Why

[Gandhi>Bush]

To kill down to the last man? "Leave alive nothing that breathes?" To eradicate them from existence. That's genocide. A victory in battle is one thing especially back when people wrote things on stone, but genocide in any time period is barbaric no matter who said to go to war.

 

[Montalban]

Why would anybody kill somebody because they don't belive in a certain faith

Perhaps in order to stop that person imposing their faith on you.

 

[Montalban]

Parnoia

Because Religion is about control. If you live in a society, yet do not worship that society's gods, you are seen as a threat to the values and authority structure of that society. To not subject yourself to the state's religion is to not subject yourself to the state itself. In other words, it is treason.

Do you feel threatened?

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

Re: Parnoia

Do you feel threatened?

Yes I do! With the rise of right-wing fundamentalism in this country, we are treading a dangerous path towards theocracy.

Name me one theocratic state that ever protected the civil liberties of the nonbeliever.

 

[Montalban]

Re: Parnoia

Yes I do! With the rise of right-wing fundamentalism in this country, we are treading a dangerous path towards theocracy.

Think of all the constitutional and other changes that would have to be made

And the people have a right to choose what sort of state that they want.

Name me one theocratic state that ever protected the civil liberties of the nonbeliever.

Tell me what you consider to be a 'theocracy' and what you consider to be 'civil liberties'.

I don't know many theocracies, other than Islamic ones, and don't want to draw from them.

If you think about the ancient world, most nations, because most people were religious, saw no real separate issues between state and religion; thus the ancient Romans had state-sponsored religious festivities, and even occassionally named an ex-head-of-state as a 'god'. So, I'd be interested to know what you deem to be a theocracy.

How about 'the Vatican City'? Are they against civil liberties? (I don't know the answer to this.)

Also you are attempting to demonise religion and religious people. North Korea, China, Vietnam, and Cambodia under Pol Pot were all Atheistic states dedicated to putting down religion. These states weren't for 'civil liberties'. The list goes on, the USSR, DDR, Albania etc.

 

[Montalban]

Re: Parnoia

Name me one theocratic state that ever protected the civil liberties of the nonbeliever.

Consider that the father's of deomcracy, the Greeks, had a close affinity between religion and politics.
For the ancients there was little division between church and state.
“How intimately religious and ‘political’ thinking were connected we can best see form the Oresteia of Aeschylus…it moves on two planes at once, the human and divine.”
Kitto, H. D. F., (1957), “The Greeks”, (Penguin Books; London), p76.

A temple usually stood at the centre of the town. Just one example will be given here “By the market-square at Aigion is a temple of Apollo and Artemis together; and a sanctuary of Artemis in the form of an archer and the grave of Talthybios the herald are in the square.” Pausanias, (1971), “Guide to Greece. Volume 1: Central Greece”, (Penguin Books; London), p291.

This close association continued on after much of the Mediterranean had become Christian.

In his introduction to Justinian’s “The Digest of Roman Law”, C F Kolbert wrote “That Justinian felt he had a divine commission for (compiling the laws) is evident from his dedications of his legal works, which several times over refer to the gifts given him by God…” Justinian, (1979). “The Digest of Roman Law, (Penguin Books; London), p36.

Which God? So that there can be no doubt, let’s look at one such dedication… “In the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Emperor Caesar Flavius Justinianus…pious, happy, and glorious…” (Ibid, p44).

And Justinian's code of laws has formed the basis of many European laws.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

To kill down to the last man? "Leave alive nothing that breathes?" To eradicate them from existence. That's genocide. A victory in battle is one thing especially back when people wrote things on stone, but genocide in any time period is barbaric no matter who said to go to war.

OKay, firstly we must set to rest the definition of genocide.
Genocide is the systematic and planned extermination of an entire nation.
This was certainly not systematic, as it was an attack. And when the entire people living in a place are all soldiers and families of soldiers, that means that the whole village is, in fact an army. It would be impossible during battle to seperate between who might or might not be a threat and what wife or child might be carrying a weapon that could serve to kill one of the Isrealites. In battle it is not practical nor smart to attempt to distinguish between what might be a threat and what might not. Thus, the smart thing to do is attack it all. I know that sounds awful, and it is... war is never a good or lovely thing... but it was in this instance necessary for survival.

Two things need to be remembered in this instance. The first is that the Amalekites were a war like peolple who all lived together in one "village." We know this because the Bible often speaks of the land of the Amalekites. We know that they were warlike because they in the past attacked the Hebrew people and they continuasly destroyed their livestock and vegetation (which in a time where that is how you live is the very same thing as murder itself).

Judges 6
3 Whenever the Israelites planted crops, the Midianites, Amalekites, and the eastern peoples came and attacked them. 4 They encamped against them and destroyed the produce of the land, even as far as Gaza. They left nothing for Israel to eat, as well as no sheep, ox or donkey.

