This criticism seems just the skeptic's inexhaustible capacity to manufacture conspiracy theories. "Anything else is to be believed but the Bible ...".
I don't find it too credible that the Israelite writers would blantantly bear false witness to such incredible accounts and concoct a fictional God who commanded His covenanted people not to bear false witness.
I don't find it credible that they would be driven into idolatry and concoct a fictional God who commanded them not to worship idols, a trangression for which they suffered sorely.
Egocentric national propaganda is not a good explanation of the entire Old Testament, and surely not of the entire Bible.
" The Amalekites attacked the Israelites without apparent provocation as they were travelling during the Exodus (Ex 17:8). "When you were weary and worn out, they met you on your journey and cut off all who were lagging behind" (Dt 25:17-18). " Glenn Miller
inform glenn miller that we only have the hebrew's side of the story. besides, this does not justify the war crimes committed against future generations of amelakites. no act of the amelakites could justify what the hebrews allegedly did to them.
The Hebrews' only I have commented on already.
And what the Amalekites did is conveyed as a revolt against the throne of God. I see no similar outrage concerning their attacking a miraculously evidenced exodus from Egyptian tryranny and power which should have been a sicakially and spiritually positive testimony to the known world.
Furthermore blotting out Amelek's name out from under heaven obviously cannot be taken so literally as to mean that no one would know who they were.
me:
A nations witnesses an act of another nation being led by God out of Egypt, miraculously across the Red Sea, and astoundingly through the wilderness for 40 years only to attack them from behind in a most cowardly way.
I don't think God regarded it only as a tribal dispute though it is mentioned what they did to the tribe. By the time we get to First Samuel God is dealing with a fiercly unrepentant nation.
you:
it doesn't matter how those involved in the events would regard it. in the grand scheme of humanity, it was a petty tribal dispute.
Your "grand scheme" must be of one that excludes God and God's intention to cause a blessing on all the families of the earth through the descendents of Abraham.
You "grand scheme" does not account apparently for God's existence of purpose. So resistence to it does not exist.
yet it was revenge. what we have is a case of tribal memory. the hebrews had some kind of tribal dispute with the amelakites, so they waited until they were strong enough to exact their revenge and used the name of their tribal deity to justify horrible acts of violence.
This seems more conspiracy theory to believe any plausible alternative to what the Bible tells us.
With this bit of accusatory theory, I have to weigh in that elsewhere the SAME God rebuked / punished Hebrews or other nations for going TOO FAR in exacting revenge.
For example, the revenge exacted by the Simeon and Levi for the rape of their sister by a Hittite in Genesis 34. Being enraged they tricked the Hittite men into being circumcised to join with them in faith. Then when the men were sore they attacked and murdered them in revenge.
That affair seems not at all blessed by their God. Jacob's prophetic utterance about Simeon and Levi was not too full of divine admiration for the overreach:
"Simeon and Levi are brothers; Weapons of violence are their swords. Come not into their councel, O my soul; Be not united with their assembly O my glory; For in their anger they slew men, and in their self will they hamstrung oxen.
Cursed be their anger, for it is fierce; and their wrath for it is cruel: I will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel." (Gen. 49:5-7)
I also have to consider that the same God rebuked nations for going too far when He had used them to punish someone. There are a number of instances of this in the minor prophets. Even when sent to punish a people God seems to keep His eye on any over stepping and exessive vindictive attitudes. Solomon informs:
"Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, And do not let your heart exult when he is overthrown; Lest Jehovah see it, and it displease Him, And He turn away His anger from him." (Prov. 24:17)
God rebukes Edom for being too excessive in revenge:
" Thus says Jehovah, Because of threee transgressions of Edom, Indeed, becuse of four, I will not turn away punishment;
Because he pursued his brother with the sword and stifled his compassions; And his anger raged continually, And he kept his overflowing wrath perpetually." (Amos 1:11)
The overall picture I get of God in the Bible is of One who does the right thing at the right time in the right way. I may not be able to easily explain every instance. But the scope of actions of God is wide and varied and it includes times when He rebuked excessive revenge.
Again God's displeasure at the Ammonites going too far in territorial warfare:
"Thus says Jehovah, Because of three transgressions ... I will not turn away the punishment; Because they ripped up the pregnant women of Gilead in order to enlarge their border." (Amos 1:13)
This is the same God. So I have to take your accusations against God in consideration to other evidence of His regulation of man's violence.
That is all I can comment now.
.
20 Nov 11
Originally posted by jaywillnot at all. the criticism is valid considering the hebrews have a tendency to embellish their events, as witnessed by the account of the alleged 210,000 fighting men they were able to raise to fight the amelakites. the actual figures would probably be closer to 2,100 fighting men.
[b]i see the point you're trying to make, but it's not working well. bottom line is that we still only have the hebrews side of the story.
the rest of it is just the hebrews trying to inject god into various misadventures that happen to them.
This criticism seems just the skeptic's inexhaustible capacity to manufacture conspiracy theories. "Anything else is to be believed but the Bible ...".
the statement that we only had the heberws side of the story is both accurate and a valid criticism. civilizations typically don't waylay people without reasonable cause or perceived threat. it seems to me the nomadic hebrews considered amalekite property to be their 'inheritance' and needed to exterminate them to take over and decided the story of "unprovoked" attack many years in the past would be justification enough.
