How do you explain 1st Samuel 15 3?

Of course, innocent people are sometimes harmed during war. Some examples of that would be Palestinian civilians being bombed in the Israel conflict, the Japanese civilians being bombed in Hiroshima, etc. But why would God want Saul to internationally kill the Amalekite women and children? The Israelites wiping out the Amalekite civilians in war wasnt just an unfortunate side effect of warfare like civilians dying in bombings. It was a direct order from God. God wanted to punish Amalek for attacking Israel, but why did God want Israel to punish the innocents living among the Amalekite army?

Many Bible verses imply that God does not punish the innocent for the sins of the guilty. So why did he punish the Amalekite women and children?

(Deuteronomy 24:16)--"Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin."
(Ezekiel 18:20)--"The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself."

Some have argued that the "destroy all people" was just rhetoric exaggeration used in ancient writings, but God was upset with King Saul for not destroying all of the Amalekite people (he left their cattle and king alive) as he commanded. So the verse was literal. How do you explain it? If King Saul was alive today, what he did would be considered a war crime.

 

You assume a fact not in evidence, as any race God deemed it good to exterminate was presumably sufficiently corrupt that its leaders would have killed any innocents themselves.

 

When the allies bombed, purposely, civilians in Germany during WW2---it wasn't a war crime. It was war....and the purpose was to demoralize and defeat the enemy.

When I read the Old Testament, I come to know that war is hell. I also know that when we conduct war with the intent of no collateral damage---or excessive focus on no collateral damage---we won't win. We will lose.

 

But why did God want Israel to wipe out the Amalekite women and children? What was the reason?

 

can you say such a thing while looking squarely in a mirror?

- - - Updated - - -

didn't answer the question. WHY did the women and children have to die? specifically - since god was so specific that they should

 

It was to prevent future reprisals against them. As long as their enemies remained they could always come back and retaliate. This was nipping it in the bud so to speak.

 

There's an even less ambiguous verse later, in Samuel 2. David covets another man's wife. He sleeps with her and gets her pregnant, then has the husband killed. God is irate; so what does He do? Kills the unborn baby.

Defend that. Please.

 

Since we don't know the child's post mortem destiny, there is nothing that requires defending.

 

The Law applied only to the Israelites/Hebrews/Jews. They could treat the Gentiles like dirt and they did.

 

At least the defenders don't go say cuz god is all loving and caring.

 

God demands obedience. It's quite possible that God would have stopped Saul, by
knowing Saul's heart and his greedy self centered ego. Saul didn't do what he was
told to do and suffered for it.

 

i am not futuristic so i don't know
but thanks for the post

 

I don't know. I assume because it was the way to irradicate the culture, which was a threat. Usually women and ;children were assimilated. Perhaps this time that wasn't the best option.

 

how does one get to a place where such a thing seems quite acceptable?

that's some scary sheet

 

KILLING children is a BETTER option?

I feel bad for you

 

The firstborn of Egypt during the time of Moses would probably disagree with your claim here.

 

Its an interesting question... but only if you take scripture as literal history.. Its not .. Its a cocked up history of the Hebrews.

 

What do you know about the Amalekites?

 

Remember, their belief in the Bible makes Christians more moral than atheists. In their morality, when the great dictator in the sky tells you to do something, it must be moral.

If any of them received a command from their god to rape and murder children, that command must be moral.

 

Ah, a nice bit of rhetorical judo. Since we don't know the child's destiny, and God does, presumably God killing the unborn child was just fine.

One problem: The Bible verse makes it absolutely clear that the purpose was to punish David. Here's 2 Samuel 13:


Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.”

Nathan replied, “The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for the Lord, the son born to you will die.”


There's no shading or ambiguity there. Because David showed contempt for God, God killed his son.

I await your justification.

 

I didn't say that, I merely noted that without that knowledge there is no basis for an accusation against God.

How is that a problem?

 

I reckon that there were Republican/Israelite propagandists around 3000 years ago and that the Israelites simply wanted somebody else's land. When you use the first person "I" for God, you can turn people any way you want them to turn.

 

There is no evidence for the Hebrews ever being in Egypt, therefore no attacks by Amalekites in the Negev during an 'Exodus'. The Exodus is an impossibility. Think about it sensibly. If the approx. 2 million Hebrews were in the desert for forty years it would be a logistics nightmare. Water out of a rock to supply 2m people and herds of animals. 2m people - a line 10 breast getting water? before the last in the queue reached the water they would have been long dead. It would need a lake - one that could be moved as they moved.

The Amalekites - wiped out by Saul, and yet they reappear later.

When the Hebrews left Babylon they needed a history and they got one.

The Jews believed that God rewarded goodness and punished wrongdoing. That's how they saw the past and when they wrote themselves a history this was included. Up to the King Era we have no evidence of any events in the Tanakh. Even the story of David and Solomon (real kings) were highly exaggerated. The Empire attributed to David never was a reality. He did not have the necessary military to sustain such a Kingdom and neither did Solomon. What we have discovered about Solomon's military capability by archaeology show the exaggeration of the reports.

Much of their doctrine is from other religions, their rituals are similar to other religions, some of their religious items are also copies of others religious items. Monotheism takes hold in Babylon, and their beliefs are adapted to this.

Compare an Egyptian Temple of the time with David's plans - Solomon's Temple.
The Ark of the Covenant. Other religions also had these for various purposes.

 

By the sexually promiscuous peoples in the West, yes.
War criminal would be the sentence.

But, today, Islam is demonstrating exactly how patriarchies think and how they will act.
Matriarchies like America do not see patriarchies clearly, but the OT describes them very well.

They believe extermination is the correct behavior for attacking these societies and eliminating them.
The Promiscuity is like a destroying disease which will effect the Hebrews, too, if they neighbor near rhese types.

The lesson from Jesus was that Truth is also a sword which can stop this destructive behavior if enough people stand up and tell the Truth.

 

All I know is that people will make up all sorts of weird crap when they want people to follow them. I've always attributed the OT to bad wine and too much sun.