Duet 25
17 "Remember what the Amalekites did to you on the journey after you left Egypt. 18 They met you along the way and attacked all your stragglers from behind when you were tired and weary. They did not fear God

1 Samuel 14
48 He fought bravely, defeated the Amalekites, and delivered Israel from the hand of those who plundered them.

The second thing to remember is that the Amalekites were joining ranks with other enemies of the Hebrew people, making them an even greater threat.

1 Samuel 15
2 This is what the Lord of Hosts says: 'I witnessed what the Amalekites did to the Israelites when they opposed them along the way as they were coming out of Egypt. 3 Now go and attack the Amalekites and completely destroy everything they have. Do not spare them. Kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and donkeys. ' "

Judges 7
12 Now the Midianites, Amalekites, and all the Qedemites had settled down in the valley like a swarm of locusts, and their camels were as innumerable as the sand on the seashore.

So we know that the Amalekites are deadly threat to the Hebrew people based on past attacks and on their growing numbers. Now, Saul is acting as king of Isreal at the current time of this attack. They have finally gone on the offensive in order to protect themselves against surrounding murderers, and they come to the village of the Amalekites. God tells them just to go and destroy them. Leave nothing alive therefore there can be no question that the battle took place just for the sake of eliminating a very real threat. However, if you remember, Saul and his people did not listen. They kept some things alive so that they could plunder and use the spoils of the attack. This caused the Lord to lower his head on Saul and seek a new king for Isreal. So you see, the fact that Saul attemted to plunder and go against the Lord in matters of battle caused Him to seek a new leader for Isreal.

It is a sad thing, and an awful thing. But nothing is pretty about war, but war in this case was necessary.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

Re: Parnoia

Think of all the constitutional and other changes that would have to be made

And the people have a right to choose what sort of state that they want.

Remember, Prohibition had enough support to become an amendment to the Constitution.

Tell me what you consider to be a 'theocracy' and what you consider to be 'civil liberties'.

A theocracy, by my definition, is the subordination of secular, civic life to religious edicts and dogma.

I don't know many theocracies, other than Islamic ones, and don't want to draw from them.

Why not? But I'll give you a few examples of Christian theocracies throughout history: the kingdom of Spain at its height of power (the Inquisitions), Calvin's Geneva, the Massachussetts Bay Colony, Cromwell's England.

If you think about the ancient world, most nations, because most people were religious, saw no real separate issues between state and religion; thus the ancient Romans had state-sponsored religious festivities, and even occassionally named an ex-head-of-state as a 'god'. So, I'd be interested to know what you deem to be a theocracy.

I will acknowledge that most ancient states in human history would qualify as theocracies under today's definitions. But remember, these same states would not be considered "free" by today's standards. It is correct to state that Ancient Rome was a very, very religious society. But one feature of republican Rome and, to some extent, the early empire is that their view was pan-religionist. Their goverment aimed for religious inclusion (especially towards the conquered peoples' gods), and people and their families were left to worship the deities of their own choice. By the time the cult of the emperor became mandatory, Rome had already completed its transformation into a totalitarian state (and bearing some markings of a theocracy).

In his introduction to Justinian’s “The Digest of Roman Law”, C F Kolbert wrote “That Justinian felt he had a divine commission for (compiling the laws) is evident from his dedications of his legal works, which several times over refer to the gifts given him by God…” Justinian, (1979). “The Digest of Roman Law, (Penguin Books; London), p36.

Which God? So that there can be no doubt, let’s look at one such dedication… “In the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Emperor Caesar Flavius Justinianus…pious, happy, and glorious…” (Ibid, p44).

And Justinian's code of laws has formed the basis of many European laws.

Rome, after the death of Constantine, had clearly become a Christian theocracy, as evidenced by the state-sponsored support of the Catholic / Othodox hierarchy, the persecution of "heretical" Christian sects, the barring of pagans from civil service, and the systematic looting of pagan temples.

How about 'the Vatican City'? Are they against civil liberties? (I don't know the answer to this.)

Given its miniscule size, I don't know if there is anyone who "lives" in Vatican City that isn't somehow employed by the Church. But, before the Italian reunification, Vatican City was a much larger entity, then called the Papal States, which was the dominant power in central Italy. So how did this theocracy behave vis-a-vis civil liberties? Just ask any Jew who is familiar with history. You'll hear about papal edicts forcing them to live in "ghettos", to wear indentifying badges and at times forbidding trade with Christians. Nice place to live, wouldn't you say?