I don't find it too credible that the Israelite writers would blantantly bear false witness to such incredible accounts and concoct a fictional God who commanded His covenanted people not to bear false witness.
fortunately, it doesn't matter that you trust the honesty of israelite writers.
I don't find it credible that they would be driven into idolatry and concoct a fictional God who commanded them not to worship idols, a trangression for which they suffered sorely.
Egocentric national propaganda is not a good explanation of the entire Old Testament, and surely not of the entire Bible.
we're not talking about the entire bible, we're talking about the genocide of the amalekites.
The Hebrews' only I have commented on already.
And what the Amalekites did is conveyed as a revolt against the throne of God. I see no similar outrage concerning their attacking a miraculously evidenced exodus from Egyptian tryranny and power which should have been a sicakially and spiritually positive testimony to the known world.
only the known world doesn't even mention those events. funny how you trust the writings of some wandering nomad barbarians who eventually got around to writing down events passed down by oral traditions, but dismiss those of established civilizations known for accurate and meticulous record keeping.
Furthermore blotting out Amelek's name out from under heaven obviously cannot be taken so literally as to mean that no one would know who they were.
this does nothing to alleviate the moral destitution that came from the hebrew campaign of extermination.
Your "grand scheme" must be of one that excludes God and God's intention to cause a blessing on all the families of the earth through the descendents of Abraham.
You "grand scheme" does not account apparently for God's existence of purpose. So resistence to it does not exist.
my grand scheme of humanity excludes tribal myths. don't forget you're talking about an insignificant tribal deity of an insignificant tribe of people. i don't recognize any claims about plans of god to bless families through the descendents of abraham. such a god would in be an absurdity in the face of creation.
[quote]
yet it was revenge. what we have is a case of tribal memory. the hebrews had some kind of tribal dispute with the amelakites, so they waited until they were strong enough to exact their revenge and used the name of their tribal deity to justify horrible acts of violence.
This seems more conspiracy theory to believe any plausible alternative to what the Bible tells us.
[/quote]
it's not an alternative to what the bible tells us, it's a commentary about what the bible tells us.
With this bit of accusatory theory, I have to weigh in that elsewhere the SAME God rebuked / punished Hebrews or other nations for going TOO FAR in exacting revenge...
different authors, different politics, different... didn't we cover this already?
The overall picture I get of God in the Bible is of One who does the right thing at the right time in the right way. I may not be able to easily explain every instance. But the scope of actions of God is wide and varied and it includes times when He rebuked excessive revenge.
no, the theme in the bible is just do what god tells you to, no more, no less. if you spare when he tells you to murder, he'll be upset. if you murder when he tells you to spare, he'll be upset. get the pattern?
20 Nov 11
8 edits
Originally posted by VoidSpirit
i see the point you're trying to make, but it's not working well. bottom line is that we still only have the hebrews side of the story.
the rest of it is just the hebrews trying to inject god into various misadventures that happen to them.
[quote] " The Amalekites attacked the Israelites without apparent provocation as they were travelling during t d to carry out those orders to fulfillment, excepting the king and beasts.
um, no. the captured king would be used as bait/held for ransom, not the animals.
Okay. A method of warfare was to hold the king as ransom. It is plausible that Agag was such a ransom held and and embellished injected lies about a non-existent deity. But to do this so continually and consistantly throughout the history from the time of Abraham to the time of Malachi seems unlikely. There would have had to be quite a cooperative pact, a passed down tradition to involve writers of 39 books in such a long running hoax.
Concerning nomadic tribes you wrote:
so were the hebrews, yet they still settled down and built cities...or in the case of the hebrews, stole cities built by others.
That is correct. The Bible says God told them to destroy the religious relics down to the ground and burn them up so that no trace of their religions were left. And the cities, if not instructed to destroy, they took for themselves.
going by the biblical description, we will have to assume that the amelakites did have a city and paul copan is completely wrong, or that paul copan is right and the bible is completely wrong.
He like some others who study the history and archeology says that fortresses and garrisons could be discribed as "cities".
"utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. "
genocide: "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group"
I might concede that according to that definition the killing of the Amalakites (partial, since they reappear) might be called genocide.
But that would also include the American Civil War where one Confederate nation and a Union nation sought simultaneously to the "systemitic destruction, in whole or in part of ... [a] national group" against each other.
I think then all wars would then be considered genocides.
Certainly in the book of Esther the Amalekite Haman's plot to have Jews exterminated was a systematic racial and religious genocide. And it could be that God in His providence knew that the long standing hatred the Amalekites for the Jews required some sort of preemptive strike.
In other words, the failure of the Amalekites to destroy the Hebrews in Exodus 17, God knew would give rise to another future attempt, unprovoked. Now God needs the Hebrews in order to bless the whole world according to His promise to Abraham. He could not tolerate a successful extermination of them by the Amalekites. So He acted preemptively to secure His plan for world salvation. This is also a possibility.
no, you can't literally believe that. what you must literally believe however, if you consider the bible an accurate source, is that there was an attempted genocide of the amelakite people carried out during the reign of saul, allegedly working under orders from god, as vengeance for some past transgression.
