1 Samuel 15:3 - God orders people to kill babies

March 1, 2006

He has all the signs of a new believer trying to overcome a carnal mind.

I could be wrong.

Of course the best way to do that would be to stop discussing with men and start discussing with the Lord. Let your mind be renewed by the washing of the Word. Go right to the source.

March 1, 2006

QUOTE(shiloh357 @ Mar 1 2006, 06:01 AM)

QUOTE
Ezekiel 18:19-23 appears to say that sin/righteousness/judgement is individual--not socially transmitted.

It appears that way to you, but you are incorrect. If you read the entire chapter it has to do with choices. The Father who tries to raise a son to follow God is not held accountable if the son rejects his father's counsel and chooses to live in sin.

And how does this contradict my interpretation?

It contradicts your evaluation of what you see as a contradiction relative to 1 Samuel 15, which is the ovrall conext of this discussion. The Amalakites never repented for the evil they did to Israel an and every generation of Amalakites for the 500 years up to the days of Saul, and even AFTER the days of Saul sought to destroy Israel just as they did way back in Exodus. You are trying to color this as God condemning babies for something that happened 500 years ago, and that is simply not the case. The whole point you seem to be making is that if sin is socially transmitted then God had no right to demand the death of every Amalakite. When studying the COMPLETE history of the Amalakites and their relationship with Israel, we see trying pin God with a contradiction doesnt hold water.

QUOTE
If I cannot trust that 1 Samuel 15 is valid, If I cannot trust what the Bible says somewhere in the Old Testament, then I have no reason to trust John 3:16.

The Bible is not a monolith. It's a compilation. Individual books and passages can be evaluated individually.

If we are to believe that the Bible came from God, then the problem lies with God's integrity of we can decide that some of what He says cannot be trusted, and if we can pin Him with contradictions in one part of the Bible, we have no reason to trust Him with our soul. The only way to treat the Bible as you do, is to simply reject God as the overall author and oringinator. If that is so, then NO part of the Bible is reliable.

That is why I said that the Bible is not a smorgasboard. If God cannnot lie, then the entire Bible is true. If you can find any dishonesty, lying, contradiction, then you have to throw the Bible out as a reliable guide. You have no reason to trust the words of Jesus.

If God cannot lie, then you have to accept the entire Bible as true. It is all or nothing. If you cannnot believe that God cannot lie, then you have no reason to even be a Christian.

Copper Scroll · March 1, 2006

COPPER SCROLL,
I'm not trying to persuade anybody. I've told you this before. Constantly throwing this into question is seriously distracting. You are basically calling me a liar. This means I can't have a rational discussion with you.

BUTERO,
The sentence you are responding to does not call you a liar.

You imply that I lie by throwing my intentions here into doubt. You've always done it. Nothing I say can change your mind. This implies that I am a liar.

What I mean is the very scriptures out of Ezekiel you gave, or at least when taken in context with the verses that follow, show how you could be right today, and still wind up tortured for eternity later. My question is really, why is it difficult to accept, seeing you pointed me to scriptures that teach how that can happen?

That someone (as an individual) can do right today in God's eyes and do wrong tomorrow is not difficult to accept. Eternal torture is difficult to accept for obvious reasons. That the Bible supports it doesn't make it easy to accept.

What are the other alternatives?

That you'll go to hell for your political ideology. That's one alternative to what you believe that could hold terrible consequence for you.

There is no way I can prove it in the case of with no doubt, but all one has to do is go back through your posts and watch the patterns, and I believe there is more than sufficient evidence to convince most beyond a reasonable doubt that is the case. On this I could be wrong, but if I were to bet on it, I believe most would see it to be just as I have said.

Stop making accusations you can't back up.

Tenets like: 1 That all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God 2 That the wages of sin is death 3 That Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God 4 That he was sinless in this life 5 That he died on a cross to pay the penalty for our sins 6 That on the 3rd Day He Rose Physically from the grave. 7 That through believing on him and accepting him as your Lord and Savior, you will be saved from the penalty of sin.

I believe all of that. Note that this is the second (or third) concession I've made to your paranoia. Also note that the only doubt that I might have in any of these tenets arises from the fact that belief in them is shared by a paranoid right-wing fascist like you. In a strange way, Butero you could actually be pushing me further from the faith.

I appreciate that Copper Scroll, but for the sake of others reading your posts, this will give you the opportunity to show that you are right, and that I have been paranoid in the way I have looked at you. You can show them that indeed you do believe in the basic doctrines of the Church.

For the record: I don't care what you or anyone reading this thinks about my salvation. This is not the Copper Scroll Show.

I

Edited March 1, 2006 by Copper Scroll

July 6, 2007

Hi

I am new to this forum, but I've found this thread very interesting. There is a similar discussion occurring on restoration ministry forums. http://www.restorationministry.com/forum/viewforum.php?id=27

Some of the discussions there deal with the command to destroy the Amalekites and other related topics. There is a section on General Topics and in that board are topics such as Religious Executions and that is the one that discusses the Amalekites and other Biblical executions such as stoning adulterers to death.

I was interested in what people thought about the plight of women in Old Testament times. There is a section called "sexual sins and penalties" which has sparked quite a discussion also. My own views are on that forum too or some material written on the whole topic of God's character is on www.themeofthebible.com There is a big book there called the Assassination of God's Character on the home page, but on the articles page there are a lot of smaller articles on that subject. Seems to me that a lot of people are asking the same type of questions now and there are so many different opinions.

Can you tell me what you think about the punishment of the wicked? Is it God who kills the wicked or do they self-destruct? That is one of the views that I'm researching and reading about.

As far as I am concerned, this issue is about trying to identify what actions are moral and what actions are not moral.

Did the same God who condemned rape, also command it? Obviously not, for God is not a law-breaker/sinner.

Did the same God who condemned murder, also command it? Obviously not, for God is not a law-breaker/sinner.

Jesus made it very clear when He put forward the 'Golden Rule.' It was a concise principle that demonstrated the fail-safe way of identifying what thought/actions are good (selfless and loving) and which are evil (selfish and violent).

Modern-day book writers might publish this bottom-line principle that Jesus gave us as, "The Gospel for Dummies."

God's government rules by love. The commandments are about doing only those things to others as you would want them to do to you. If you don't want someone to do a certain action to you, then don't do it to them. Simple. I don't know how many of you would want someone to run you and your wife through with a sword, kill your infant sons and kidnap your young daughters into a forced marriage arrangement. If we don't want these things done to us, according to Jesus' words, we should do this to anyone else. I dare say that the ancient Israelites shouldn't have done it either. Perhaps they believed they were doing right, but then again, Jesus said that there are cases when people think they're doing the will of God, but they are actually killing God's people and it is wrong. John 16 v 2

How much more clearly could Jesus have made the distinction?

The reference for the command to kill people and take young virgins captive for your wife is:

Deut.21.10

When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,

Deut.21.11

And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;

Deut.21.12

Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;

Deut.21.13

And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.

Deut.21.14

And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

Thanks for your thoughts.