Also you are attempting to demonise religion and religious people. North Korea, China, Vietnam, and Cambodia under Pol Pot were all Atheistic states dedicated to putting down religion. These states weren't for 'civil liberties'. The list goes on, the USSR, DDR, Albania etc.

Though I am a critic of religion, I'm not trying to "demonize" it. Religious fervor is not the only cause of totalitarian oppression, as evidenced by the states you mentioned above. But religion, in the hands of the wrong people, has often been wedded to the totalitarian state and used in order to control the masses. And to some extent, I would even posture that Marxism took on the cast of a state religion in your above examples.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

It is a sad thing, and an awful thing. But nothing is pretty about war, but war in this case was necessary.

God wants war? = Stupid

God wants genocide? = More Stupid

Why would God go to the trouble of creating human beings including the Amalekites, and then want us killing each other?

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

It would be impossible during battle to seperate between who might or might not be a threat and what wife or child might be carrying a weapon that could serve to kill one of the Isrealites. In battle it is not practical nor smart to attempt to distinguish between what might be a threat and what might not. Thus, the smart thing to do is attack it all. I know that sounds awful, and it is... war is never a good or lovely thing... but it was in this instance necessary for survival.

I think you need to distinguish between "collateral damage" and the extermination that the god of the Israelites ordered! Women, children, and other non-combatants are often killed because of the horrors of war, but you cross a line when you purposely target such people. Such is known by todays standards as an atrocity, a war crime.

Now if you are telling me that I need to worship this deity in order to be "saved", then I ask you, if this is really the universal God, shouldn't he/she/it have better standards than those of the ancient Middle East?

In so many instances, life appears to be very cheap in the estimation of your deity of the Old Testament.

If there is a God, folks, this man-made tyrant and war criminal is not it!

 

[sebastiansdreams]

God wants war? = Stupid

God wants genocide? = More Stupid

Why would God go to the trouble of creating human beings including the Amalekites, and then want us killing each other?

Of course God does not want war. Jesus told us to love one another. BUT, we choose not to do so, and we choose to kill each other, as the Amalekites were killing the Hebrews. So Saul and the Hebrew people saught God's council on the issue. God told Saul that the only way to protect yourself from the Amalekites is to stop them. You can think it is stupid all you like. But the reality of it is that it is the single most practical answer to the problem. If someone is killing you, you kill them first. It isn't a beautiful and nice thought, but it is the reality of the situation. And God, though He is all loving, realizes that men will not live in peace, so there is no point in instructing the Hebrew people who came to Him to lay down and let the Amalekites eventually kill them.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

I think you need to distinguish between "collateral damage" and the extermination that the god of the Israelites ordered! Women, children, and other non-combatants are often killed because of the horrors of war, but you cross a line when you purposely target such people. Such is known by todays standards as an atrocity, a war crime.

Why is it you are led to believe that the women and children were non-combatents? Where in any of this literature would you derive that just because someone was a woman or a child that they could not carry a sword? Surely you are familiar with the very young ages in which children began to enter army during these points in history? And surely you are not led to believe that a wife or mother would peacefully sit by as the Isrealites fought with her family? You make it sound as though they were just going into white picket fence houses where the mothers baked pies and the children learned grammer, but there is absolutely no reason to believe this was the case. From what we know of the Amalekites, they were a waring people. Collateral damage then and today are a very very seperate issue. And while for some reason we have recently made killing a woman or a child a war crime, the reality is, if that person is shooting at your (or at this time carrying a sword) then is it indeed a criminal act to lay down your threat?

Now if you are telling me that I need to worship this deity in order to be "saved", then I ask you, if this is really the universal God, shouldn't he/she/it have better standards than those of the ancient Middle East?

In so many instances, life appears to be very cheap in the estimation of your deity of the Old Testament.

If there is a God, folks, this man-made tyrant and war criminal is not it!

I think you forget God's place in the scheme of the world. God leads those who seek Him. He does not force anyone to do anything. He was dealing with an ancient people who at the time lived in this way. Everyone around them lived in this way. Do you suggest that God said to them I command the to make founding father's and a red and white striped flag, and you shall call yourselves a free nation? That is not God's place in the scheme of the world. He is there for each individual through history, no matter what is going on in the world. And what more would you have Him do than to simply guide the people that ask for His guidance and protect the people that ask for His protection?

And you're very right. Life is cheap, as a general statement. Think about the enormous amount of lives that have come and gone through history. Do you think that every time one of us goes the whole world trembles? Of course not. We make our existance worth much more than it is. He loves us each. But He is also aware that our lives here are temporary, and that we each have an oppurtunity to live forever if we are to take it, with Him. He gave our lives to us, what makes you think that He does not have the right to allow it to be taken at any time?