I believe that God ordered the destruction of those Amalekites in First Samuel 15. And since God had told the Abraham that those who cursed him God would curse, I believe vengence was involved.
God also warned the Jews that He would assist their enemies if they disobeyed Him. And I think the greater bulk of the OT is about God using Israel's enemies to discipline Israel and bring her back to Jehovah.
It is evident that God was not pleased when personal vengence went too far. And that displeasure runs both ways.
It is also evident that what befell the Amalekites, by far, did not befall every and all enemies of Israel. The case of the enemy Ninevah in Jonah is most prominent. God said He took no delight in the death of the wicked but that the wicked would repent. And Jonah is an entire OT book dedicated to that one subject of God's reluctance to punish a nation, to the prophet Jonah's dismay.
I have to take all these details together for form my attitude about the attributes of God in the Bible. Had every dispute between Israel and her enemies resembled the Amalekite affair probably I would have a different consideration of what kind of God is being discribed in the Bible.
Generally concerning this you previously wrote:
... if you want to carefully consider the bible, then you must carefully consider that the orders given the hebrews were to slay every man, woman, child and beast and that they at the very least, tried to carry out those orders to fulfillment, excepting the king and beasts.
I do.
And I suspect individual soldiers had individual attitudes about doing the job. Then that comes down to a finer tuned judgment of each man which God will do by Jesus Christ.
Jesus is the man appointed by God to be the judge of the living and the dead. It may be that individually some carried out God's instructions in one frame of mind and others in another frame of mind.
Even in the killing of a child there could be different heart motives which one day God will bring into light and call man to account for. You know that there are abortions done in one way and there are abortions done another way. On one level it seems it makes not difference. But on a deeper level God knows what is in the heart.
I believe the Final Judge is not you or I by Christ:
"For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them [divine] life, so also the Son gives [divine] life to whom He wills. For neither does the Father judge anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son ... And He gave Him authority to execute judgment because he is the Son of Man." (John 5:21,-22,27)
" ... this [Jesus] is the One who was designated to be the Judge of the living and the dead." (Acts 10:42b)
"Because He [God] has set a day in which He is to judge the world in righteousness by the man whom He has designated, having furnished proof to all by raising Him from the dead." (Acts 17:31)
"In the day when God judges the secrets of men according to my gospel through Jesus Christ" (Rom. 2:16)
" ... Jesus Christ, who is to judge the living and the dead" (2 tim. 4:1)
I include all these New Testement passasges because for me the end of the story is not First Samuel 15. Jesus Christ to me manifests the highest morality on earth in all man's history. And the last resurrection from the dead and subsequent judgment is carried out by this One.
He knows human life and human suffering. He knows obedience to God in not only outward action but deeper in inward motive and heart. While it is not at all easy for me to explain everything done by man or God I believe the last word is that of Christ as God incarnate as a man.
Every Amalekite woman, child, and man, along with each Israeli soldier's life will come under divine examination. Our knowledge is limited. That of God is unlimited. We do not know everything. The Judge will know everything.
And He has warned that some judged peoples of the Old Testament might fair better in the eternal scheme of things than those who more directly rejected the Gospel of Christ:
"But I tell you that it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you [Capernaum]. (Matt. 11:24)
While I am spending time feeling very sorry for the temporal judgment of the Amalekites I spend at least equal time considering eternal and final judgment of all mankind.
It just does not make sense to me that the Judge of the final last judgment is not qualified or not righteous. And I wouldn't know how to begin to make it so that you, VoidSpirit, be assigned the job instead.
You may have the last word in this debate. But will you have the last word period ? This is an argument from authority which is not a strong logical argument, I admit. However, an argument from authority is not necessarily a wrong one, just logically weaker than maybe some other kind of argument.
First Samuel is not the end of the Bible for me. I understand that you are offended by what God ordered there. I don't like it either. But I didn't stop there, shut the book, and decide this God is not worthy of my belief or trust.
I kept reading and arrived at Jesus Christ in the New Testament. At least this helped in seeing a final view of God's heart toward man. Every and all sins of all time were carried up in Himself to His cross, that in the eternal scheme all might be justified unto God for eternal life.
The wisdom and power of such a One gives rise to the expectation that there will be some things done in the 66 books of the Bible I may find difficult to fully comprehend. Different cases call for different reactions from God. And the scope is varied. The Amalekites are on the far end of the disturbing side. By far not all offenders, trangressors, or enemies of God or Israel or the church were handled in the same way.
20 Nov 11
3 edits
Originally posted by VoidSpirit
not at all. the criticism is valid considering the hebrews have a tendency to embellish their events, as witnessed by the account of the alleged 210,000 fighting men they were able to raise to fight the amelakites. the actual figures would probably be closer to 2,100 fighting men.
the statement that we only had the heberws side of the story is both a murder when he tells you to spare, he'll be upset. get the pattern?
not at all. the criticism is valid considering the hebrews have a tendency to embellish their events, as witnessed by the account of the alleged 210,000 fighting men they were able to raise to fight the amelakites. the actual figures would probably be closer to 2,100 fighting men.
I don't know why I should have to accept your opinion on that. I'll look into the number.
