When Pity can be downfall

I react to First Samuel 15 that I trust God that there are some unknown things which called for this total destruction.


"Of all the children alive tonight, would anyone like to bear the responsibility to decide which one should continue to live and which one should give up his or her life tonight?"

why is there a choice in the first place?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since the fall of Adam, when he stepped over the line warning him that he was not TOTALLY autonomous, sin and death have entered into the world.

During this temporary time of the disarray of the original order, it became necessary on a couple of limited occasions, for God to kill. Sin and death is killing them. But there are some recorded times when God expedited the killing in a total way.

I derive great benefit from these stories. When I turn the matter of being conquered within by Jesus Christ. I notice that sometimes my natural pity puts up a fierce battle against the spreading Spirit of Christ.

I have an experienced pioneering Christian brother - Paul. And he tells me that I have to get a vision that I have been crucified with Christ. Even "the best" and "the choicest" of things of the fallen man God will replace with His Son.

This is the chief thing I get from the story of Saul sparing king Agag and saving some of the things devoted to destruction to disobediently offer them to serve God.

yes, who needs to be honest in debating when you can make crap up, assign it to the other guy, then dismantle that (while patting yourself on the back for being awesome).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I gave you three alternatives I could adopt. Briefly -

1.) It didn't happen and Samuel lied.

2.) It happened and it shows God is evil.

3.) It happened and I am short of insight into why some of the details were so drastic.

I told you that I take the third view. That means basically I trust God.

If I misrepresented your position, I apologize. I assume it is either option 1 or option 2. That is either there is this LIE insidiously inserted among the other truths about God's actions or you choose option 2 - it occurred and God cannot be trusted to be as God should be -

IE. A defective Ultimate Supreme Being.

If you do not take that option (#2) then I suppose you take the view that Scripture cannot be trusted. Lies of the most damning type are libelously inserted in the record of an otherwise good Supreme Being's actions.


for the thousandth time: i don't distrust god, i distrust the guy who wrote those horrible pieces of garbage that are certain parts of the OT. i don't believe for one second those are real.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, you have apparently said this more than once. I'll try to remember.

God, of whom you learn about almost entirely from the Bible, has had His character maligned by this incorrect record of the Amalekite affair.

The writer of First Samuel is the guy you think lied on God, invented this false story, inserted among the other things about God which you approve of, and has messed up the Scriptures.

I don't think that is the way I will go though. A lot of little things don't add up.

For example - if Samuel had wanted to portray ALL non-Israelites as worthy of total termination - men, women, children, animals, why would he write that Saul warned the Kenites to escape the coming battle?

"And Saul said to the Kenites, Go, depart; go down from among the Amalekites; otherwise, I will destroy you with them; for you showed kindness to all the children of Israel when they came up out of Egypt. And the Kenites departed from among the Amalekites." ( 1 Sam. 15:6)

If there was a national self serving bit of propoganda being written that all non-Israelites were worthy of complete slaughter, he could have left that contrary detail out of the record.

There are some difficult places in the Bible. But for me they have the ring of authenticity. What the writer seems to want to communicate in the story is that God considered Saul's stubbornness and presumption as bad as witchcraft.

And Samuel said, Does Jehovah delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the voice of Jehovah?

Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, And to heed, than the fat of rams.

For rebellion is like the sin of divination, And insubornidation is like idolatry and teraphim.

Because you have rejected the word of Jehovah, He also has rejected you from being king." (1 Sam. 15:22,23)

The writer's point is that God wants obedience more than sanctimony. Even if your whole being cries out that THIS sanctimony is the best and the choicest.

And aside from the Son of God Himself no human who ever lived in 100% absolute for the will of God.

Jesus, the Son of God, was absolute for obedience, subordination, heeding His Father's command. The rest of us have some "Saul" in us. And we lose the divine kingship on these grounds. We lose the divine authority vested in man at this point.

Adam lost his divinely ordained dominion.
Saul also lost his on the same grounds - rebellion.


In my view, god is still the benevolent creator who sent his only son to teach us (not to die for us, but to live)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll save comment until latter.