He himself was neither a tyrant nor a war criminal. He is a loving God who answers the prayers of those that seek Him.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Of course God does not want war. Jesus told us to love one another. BUT, we choose not to do so, and we choose to kill each other, as the Amalekites were killing the Hebrews. So Saul and the Hebrew people saught God's council on the issue. God told Saul that the only way to protect yourself from the Amalekites is to stop them. You can think it is stupid all you like. But the reality of it is that it is the single most practical answer to the problem. If someone is killing you, you kill them first. It isn't a beautiful and nice thought, but it is the reality of the situation. And God, though He is all loving, realizes that men will not live in peace, so there is no point in instructing the Hebrew people who came to Him to lay down and let the Amalekites eventually kill them.

If you are right, and I don't think you are, I believe God is a little twisted.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

If you are right, and I don't think you are, I believe God is a little twisted.

Why? Because He allows men to make their own choices, regardless of what He wants to happen?

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Because he encourages killing, genocide, etc.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

I know that the winners often write the history, but have you ever looked at these events from the perspective of the Canaanites?

Have you forgotton who invaded whom? From the time of Joshua onwards through the period of the Judges and the early kings, the Israelites were the agressors. The Amalekites and the other assorted tribes of Canaan were the indigenous inhabitants. It was their land! They might not have been "nice" people (nobody was in that day and age), but what morally precludes these people from defending their own land claims?

The Israelites used their god to justify a war of agression to pursue their own version of "manifest destiny."

Do you suggest that God said to them I command the to make founding father's and a red and white striped flag, and you shall call yourselves a free nation?

That's absurd. But if a universal God is going to engage in revelation to humans, don't you think it would teach these people some morality (e.g. respect for women, the infirm, foreigners, gays, etc.) rather than fixate on a bunch of stupid dietary laws? This is supposed to be a god for all people at all times, and the bible (including the O.T.) is supposed be god's word for all people at all times. But this god proves itself to be very parochial in its scope. I expect better from a god, especially in the morality department.

I'll add that the teachings of Jesus represent a vast improvement over those of the early books of the O.T. (the Pentateuch). His teachings were more universal in nature, and are edifying, even for this non-believer.

I'll venture my hypothesis that the god with which Sebastian has a personal relationship looks and feels a lot more like the god as presented by Jesus' teachings than the god of the early old testament. So I do not fear being exterminated by Sebastian's hands. :lol:

 

[Rev.]

OKay, firstly we must set to rest the definition of genocide.
Genocide is the systematic and planned extermination of an entire nation.
This was certainly not systematic, as it was an attack.

Well, I hate to tell you...it was systematic, it was planned extermination, it was genocide. But you have to put the whole thing against the backdrop of "what is God's purpose in all this?"

So we know that the Amalekites are deadly threat to the Hebrew people based on past attacks and on their growing numbers. Now, Saul is acting as king of Isreal at the current time of this attack. They have finally gone on the offensive in order to protect themselves against surrounding murderers, and they come to the village of the Amalekites. God tells them just to go and destroy them. Leave nothing alive therefore there can be no question that the battle took place just for the sake of eliminating a very real threat. However, if you remember, Saul and his people did not listen. They kept some things alive so that they could plunder and use the spoils of the attack. This caused the Lord to lower his head on Saul and seek a new king for Isreal. So you see, the fact that Saul attemted to plunder and go against the Lord in matters of battle caused Him to seek a new leader for Isreal.

It was not necessary because the Amalekites warred against the Israelites. It was necessary because the Amalekites were sinful idolators who would lead the Israelites down the road to Idolatry if they were allowed to live (which they did). It's called Zero Tolerance.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

Well, I hate to tell you...it was systematic, it was planned extermination, it was genocide. But you have to put the whole thing against the backdrop of "what is God's purpose in all this?"

It was not necessary because the Amalekites warred against the Israelites. It was necessary because the Amalekites were sinful idolators who would lead the Israelites down the road to Idolatry if they were allowed to live (which they did). It's called Zero Tolerance.

That's right, because religious diversity is evil.

And we're over here wondering why people commit violence in the name of religion?

Do the world a favor, let go of the silly idea of divine revelation, and file the Bible where it belongs -- next to the Iliad, as historical mythology.

 

[Montalban]

Re: Parnoia

Think of all the constitutional and other changes that would have to be made
And the people have a right to choose what sort of state that they want.

Remember, Prohibition had enough support to become an amendment to the Constitution.

And your point is? What is wrong with this ammendment? What is wrong with people deciding what form of government they want?

Tell me what you consider to be a 'theocracy' and what you consider to be 'civil liberties'.

A theocracy, by my definition, is the subordination of secular, civic life to religious edicts and dogma.

Cool, then you've just blown a hole in your own assumption because as I've shown ancient Greece had a strong connexion between 'state' and 'religion'; regardless of whether that state was democratic, an oligarchy, or whatever, the mere tying in of religion to every-day life was not inherrently 'anti-freedom'.