It is agreed that some copyists' errors crept in on numbers - ie. how many horses Solomon had.
the statement that we only had the heberws side of the story is both accurate and a valid criticism. civilizations typically don't waylay people without reasonable cause or perceived threat. it seems to me the nomadic hebrews considered amalekite property to be their 'inheritance' and needed to exterminate them to take over and decided the story of "unprovoked" attack many years in the past would be justification enough.
Perhaps you can explain:
1.) the real reason for the dispute between Samuel and Saul.
2.) the real reason for Saul's decline.
3.) the real reason for Saul's suspicion and fear of David
Explain the details of the flow of history from Saul to David. Do you think the story was invented to explain how a shepherd boy not of Saul's family became king instead of Saul's son ?
The moral of the story seems that God desired obedience from the king rather than sacrifice. The moral seems that rebellion was worst that witchcraft. The story forms the basis for the decline of Saul's kingship and the eventual rise of the unlikely David to replace him (with the help of Saul's own son Jonathan).
So I suppose all these things had to be imagined up not only to explain why the Amalekites were conquered but how David became king too ? That is a lot of ongoing fictional soap opera.
me:
I don't find it too credible that the Israelite writers would blantantly bear false witness to such incredible accounts and concoct a fictional God who commanded His covenanted people not to bear false witness.
fortunately, it doesn't matter that you trust the honesty of israelite writers.
I suspect that characteristics of the OT testament make it credible that God is behind the writing. Even though personal style and characteristics are evident, I believe the process of inspiration is there.
Fulfillment of prophecy is another reason why I count the writing as something divine.
me:
we're not talking about the entire bible, we're talking about the genocide of the amalekites.
I named the thread "The "Horrific" God Charge" to encompase the entire Bible or from wherever in the entire Bible the charge my find its point of locus.
only the known world doesn't even mention those events. funny how you trust the writings of some wandering nomad barbarians who eventually got around to writing down events passed down by oral traditions, but dismiss those of established civilizations known for accurate and meticulous record keeping.
What did I dismiss ? And absence of proof is not proof of absence.
And I wager that many things about history you probably believe on not multiple attestation.
me:
Furthermore blotting out Amelek's name out from under heaven obviously cannot be taken so literally as to mean that no one would know who they were.
VS:
this does nothing to alleviate the moral destitution that came from the hebrew campaign of extermination.
You go ahead and assume yourself more moral than God then.
I'll assume that sometimes His actions would be easy to understand and at other times difficult.
my grand scheme of humanity excludes tribal myths.
Yes. It excludes that and includes begging the question that it was fictional myth.
don't forget you're talking about an insignificant tribal deity of an insignificant tribe of people.
Since I never thought that, there is really no possibility of me forgetting it.
i don't recognize any claims about plans of god to bless families through the descendents of abraham. such a god would in be an absurdity in the face of creation.
Fortunately the existence of Jews and thier God has been a blessing to millions for centries. Not everyone thinks the world would be a better place without the Bible.
I dare say even your posture of moral outrage has its enfluence in something probably owing to Judeao/ Christian ethics.
it's not an alternative to what the bible tells us, it's a commentary about what the bible tells us.
Only selectively so, just enough to make your skeptical case.
different authors, different politics, different... didn't we cover this already?
I don't think you and I have discussed the authors of the Bible.
me:
The overall picture I get of God in the Bible is of One who does the right thing at the right time in the right way. I may not be able to easily explain every instance. But the scope of actions of God is wide and varied and it includes times when He rebuked excessive revenge.
VS:
no, the theme in the bible is just do what god tells you to, no more, no less. if you spare when he tells you to murder, he'll be upset. if you murder when he tells you to spare, he'll be upset. get the pattern?
The theme of the Bible is to believe into Christ and Christ Himself becomes our justification and rightoues standing before God. And that He then transforms us into His image for a final corporate expression of God wrought into man in a blended and mingled way. That is the New Jerusalem of Revelation 21 and 22.
The theme also includes the enemy of God resisting this plan at every juncture and in every possible desperate and sometimes ingenius way, all to fail in the end to stop God.
That would include slanders and accusations against man before God by this Advasary, and slanders and accusations about God TO man.
I think you have succumbed to the latter.
20 Nov 11
Originally posted by jaywilli made no claim of consistency throughout the bible here, my speculation of holding agag was limited to agag during the amalekite genocide.
[b]um, no. the captured king would be used as bait/held for ransom, not the animals.
Okay. A method of warfare was to hold the king as ransom. It is plausible that Agag was such a ransom held and and embellished injected lies about a non-existent deity. But to do this so continually and consistantly throughout the history from the time of ...[text shortened]... ooperative pact, a passed down tradition to involve writers of 39 books in such a long running hoax.
That is correct. The Bible says God told them to destroy the religious relics down to the ground and burn them up so that no trace of their religions were left. And the cities, if not instructed to destroy, they took for themselves.
well, i'm glad we settled that account. your insertion of what god allegedly wanted out of the deal was not necessary, only the facts count.
He like some others who study the history and archeology says that fortresses and garrisons could be discribed as "cities".
yes, cities could have fortresses and garrisons. that was quiet a norm with walled city-states. the argument you used however was that the amalekite city which the hebrews invaded didn't have women and children (non-combatants) within it. i showed that this was not the case.
