Questions about the God of the Old Testament

[_Hoops]

The answer for any decent human being is a resolute 'no.'

If you have the morals of a cockroach, you might come up with some other answer.

Then you are either a liar or you haven't thought it through. I'm equally convinced of both.

[_Buffalo]

The answer for any decent human being is a resolute 'no.'

If you have the morals of a cockroach, you might come up with some other answer.

Then you are either a liar or you haven't thought it through. I'm equally convinced of both.

Are you a cockroach, then?

[_huckelberry]

Is there any circumstances in which the slaughter of children is morally acceptable?

If the answer is yes, repeat that to yourself. I believe in certain circumstances the slaughter of children is morally acceptable. Do you understand why some people might take exception to that? Do understand why someone might be offended by that? Do you understand why some people might refuse to believe that?

'I don't understand how anyone can believe anything as hideously, wickedly immoral as that or even imply it.'

I suppose that clear judgement would explain why in the last war the United States engaged in, come to think of it that is the current war, the leader of Iraq was attacked by extirmination of his extend family men women children and babies. This attack failed to include Saddam as he left prematurely. So is the morality tied to the number of babies?

War is hell. It is all about killing people.

[_huckelberry]

So why did the Amalekites get killed? Those of you who do not actually believe in God should be clear enough to not use any God told the Isrealites to kill them sort of reason. (actually it appears that a wider variety of people than just Isrealites decided it was a good idea). Unbelievers do not have a god to lead or mislead these people. There must have been some other reason for Amalekite unpopularity.

Do you have evidence for a swift genocide against the Amalekites outside of the Old Testament?

No.
I did not suggest that I did.

[_Buffalo]

Is there any circumstances in which the slaughter of children is morally acceptable?

If the answer is yes, repeat that to yourself. I believe in certain circumstances the slaughter of children is morally acceptable. Do you understand why some people might take exception to that? Do understand why someone might be offended by that? Do you understand why some people might refuse to believe that?

'I don't understand how anyone can believe anything as hideously, wickedly immoral as that or even imply it.'

I suppose that clear judgement would explain why in the last war the United States engaged in, come to think of it that is the current war, the leader of Iraq was attacked by extirmination of his extend family men women children and babies. This attack failed to include Saddam as he left prematurely. So is the morality tied to the number of babies?

War is hell. It is all about killing people.

You're quoting me, but I didn't say that, although I do agree with it.

[_Hoops]

Are you a cockroach, then?

Only if you're a dullard.

[_Buffalo]

Are you a cockroach, then?

Only if you're a dullard.

I'm not a dullard. But apparently you're a moral relativist cockroach. :)

[_SteelHead]

Howdy Frank,
I'll see you popsci decay article and raise you one peer reviewed astro physics refutation.

http://donuts.berkeley.edu/papers/EarthSun.pdf

[_cksalmon]

Saying that you don't know why God killed infants is a terrible concession to make. 'God kill infants for unknown and unexplainable reasons.'

I don't believe punting to ignorance to avoid difficult questions is a good strategy, either, Stormy.

If there is a good reason to do something as barbaric as killing infants, why not tell us?

Would considering them instances of really late-term abortion help?

On a more serious note, this thread took off over the weekend. I hope to read it through tonight.

[_huckelberry]

I cannot imagine any way that would have happened except that the group had been sufficiently violent that the people living in the region thought saftey required their removal. If that was not the case nobody would have done it. It should be noted that Saul was trying to turn an area of seriously disunified people into a unified political group. People were willing to unite in common cause against this enemy, Amalikites. I do not think that would have worked unless the enemy was seen by all of those people as a serious threat.

So the only way to neutralize this threat was genocide?

I do not know exactly. I would suspect some people could be left safely. In fact as the people reappear later they were not all destroyed. Is it odd that that fact is not a part of the story with Saul? Saul and his forces do not seem to have a problem with killing what ever portion of that group of people they came into conflict with. It was killing sheep cattle and the king that Saul had trouble with. The story is told to reflect on what priorities Saul had. He did not wish to get rid of a king. I read that as a reflection of his loyalty. His loyality was in favor of special position (kingship)and plunder.