I don't know many theocracies, other than Islamic ones, and don't want to draw from them.

Why not?

Because we'd both be agreed that they offer little in the way of freedoms.

But I'll give you a few examples of Christian theocracies throughout history: the kingdom of Spain at its height of power (the Inquisitions), Calvin's Geneva, the Massachussetts Bay Colony, Cromwell's England.

What about Cromwell's England. How was this 'theocracy' any less 'free' than the Restoration period under Charles II, or under the preceeding period under either Charles I or James I?

If you think about the ancient world, most nations, because most people were religious, saw no real separate issues between state and religion; thus the ancient Romans had state-sponsored religious festivities, and even occassionally named an ex-head-of-state as a 'god'. So, I'd be interested to know what you deem to be a theocracy.

I will acknowledge that most ancient states in human history would qualify as theocracies under today's definitions. But remember, these same states would not be considered "free" by today's standards. It is correct to state that Ancient Rome was a very, very religious society. But one feature of republican Rome and, to some extent, the early empire is that their view was pan-religionist. Their goverment aimed for religious inclusion (especially towards the conquered peoples' gods), and people and their families were left to worship the deities of their own choice. By the time the cult of the emperor became mandatory, Rome had already completed its transformation into a totalitarian state (and bearing some markings of a theocracy).

Ancient Athens allowed 'freedoms' of democracy etc. Whilst I too will make some acknowledgements; such as the fact that they restricted the vote to male citizens, and that they held slaves, they were not 'undemocratic' because they were a theocracy.

In his introduction to Justinian’s “The Digest of Roman Law”, C F Kolbert wrote “That Justinian felt he had a divine commission for (compiling the laws) is evident from his dedications of his legal works, which several times over refer to the gifts given him by God…” Justinian, (1979). “The Digest of Roman Law, (Penguin Books; London), p36.
Which God? So that there can be no doubt, let’s look at one such dedication… “In the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Emperor Caesar Flavius Justinianus…pious, happy, and glorious…” (Ibid, p44).
And Justinian's code of laws has formed the basis of many European laws.

Rome, after the death of Constantine, had clearly become a Christian theocracy, as evidenced by the state-sponsored support of the Catholic / Othodox hierarchy, the persecution of "heretical" Christian sects, the barring of pagans from civil service, and the systematic looting of pagan temples.

And how would this be less free, then the persecutions of minorities under the USA? (Given that the USA is not a theocracy?)

How about 'the Vatican City'? Are they against civil liberties? (I don't know the answer to this.)

Given its miniscule size, I don't know if there is anyone who "lives" in Vatican City that isn't somehow employed by the Church. But, before the Italian reunification, Vatican City was a much larger entity, then called the Papal States, which was the dominant power in central Italy. So how did this theocracy behave vis-a-vis civil liberties? Just ask any Jew who is familiar with history. You'll hear about papal edicts forcing them to live in "ghettos", to wear indentifying badges and at times forbidding trade with Christians. Nice place to live, wouldn't you say?

Would this be much different from the USA c.1950 when the 'separate but equal' ruling of the Supreme Court was still yet to be rescinded?

Also you are attempting to demonise religion and religious people. North Korea, China, Vietnam, and Cambodia under Pol Pot were all Atheistic states dedicated to putting down religion. These states weren't for 'civil liberties'. The list goes on, the USSR, DDR, Albania etc.

Though I am a critic of religion, I'm not trying to "demonize" it. Religious fervor is not the only cause of totalitarian oppression, as evidenced by the states you mentioned above. But religion, in the hands of the wrong people, has often been wedded to the totalitarian state and used in order to control the masses. And to some extent, I would even posture that Marxism took on the cast of a state religion in your above examples.

I agree. I don't think that your belief about a theocracy is then warranted. It is not 'essential' to a theocracy that it is more oppressive than any other form of state; from democracies such as the USA which held slaves, and continues to interfere directly in other states, directly (e.g. Iraq) or indirectly (third world debt). This seemed to me to be your core statement "No theocracy allows 'civil liberties'"

 

[sebastiansdreams]

I know that the winners often write the history, but have you ever looked at these events from the perspective of the Canaanites?

Have you forgotton who invaded whom? From the time of Joshua onwards through the period of the Judges and the early kings, the Israelites were the agressors. The Amalekites and the other assorted tribes of Canaan were the indigenous inhabitants. It was their land! They might not have been "nice" people (nobody was in that day and age), but what morally precludes these people from defending their own land claims?