I might concede that according to that definition the killing of the Amalakites (partial, since they reappear) might be called genocide.
partial since they reappear? well where are they now? looks like the hebrews finished the job later on.
but that point is moot. someone should inform the UN right away that if there are survivors of genocide, we'll have to call it 'partial' genocide. this will require modifying some history books.
But that would also include the American Civil War where one Confederate nation and a Union nation sought simultaneously to the "systemitic destruction, in whole or in part of ... [a] national group" against each other.
I think then all wars would then be considered genocides.
there was no such systematic destruction of a national group in the civil war. it seems that you're having difficulties understanding the concept of a genocide. there was no plan to deliberately destroy all of the 'confederate' people.
Certainly in the book of Esther the Amalekite Haman's plot to have Jews exterminated was a systematic racial and religious genocide. And it could be that God in His providence knew that the long standing hatred the Amalekites for the Jews required some sort of preemptive strike.
the book of ester is a story book. it's not a historical accounting of anything.
I believe that God ordered the destruction of those Amalekites in First Samuel 15. And since God had told the Abraham that those who cursed him God would curse, I believe vengence was involved.
well good. now if you believe they also murdered women and children, we can end this discussion.
God also warned the Jews that He would assist their enemies if they disobeyed Him.
yes, but we already know that the biblegod is morally bankrupt.
And I think the greater bulk of the OT is about God using Israel's enemies to discipline Israel and bring her back to Jehovah.
or a way for a confused, superstitious people to describe why bad things are happening to them.
I have to take all these details together for form my attitude about the attributes of God in the Bible. Had every dispute between Israel and her enemies resembled the Amalekite affair probably I would have a different consideration of what kind of God is being discribed in the Bible.
oh, and what is the cut-off point for you? one genocide (or attempted genocide) is good enough for me and the bible certainly has more than one.
I do.
And I suspect individual soldiers had individual attitudes about doing the job. Then that comes down to a finer tuned judgment of each man which God will do by Jesus Christ.
great, but leave jesus out of it, he doesn't come into the equation until much later, and in a completely different religion.
Even in the killing of a child there could be different heart motives which one day God will bring into light and call man to account for. You know that there are abortions done in one way and there are abortions done another way. On one level it seems it makes not difference. But on a deeper level God knows what is in the heart.
let's keep this to the discussion of god ordering the hebrews to savage the amalekites
I include all these New Testement passasges because for me the end of the story is not First Samuel 15. Jesus Christ to me manifests the highest morality on earth in all man's history. And the last resurrection from the dead and subsequent judgment is carried out by this One.
it's a failure of your character to elevate such a despicable being to the highest level of morality. the devils advocate deserves no better standing than the devil himself.
While I am spending time feeling very sorry for the temporal judgment of the Amalekites I spend at least equal time considering eternal and final judgment of all mankind.
any kind of eternal and final judgement for mankind is immoral.
It just does not make sense to me that the Judge of the final last judgment is not qualified or not righteous. And I wouldn't know how to begin to make it so that you, VoidSpirit, be assigned the job instead.
it's simple. i would not reduce my moral standards to the level of dirt to become the arbiter of final judgement. my mind could not abide with such a level of sickness.
The wisdom and power of such a One gives rise to the expectation that there will be some things done in the 66 books of the Bible I may find difficult to fully comprehend. Different cases call for different reactions from God. And the scope is varied. The Amalekites are on the far end of the disturbing side. By far not all offenders, trangressors, or enemies of God or Israel or the church were handled in the same way.[/b]
the fate of the amalekites is just an insignificant footnote in the history of injustice perpetrated by the psychotic god of the bible. the bigger crime lies in the future of what this morally destitute beast and his ill gotten son plan to do with humanity.
20 Nov 11
Originally posted by jaywillplease do look it up. alexander conquered asia with an army roughly 55,000 strong with another 30,000 in supporting positions (non-combative).
I don't know why I should have to accept your opinion on that. I'll look into the number.
It is agreed that some copyists' errors crept in on numbers - ie. how many horses Solomon had.
i think the hebrews just liked to add an extra couple of zeros to their number figures, to make their insignificant little tribe appear more powerful than it was. in reality, the big nations barely noticed the israelites and just trampled through it on their way to somewhere else.
Perhaps you can explain:
1.) the real reason for the dispute between Samuel and Saul.
2.) the real reason for Saul's decline.
3.) the real reason for Saul's suspicion and fear of David
such things are irrelevant to this discussion. when i say we only have the hebrew side of the story, that is a significant factor. no historical record outside the book of hebrew myths exists to support that these events ever took place and even the archeological evidence is usually against it.
The moral of the story ...
yes, this is a good way of putting it. the moral of the story... places the entire thing in the correct perspective.
So I suppose all these things had to be imagined up not only to explain why the Amalekites were conquered but how David became king too ? That is a lot of ongoing fictional soap opera.
yes, quiet clever, but i've read better drama in the greek myths.
I suspect that characteristics of the OT testament make it credible that God is behind the writing. Even though personal style and characteristics are evident, I believe the process of inspiration is there.
i find better quality of inspiration in shakespeare. and there go our opinions on what qualifies as inspired. let's drop this argument.
Fulfillment of prophecy is another reason why I count the writing as something divine.
no such thing has occurred.
