Originally posted by jaywill
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.
that is a failure of your character.
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).
delayed judgement is no mercy, it's also irrelevant. if i help an old lady across the street in the morning and murder her at night, my earlier kindness is meaningless.
They would do just as some of them witnessed the Hebrews trying to protect their wives and children in Exodus 17.
none of them would have been witness to that event, even if it did occur as the hebrews claim.
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.
there was no limitation. the amalekites were hunted to extinction, with the survivors finished off later on by a savage band of jews who stole what land they had left: 1 chr 4:43
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.
what do you believe to be blessings from this mad god you worship?
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.
no sir. the definition of genocide does not apply to what occurred at gettysburg, nor of civil war in general though some civil wars do have genocide occurrences.
one can however argue for a case of genocide in the treatment of the american natives by the invading settlers and their progeny.
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.
some escaped the hebrew savagery for a while, only to be finished off later. when their mad god gives an order...they follow up. especially when there is some rich land to be gained in the deal.
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.
only because you haven't read all of the bible. i will snip off your long winded justification for the murderous acts based on speculation that's not consistent with what's written in the bible.
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.
in the end, you're left with another alleged important historical accounting that only the hebrews seem to have recorded. i'm sorry, but the evidence in the bible indicates the bloodthirsty lust of extermination the hebrews held towards the amalekites. any negative claims they have to make concerning the amalekite people are subject to suspicion, and when they make historical errors in their accounting, it lends even more credence to the theory that they invented the entire episode.
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.
no faith is necessary in identifying the fact that the biblegod ordered the hebrews to murder women and children and exterminate an entire people to take their lands and that the savage hebrews carried out this dastardly mandate to fruition.
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.
of course there is some historical attestation to the bible. there is some historical attestation to the illiad as well, and there was some historical attestation to the fictional novel that was set in new york that i finished reading a month ago.
So sit tight. Perhaps some more historical varification of Esther may appear. But God's book is not simply to tickle man's curiosity.
that will be difficult since there is already historical verification of esther, only it proves that esther got the facts wrong.
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.
it does nothing of the sort. it's just another book that justifies murder, but at least this time, they spared the women and children. nice of them. looks like they learned to be more civilized.
I don't trust the mind of a person who holds Jesus as morally bankrupt.
that's you're prerogative. i don't trust the mind of a person who would worship a being slated to condemn uncounted souls to eternal torment and damnation for some alleged finite crimes committed in a short time of life on earth.
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.
mercy and eternal damnation are mutually exclusive. your god is not merciful.
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.
this is all nonsense since it must be taken on faith. there can be no rejection or acceptance of some being that allegedly existed in antiquity. it's utter absurdity to think that a god who will condemn people to eternal damnation for rejecting some ridiculous fable from a story book has any semblance of mercy or good judgement.
We still have Jesus Christ in history as quite a convincing testimony.
his testimony is not at all convincing and his history is doubtful at best.
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.
and that is another failure of your character. no being is above reproach, not even the one at the very top of the food chain.