Do I really seem like someone who doesn't spend far too much time looking at things from every view? Yeah, of course I've considered what it was like for the Canaanites. But look, this is a war that God never wanted to happen in the first place. God created man and wanted them to love each other. This was, as you might have noticed, how it all played out. By this point these are all waring nations in from what I can tell kind of like a thousand years war. It appears that every time these people run into each other their's trouble. Now, is that right? No. But I don't see any evidence that we suggest that God wanted this war to begin in the first place. However, for the first time in history, the Hebrew people have an army and momentum. They finally have a chance to rid themselves of a people that have been terrorizing them, and they go to God about it. God gives Saul a strategy which Saul refuses to follow out. I certainly do not think that it came down to an issue of land (there is no reason in the literature to believe that either). It simply appears that these seperate peoples had been at constant war (does it not seem that way to you considering the various references through the timeline regarding these people?) and as soon as the Hebrew people got momentum behind them they took the oppurtunity to defend themselves in a future tense. And they went to God about it, not the other way around.

That's absurd. But if a universal God is going to engage in revelation to humans, don't you think it would teach these people some morality (e.g. respect for women, the infirm, foreigners, gays, etc.) rather than fixate on a bunch of stupid dietary laws? This is supposed to be a god for all people at all times, and the bible (including the O.T.) is supposed be god's word for all people at all times. But this god proves itself to be very parochial in its scope. I expect better from a god, especially in the morality department.

Well, again you have to look at the time and place and the very role of God. To us, now, these are nothing but stupid dietary laws. But to the Hebrew people of the day, they are life or death issues. This is still a time long before burgers and fries. Food was a much greater commodity and potentially life altering factor. Eating a wrong food at this time could cause you to get sick indefinitely. And surely you have gotten far enough through Judges to realize that there are a few dietary laws, but there are many other important laws regarding the treatment and preservation from person to person. At that point women had an incredibly important role in the home, one that could not be abandoned. Again, this is a time before daycare and hot pockets. As far as the rest, I don't know much more accepting you can get than to tell someone to love their neighbor as much as they love themselves. That sorta covers all those bases don't you think? See, the thing is, you're making up this whole thing about this being God's word for all people for all times. This is simply the laws that God gave to the Hebrew people at this time and had them follow them. The covanents rather, were made by the people that if they followed God's law then God would give them things on earth (which ironically He'd already said He'd do, but we people like to have it in writting sometimes). The Bible is a book explaining God's relationship to man. At this point in time, again, these "stupid dietary laws" were very important to the survival and health of the people. When you take it out of context, as I think a lot of peopel do, you get that we are supposed to follow that today, but there is no reason to believe that. You remember that Jesus made a new covenant with us as mankind. That if we are to accept His sacrifice and His love, then we will join Him in heaven. Furthermore, He gave us a new instructor's manual as written by the Creator, so that we may know His will for us now.

I'll add that the teachings of Jesus represent a vast improvement over those of the early books of the O.T. (the Pentateuch). His teachings were more universal in nature, and are edifying, even for this non-believer.

Of course they are more "universal." Because they apply to our world now as opposed to applying to the world before Christ. God has an incredible understanding (in my opinion) of how we work. He speaks to us on our level. He finds us where we are. And when we, as mankind, reached the point at which we were ready for Christ and His teachings, He was sent. Now, are we any less barbaric or any closer to God? Not necessarly. It is commonly accepted that the more technologically advanced we are the "smarter" we are, and yet in many ways, we are not much different at all from these people. We just have technology that could blow up an entire city (women and children included) instead of rushing in with swords. Times have changed. Our understandings and/or views of things have changed. And so has the way that God appears to us. And so has His covenant with us changed to what it is now, through Christ.

I'll venture my hypothesis that the god with which Sebastian has a personal relationship looks and feels a lot more like the god as presented by Jesus' teachings than the god of the early old testament. So I do not fear being exterminated by Sebastian's hands.

You know what's really funny, is that a lot of people, yourself included, seperate the OT God from the NT God, as though they are seperate. But to me, the NT to me confirms just how much they are the same God. Think of it this way: you remember that Jesus said that He was God on earth, He was the Son? Well look at the actions of Jesus while He was on the earth. Are they not exactly like the actions of the God of the OT? He would get angry when people were dissobeying His laws. He was loving and willing to teach all of those who followed Him. He healed those that came to Him, and He sent away those who He knew did not believe in Him. I think a lot of people have a really hard time accepting that God is so "human-like." That He seems to display such a broad amount of emotions. But if you remember, we are created in His image, so is it not feasible that He first had this broad range of emotions and that we are His mimic? Many call some of His actions or decisions petty, but who are we to decide where God fits in His own creation? It's His world, and His rules, and for those of us who choose to believe He exists, it is not our place to tell Him how to run the show, and for those of us who do not believe in His existance, then what's the difference? But remember one very important thing, these men attacked the Amalekites on their own. Man had a choice long before this instance to not war on themselves, and they did not take that oppurtunity. So this massacre is not a result of God's initial will, only a strategy given to a people that were already preparing for battle.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

Well, I hate to tell you...it was systematic, it was planned extermination, it was genocide. But you have to put the whole thing against the backdrop of "what is God's purpose in all this?"