I named the thread "The "Horrific" God Charge" to encompase the entire Bible or from wherever in the entire Bible the charge my find its point of locus.
and the charges laid against god can be found dispersed throughout the entire bible and all the way through to the end game. they paint a picture of a very disturbed, corrupted and insane being toying with human lives.
What did I dismiss ? And absence of proof is not proof of absence.
you implied that other nations had witnessed the power of god. if such a thing happened, there would have been some passing mention of it in their records. since there are none, you must assume that everyone else is being dishonest and only the hebrews are being honest with their accounting of events.
And I wager that many things about history you probably believe on not multiple attestation.
you would lose that wager. i believe nothing written in history. i only use historical writings to set things into perspective.
You go ahead and assume yourself more moral than God then.
oh yes, but let's be more specific here. i consider myself far superior in moral standards than the biblegod, but i would not presume to have moral superiority over god.
I'll assume that sometimes His actions would be easy to understand and at other times difficult.
his actions speak for themselves.
Yes. It excludes that and includes begging the question that it was fictional myth.
in the grand scheme of humanity, it does not qualify as anything more than a myth. there are many varied stories in many different cultures, most of them from cultures that have been more significant than the hebrews.
I dare say even your posture of moral outrage has its enfluence in something probably owing to Judeao/ Christian ethics.
jewish ethics stem from tribal barbarism. christian ethics are a marriage of eastern philosophy with jewish barbarism. the influence of my ethics has its roots in eastern philosophy.
I don't think you and I have discussed the authors of the Bible.
no, but i did discuss that different times would have different influences based on various factors, already mentioned.
I think you have succumbed to the latter.
coming from someone who glorifies and worships the bible beast, this is not unexpected.
20 Nov 11
Originally posted by sumydidno, my complaint is with the pathetic creatures that glorify, elevate and worship such destitution.
What a pathetic display. I picture a little whiny brat throwing a full-fledged temper tantrum, on the ground kicking and screaming.
You sure have a lot of hate welled up inside for a being you don't even believe in. Very enigmatic, but, not in an intriguing or interesting way.
20 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by VoidSpirit
i made no claim of consistency throughout the bible here, my speculation of holding agag was limited to agag during the amalekite genocide.
[quote]
That is correct. The Bible says God told them to destroy the religious relics down to the ground and burn them up so that no trace of their religions were left. And the cities, if not instructed to dest is morally destitute beast and his ill gotten son plan to do with humanity.
i made no claim of consistency throughout the bible here, my speculation of holding agag was limited to agag during the amalekite genocide.
Your accusation below is about the biblegod. I consider your accusation in light of the whole Bible.
well, i'm glad we settled that account. your insertion of what god allegedly wanted out of the deal was not necessary, only the facts count.
Quote me where I said otherwise. And His intention to put down the revolt "against the throne of God" is necessary to the accomplishment of His will.
yes, cities could have fortresses and garrisons. that was quiet a norm with walled city-states. the argument you used however was that the amalekite city which the hebrews invaded didn't have women and children (non-combatants) within it. i showed that this was not the case.
I don't think I went that far to say I know that no women and children died. If you check past posts by me you'll find the quotation where I said I did not know that now women and children were killed.
I believe that they may have been those of combatants.
partial since they reappear? well where are they now? looks like the hebrews finished the job later on.
I don't know where the Amalakites, Jebusites, Amorites, and Hittites are now.
Perhaps extensive ethnology could tell us something.
there was no such systematic destruction of a national group in the civil war. it seems that you're having difficulties understanding the concept of a genocide. there was no plan to deliberately destroy all of the 'confederate' people.
I think the results of Gettysburg and Antetum rise to your definition of genocide.
the book of ester is a story book. it's not a historical accounting of anything.
On your say so, I have no reason to just accept that statement.
yes, but we already know that the biblegod is morally bankrupt. [/quoe]
Jesus Christ is morally bankrupt also ? You said "biblegod" not "FirstSamuelgod".
[quote]
or a way for a confused, superstitious people to describe why bad things are happening to them.
If they are given totally to superstition then I have to figure out why is it that there is such a continued tension between faith and superstition in the record.
It doesn't read like a people overcome by superstition. It reads like a people wavering between faith and encroaching superstitions of all kinds of tempting kinds.
Anyway, below I think you said that you are abhored at the biblegod but not at god.
What actions or words or anything has the god you do believe in done ? You see it may be easy to be in 100% agreement all the time with a "god" that never said or did anything?
Do you mean that in everything that the god you believe in has acted you always are in complete agreement with ?
If this god has no record of moving in history then it is easy to say such a god never differed in any way from your personal opinion.
great, but leave jesus out of it, he doesn't come into the equation until much later, and in a completely different religion.
It is the same God. The God in First Samuel is the God incarnate in the Gospel of Luke.
Your phrase "biblegod" to me means the God in the entire Bible.
And the backround solidly laid for His hatred of sin and the dangers of it causes the redemptive death and resurrection of the Son for the sins of the world to be all the more impressive.
It is because I see His judgment is so fierce on occasion in the OT that I can appreciate what it meant for God to judge the sins of all mankind in all time in one act redemptive death of Christ.
20 Nov 11
Originally posted by jaywill
[quote]
well, i'm glad we settled that account. your insertion of what god allegedly wanted out of the deal was not necessary, only the facts count.