Full frontal attack does not seem systematic in the least bit. Systematic, in my opinion, at least has two if not three seperate steps. Full frontal attack basically entails picking up a sword and charging. And I don't really know that God's original purpose ever included any men waring against each other. But, this was already at hand. And I find it more feasible that it was rather because the Hebrew people came to Him that He gave them this strategy, not that He came to them telling them how to annialate a certain people just to rid the world of their influence. Again I state, from what it seems of the literature, there is a constant battle raging between multiple peoples. Why then, once the Hebrew have an army, would it not make sense to play that card in the battle, and they sought God, as they often did in such matters.

It was not necessary because the Amalekites warred against the Israelites. It was necessary because the Amalekites were sinful idolators who would lead the Israelites down the road to Idolatry if they were allowed to live (which they did). It's called Zero Tolerance.

Okay, but the world is full of sinful idolators now, so why is God not commanding us to go and kill them at this point? We are after all still His people are we not? Why would His opinion on this matter changed? It still seems to me that this is not a case of God using His people to wipe out a sinful nation, but rather that it was the Hebrew people making a move in a constant battle and going to God for guidance and then ignoring His guidance. That seems to fit equally as well in the backdrop, and it also is concording with the God we know even today (who is certainly not telling us to kill our sinful neighbors).

 

[Rev.]

But look, this is a war that God never wanted to happen in the first place....By this point these are all waring nations in from what I can tell kind of like a thousand years war. It appears that every time these people run into each other their's trouble...But I don't see any evidence that we suggest that God wanted this war to begin in the first place. However, for the first time in history, the Hebrew people have an army and momentum. They finally have a chance to rid themselves of a people that have been terrorizing them, and they go to God about it. God gives Saul a strategy which Saul refuses to follow out. I certainly do not think that it came down to an issue of land (there is no reason in the literature to believe that either). It simply appears that these seperate peoples had been at constant war (does it not seem that way to you considering the various references through the timeline regarding these people?) and as soon as the Hebrew people got momentum behind them they took the oppurtunity to defend themselves in a future tense. And they went to God about it, not the other way around.

Sebastian, you are not looking at the big picture and this has led to your misunderstanding of these events.

You said God did not want war. Well, yes, if you go back to creation, God did not invent war. However, did God want this war between Israel and the Amalekites? It is clear from scripture, God had this war planned a LONG time.

"When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations--the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you--and when the Lord your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally." Deuteronomy 7:1-2 Read also Deut 20:10-18

This command was given to Moses well before the Israelites entered Canaan.

You said For the first time in history the Hebrew people had an army and momentum.

Israel had an army way before it ever met up with the Amalekites. Who went against Jericho and Ai? Read Joshua 5:13-6:27. Read also Joshua chapter 8.
The Israelites first warred against the Amalekites while they were still in the desert. Read Exodus 17:8-16.

You said It's not about the Land. Of COURSE it's about the land! God gave that land to Abraham's descendants (Gen 12:1-9 ). He told Joshua what the bouderies would be (Josh 1: 1-4 ) It is most certainly about the land!

You said God did not tell the Israelites to fight the war...they went to him first. Again, not true. God directed the army of the Israelites from the beginning (reread Joshua chapter 5-6). God had a strategy and God planned to wipe out the nations in Canaan. As for this particular battle with the Amalekites and King Saul...God told Saul to attack the Amalekites (read 1 Samuel 15:1-3 )

See, the thing is, you're making up this whole thing about this being God's word for all people for all times. This is simply the laws that God gave to the Hebrew people at this time and had them follow them. The covanents rather, were made by the people that if they followed God's law then God would give them things on earth (which ironically He'd already said He'd do, but we people like to have it in writting sometimes).

Well, I'm glad you understand this! The reason why we no longer have to live under this old covenant is because we now have a new covenant. The old covenant was for the Jews only...but the Jews breached the contract. So God made a new covenant for "whosoever believes in him"

 

[Rev.]

Full frontal attack does not seem systematic in the least bit. Systematic, in my opinion, at least has two if not three seperate steps. Full frontal attack basically entails picking up a sword and charging.

Systematic refers to the way God intended to cleanse the Promised Land...city by city. It is a systematic plan laid out well in advance.

And I don't really know that God's original purpose ever included any men waring against each other.