Quote me where I said otherwise. And His intention to put down the revolt "against the throne of God" is necessary to the accomplishment of His will.
[/quote]
by that statement, i was referring to your hesitation to believe that the hebrews would do something as nasty as killing the women and children. your entire argument revolved around the concept that there were no non-combatants in the city.
[quote]
yes, cities could have fortresses and garrisons. that was quiet a norm with walled city-states. the argument you used however was that the amalekite city which the hebrews invaded didn't have women and children (non-combatants) within it. i showed that this was not the case.
I don't think I went that far to say I know that no women and children died. If you check past posts by me you'll find the quotation where I said I did not know that now women and children were killed.
I believe that they may have been those of combatants.
[/quote]
of course they would have been those of the "combatants." they would be trying to protect their wives, children and property from the invading hordes after all.
if instead you are trying to make the argument that you don't know women and children were killed, they i could extend it for you and say that you don't know that anybody was killed. either you believe what the bible says on the subject, or you don't. the bible says everyone was killed, with some exceptions.
I think the results of Gettysburg and Antetum rise to your definition of genocide.
no, it wouldn't. those were battles in which soldiers were murdering each other. there was no plan by either side to exterminate the populations of the opposing nations.
lincoln did not order the armies of the us to go to the south and kill every man, woman and child there. he ordered them to defeat the southern armies and end their ability to wage war so that the confederated states could be re-integrated into the usa.
On your say so, I have no reason to just accept that statement.
i would not expect you to. needless to say, the historical inaccuracies render ruth useless as a historical accounting. of course, much of the rest of the bible can fall into the same category...
Jesus Christ is morally bankrupt also ? You said "biblegod" not "FirstSamuelgod".
completely. he may be even more so than the biblegod of the old testament. the mad biblegod of the old testament was content with murdering those he was displeased with. jesus christ and his father want to condemn them to eternal torture.
If they are given totally to superstition then I have to figure out why is it that there is such a continued tension between faith and superstition in the record.
it's not a tension between faith and superstition. it's a tension between superstition of one model vs. superstition of a different model. the people back then, as now, were just confused as to which god they should be worshiping.
Anyway, below I think you said that you are abhored at the biblegod but not at god.
What actions or words or anything has the god you do believe in done ? You see it may be easy to be in 100% agreement all the time with a "god" that never said or did anything?
don't read too much into it. i don't believe in any particular god. the implication there is that i don't believe that the hebrews have a monopoly on defining god, nor that they know anything about a real god that might exist.
what i find abhorrent is their particular depiction of god. what insanities people are willing to glorify and worship is a reflection of their own character, their soul. i see no difference between people who glorify and worship saddam hussein, mao, stalin, and biblegod: they all worship destitute beings of questionable sanity and deplorable moral characteristics.
22 Nov 11
6 edits
Originally posted by VoidSpirit[quote]
well, i'm glad we settled that account. your insertion of what god allegedly wanted out of the deal was not necessary, only the facts count.
Quote me where I said otherwise. And His intention to put down the revolt [b]"against the throne of God" is necessary to the accomplishment of His will.
[/quote]
by that state itute beings of questionable sanity and deplorable moral characteristics.[/b]
by that statement, i was referring to your hesitation to believe that the hebrews would do something as nasty as killing the women and children. your entire argument revolved around the concept that there were no non-combatants in the city.
That was not my entire argument. Whether children and women were killed or were not I still regard God as doing the righteous thing at the right time in the right way.
Before I come to First Samuel there are quite a few acts of mercy, patience, and longsuffering of God toward sinners. For example:
God forbides that vengence should be taken on Cain (Gen. 4:14,15).
God has Noah preach warning for 200 years before the flood (2 Pet. 2:5)
God tolerates the iniquity of the Amorites for 400 years before judging (Gen.15:16).
God rescues whole city of Sodom from kidnapping through Abraham (Gen. 14:1-17)
God has mercy on Abimelech's kingdom though he takes Abraham's wife (Gen. 20:-18)
God mercilly allows Egyptians to the Exodus so that they go out "a mixed multitude" (Exo. 12:38).
Before I come to the Amalekites I see God's mercy displayed in previous instances. So I trust that even as harsh as the defeat of the Amalekites was it must have been the appropriate judgment.
Samuel's words to king Agag, whom Saul had spared, indicate that he was getting what he had dished out to others:
"Just as your sword has made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women." (1 Sam. 15:33)
of course they would have been those of the "combatants." they would be trying to protect their wives, children and property from the invading hordes after all.
They would do just as some of them witnessed the Hebrews trying to protect their wives and children in Exodus 17.
if instead you are trying to make the argument that you don't know women and children were killed, they i could extend it for you and say that you don't know that anybody was killed. either you believe what the bible says on the subject, or you don't. the bible says everyone was killed, with some exceptions.
According to First Samuel only king Agag was left. And with the execution of Agag by Samuel the partially completed job assigned to Saul was completed.
After this we see Amalekites latter. And one running to tell David of Saul's defeat must indicate some amount of assimilation of Amalekites with Hebrews was likely (2 Sam.1: 1-10)
Since Agag had a Agagite descendent in the book of Esther, I figure there must be some unspoken limitations to the execution of the Amalekites by Saul. God said that He would have war with Amalek from generation to generation. War with Amalek may not mean every Amalekite was killed but only that their culture would be defeated by God and God's chosen people.