Of course not...before the Fall. But immediately after the Fall there is a prophecy regarding the coming Messiah. So this plan was in place before Adam and Eve were evicted from Eden.

And I find it more feasible that it was rather because the Hebrew people came to Him that He gave them this strategy, not that He came to them telling them how to annialate a certain people just to rid the world of their influence.

You may find it more feasable, but it wouldn't be anymore truthful.

Again I state, from what it seems of the literature, there is a constant battle raging between multiple peoples. Why then, once the Hebrew have an army, would it not make sense to play that card in the battle, and they sought God, as they often did in such matters.

Whenever you find them seeking God after the fact, it's because they'd blown it somehow...again!

Okay, but the world is full of sinful idolators now, so why is God not commanding us to go and kill them at this point?

Remember what you said before about two different covenants? These were the rules under the old covenant. The BIGGEST sin in all the world was (is) idolatry. This is how God dealt with idolatry under the old covenant.

We are after all still His people are we not

NOW we are...under the NEW covenant. Before, we would have been among the idolators. Pretty amazing thing grace is...

Why has His opinion on this matter changed? It still seems to me that this is not a case of God using His people to wipe out a sinful nation, but rather that it was the Hebrew people making a move in a constant battle and going to God for guidance and then ignoring His guidance. That seems to fit equally as well in the backdrop, and it also is concording with the God we know even today (who is certainly not telling us to kill our sinful neighbors).

It hasn't. God is still holy. God still hates idolatry. A change in methods does not mean a change in message.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

Sebastian, you are not looking at the big picture and this has led to your misunderstanding of these events.

You said God did not want war. Well, yes, if you go back to creation, God did not invent war. However, did God want this war between Israel and the Amalekites? It is clear from scripture, God had this war planned a LONG time.

"When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations--the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you--and when the Lord your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally." Deuteronomy 7:1-2 Read also Deut 20:10-18

This command was given to Moses well before the Israelites entered Canaan.

To the contrary, I am under the impression that it is you who are failing to look at the whole picture. Why is it you think that God wanted one people to simply conquer another people for nothing more than land? If we look at your scriptures, you say that it was in Dueteronomy that Moses was promised that the Isrealites would take over these peoples. But if you pay attention to the timeline of events, it is in Exodus where we see that the Amalekites are already picking off the Hebrew people. So we know that this war between the two of these peoples pre-dates Duet. Again, this is God giving prophecy to his people because they continue to seek Him, not because He personally wants to destroy the Amalekites. If that were, indeed the case, why then did God not, Himself pull another Soddom? Because it wasn't an issue of God wiping out these people, it was an issue of giving advice to an army that seeks Him.

Israel had an army way before it ever met up with the Amalekites. Who went against Jericho and Ai? Read Joshua 5:13-6:27. Read also Joshua chapter 8.

Right, so is this not a continuation of that building momentum? That was the impression I was under.

The Israelites first warred against the Amalekites while they were still in the desert. Read Exodus 17:8-16.

Sounded more like the Amalekites were just picking off the weak links to me. Not much of a war. But agian, that supports my theory of a very long war.

You said It's not about the Land. Of COURSE it's about the land! God gave that land to Abraham's descendants (Gen 12:1-9 ). He told Joshua what the bouderies would be (Josh 1: 1-4 ) It is most certainly about the land!

Okay, then again I ask you, why did God send these people in to slaughter the Amalekites when He himself could have done it? If it were nothing more than an issue of land, then why did God not promise them a land that was not already occupied? You're have a very narrow scope on all of this, and it is certainly not what the Bible limits this to. The point is that there is a war that has gone on for a long time, and the Isrealite army was growing to a size where it could defeat its enemy, and so they did so, and they sought God's guidance on the issue.

You said God did not tell the Israelites to fight the war...they went to him first. Again, not true. God directed the army of the Israelites from the beginning (reread Joshua chapter 5-6). God had a strategy and God planned to wipe out the nations in Canaan. As for this particular battle with the Amalekites and King Saul...God told Saul to attack the Amalekites (read 1 Samuel 15:1-3 )

Look, you're pointing to scripture isn't doing anything for me. I've read all of this over and over, and every time I look, I still have the very same understanding of it. Saul had an open line with God. Is it not obvious that if Saul is speaking to God then he is going to God on his own accord? My point is this: if God wanted to destroy these people, He could do it with a snap of His finger. From the beginning, it was the Isrealites who saught God's guidance and direction in these wars. Because face it, if it was God's peragotive to destroy these people He would have done it the moment it came to His mind. But rather, it makes much more logic to assume that it was the Isrealites that wanted to continue this war, and that they saught divine revelation and it was given to them.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Divine revelation in the form of genocide?

Why would God not choose snapping his fingers instead of making killers out of people who wanted to divine revelation?