I also do not lose sight of the fact that the eventual goal of God was to bless all the families of the earth. There is no outrage from the "horrific God" skeptics that a peoples could be utilized to prevent God's blessing all of the families of the earth.
no, it wouldn't. those were battles in which soldiers were murdering each other. there was no plan by either side to exterminate the populations of the opposing nations.
The definition you supplied of genocide I think would include what occured at Gettysburg and other brutal Civil War battles. But I cannot write and review that definition you gave at the same time. As I recall "population" was not the only qualifier.
The fact of the matter is that completion of the task given to Saul was performed by the slaying of king Agag. Apparently a portion of the population of the Amalekites remained.
What I don't see is Samuel killing Agag and then commanding that any and all existing Amalekites be sought out and rounded up for similar execution.
lincoln did not order the armies of the us to go to the south and kill every man, woman and child there. he ordered them to defeat the southern armies and end their ability to wage war so that the confederated states could be re-integrated into the usa.
And when Saul "came to the city of the Amalekites" (1 Sam. 15:5) it appears to be singular in number. Now if only Agag was left and the job was finished by Samuel with Agag's execution, then we would expect no more mention of Amalekites.
Since they appear latter and one seems to be an assimilated one into the Hebrew culture, the instructions given to Saul must have some limitations.
After Saul's partially finished assignment, God says "I repent that I made Saul king, for he has tirned back from following Me and has not fulfilled My words." (1 Sam. 15:11)
If when Samuel finishes the job hacking Agag to pieces, he also had failed to do what God had commanded, then similar words of regret should have been uttered by God concerning not only Saul but the prophet Samuel as well.
God did say that He would have war with Amalek from generation to generation. This defeat of the "city" was an apparent strategic battle in that warfare of God against Amalek. And I think that it is the culture of Amalek that God intended to totally defeat.
In a similar was it was the Confederate culture that Lincoln charged the Union army to defeat. Was it bloody ? Yes. And so was the attack of the Amalekites in First Samuel 15.
As there were some confederates left so were there some Amalekites left.
i would not expect you to. needless to say, the historical inaccuracies render ruth useless as a historical accounting. of course, much of the rest of the bible can fall into the same category...
There may be sections which you regard as useless as historical accountings. That does not mean they did not occur. And since God's priorities are the feeding and building of faith these true events are useful to His economy.
I am convinced that God's ordained way that we approach and contact Him subjectively and experiencially is through faith and not science. Therefore it is understandable that in some things we simply have no other way to take what was recorded except with faith.
Science leaves man much to boast and brag about. Faith leaves man humble with nothing to boast or brag about.
As it stands there is SOME historical attestation to the truth of the Bible. Not as much as the curious mind would have, but there is some. Ie. the "pavement" which Luke says that Jesus was tried upon before Pilate was thought not to exist for years, rendering the Gospel of Luke suspect. Then one day that "pavement" was discovered.
So sit tight. Perhaps some more historical varification of Esther may appear. But God's book is not simply to tickle man's curiosity. It is a book of life to draw man close to the living God by faith. And I count it as true in the facts it records.
Jesus Christ is morally bankrupt also ? You said "biblegod" not "FirstSamuelgod".
completely. he may be even more so than the biblegod of the old testament. the mad biblegod of the old testament was content with murdering those he was displeased with. jesus christ and his father want to condemn them to eternal torture.
I don't trust the mind of a person who holds Jesus as morally bankrupt.
And I gave some examples of God's mercy towards those who He was displeased with. They testify that He is a merciful God. The offerings and sacrifices also were for the atonement of transgressors of every type.
They were types, shadows, symbols of the Christ to come. And in His death justification for all those trangressors is secured for those who believe into Christ.
As for eternal damnation, you go with your leader. If you are in Christ you share His glorious destiny. If you refuse to be put by God in Christ you go with your leader and share Satan's miserable destiny.
The eternal punishment was not made for man but for the devil and his angels. If you refuse to be saved in Christ you go with the devil and his angels.
" ... Go away from Me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matt. 25:41)
You see? The eternal fire was prepared not for man but for the devil and his angels. To not be saved in Christ is to insist on joining the Devil's rebellion.
it's not a tension between faith and superstition. it's a tension between superstition of one model vs. superstition of a different model. the people back then, as now, were just confused as to which god they should be worshiping.
We still have Jesus Christ in history as quite a convincing testimony. The second most qualified person to say he is God become a man doesn't come close.
The Old Testament was good for Him so I count that it must be good. As I said earlier, of all people QUALIFIED to criticize God of the Old Testament, Jesus is most in a position to do so. He refered to God as His Father and as Righteous - "Righteous Father, though the world has not known You, yet I have known You ...".
At the same time Jesus was not shy to make His words supercede those of the Old Testament when He needed to.
"You have heard that is was said of the ancients ... BUT I SAY TO YOU ..."
He did make His words transcend those spoken in the Law of Moses. But He never taught us that God was evil. He said there is one good only ... God.
I regard the integrity of Christ beyond reproach. I trust Him in His evaluation of the Bible's God, Whom He taught was His Father.