Would the deed be any more moral if God had done it Himself?
The real question is could a good God have done or commanded this. If God had done it (say via a plague) we wouldn't know, so the question wouldn't arise. We only question it because people did it, and we feel horrified.
The Amalekites were a nomadic group that terrorized ancient Israel for approximately 200 - 400 years during which they had ample time to repent. They were a threat and danger to all the neighboring nations. Chances were given, but to no avail. The good here is personal security of the Israelites, who couldn't put up anymore with violence directed at them and their kin. What they did to the younger ones was mercy killing. The only other viable option was to left them to die slowly in the desert, not having a necessary infrastructure, or to make them slaves, which was forbidden by law. The Amalekites would have accepted such a resolution, for the cultures of that time preferred quick deaths over adverse situations like life as slaves or long death through starvation.
That explains the butchering of the wives and kids - what about the cattle, sheep, goats, camels, and donkeys ? Why murder innocent camels ? - I happen to like the critters - being called Humphrey and all.
Here's a radical idea - maybe the Israelites did what pretty much every human culture in human history has done and butchered another people while claiming divine justification for their actions. If - to take a local example - you read the account of the New England Puritans from the Pequot War and King Phillips war they say much the same thing - the natives had it coming, God was on our side, we won due to divine providence etc etc.
Here's a radical idea - maybe the Israelites did what pretty much every human culture in human history has done and butchered another people while claiming divine justification for their actions. If - to take a local example - you read the account of the New England Puritans from the Pequot War and King Phillips war they say much the same thing - the natives had it coming, God was on our side, we won due to divine providence etc etc.
What is the scholarly view on the massacre anyway? Is it even considered historical? The story tells of one Iron Age I event, about around 1000 BC, in a collection whose final editing occured during exilic times.
Plus there is a later mention of Amalekites, who were supposedly exterminated by tribesmen of Simeon during Hezekiah's rule. They might not be the same nation or even related, but it is certainly confusing if you take it literally. Either theologised justification of massacres or an invention seems the most logical.
That explains the butchering of the wives and kids - what about the cattle, sheep, goats, camels, and donkeys ? Why murder innocent camels ?
I believe because it was symbolic of eliminating the Amalekite culture, and making sure the Israelites didn't benefit from the plunder of such behaviour. Course, Saul failed to do this, and Amalekites pop up again after a few chapters as Ignorantiaescia notes.
Quote:
Here's a radical idea - maybe the Israelites did what pretty much every human culture in human history has done and butchered another people while claiming divine justification for their actions.
Well, that's a consistent way of reading the text (althoughwhy go out your way to invent a god that doesn't let you nick all the leftover cows, camels etc worth taking?) - I also think it's consistent to read as a "inerrantist" Christian. Which one you take depends on your broader approach to the Bible, which I suspect would be decided on other grounds.
Joined: Jun 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 1,217 Location: Sydney Australia Karma: 27
Re: William Lane Craig v Polly Toynbee, « Reply #79 on Oct 30, 2011, 4:35am »
Victor Reppert has been posting on this subject in his excellent blog, Dangerous Idea. In a recent post he referenced a New Zealand theologian and philosopher, Matthew Flanagan, who in turn is referencing theologian Nicholas Wolterstorff.
Flanagan is Presbyterian, reformed and one would guess impeccably evangelical and conservative in his theology, but nevertheless argues that at least some stories of commands to kill and the killings, were never intended to be literal history, but rather 'hagiography'. They hold this view, at least in part because of the inconsistencies in the commands and the stories between Joshua and Judges, and the apparently different intentions of the two books.
This is not the same incident as the Amalekites one we are discussing, but it is interesting to see even conservative theologians moving away from literal interpretations.
Joined: May 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 602 Karma: 14
Re: William Lane Craig v Polly Toynbee, « Reply #80 on Oct 30, 2011, 1:54pm »
Quote:
Here's a radical idea - maybe the Israelites did what pretty much every human culture in human history has done and butchered another people while claiming divine justification for their actions. If - to take a local example - you read the account of the New England Puritans from the Pequot War and King Phillips war they say much the same thing - the natives had it coming, God was on our side, we won due to divine providence etc etc.
Joined: Jun 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 182 Location: Glasgow Karma: 6
Re: William Lane Craig v Polly Toynbee, « Reply #81 on Oct 31, 2011, 8:13am »
Quote:
Quote:
Here's a radical idea - maybe the Israelites did what pretty much every human culture in human history has done and butchered another people while claiming divine justification for their actions. If - to take a local example - you read the account of the New England Puritans from the Pequot War and King Phillips war they say much the same thing - the natives had it coming, God was on our side, we won due to divine providence etc etc.
Thanks Humphrey. Quite true, I think.
Best wishes
James
Quite so. Is it the case that the thing we can probably all agree on is that if the account of the slaughter of the Amalekites had not occurred in the pages of the Bible, we would not be having this discussion?
Re: William Lane Craig v Polly Toynbee, « Reply #82 on Oct 31, 2011, 1:44pm »
From what I've read of bible scholars and archaeologists, it's reasonable to think that the massacres did not occur, at least not in any close resemblance to the stories in bible. That fact alone doesn't leave God off the hook. After all, the bible is in some sense God's book and the stories are there. Most of us readily admit that the bible contains scientific and historical error. We have to realize that it contains moral and even theological error as well. (Various authors of the bible disagree on theological points, like whether suffering is punishment for sin or whether God punishes children for their parents' sins.) What does this say about revelation and the authority of the bible? The beinning of an answer may be to think of my relation to the "word of God" as a risk I take on entering a millenia-long dialogue with a partner I cannot ignore.
Someone else has already mentioned Peter Singer, who I also had in mind. Peter believes that infanticide and even genocide might be justified in the present day (see FAQ), because he believes that, according to the definition he uses, babies are not ‘persons’. That means if his ideas were adopted, infanticide could happen today. I understand his reasons, and I judge him to be a compassionate man, but terribly terribly wrong on this point.
And presumably, given your answer, you would agree with me on that?
Absolutely. I've always found Singer's ideas odd to say the least and those two positions in particular aren't just odd, they are as you say totally wrong IMO. And I'm hardly alone amongst atheists in thinking so.
That's interesting, because although I find Singer's ideas in this area completely objectionable I can see how they are logically justifiable. I have to acknowledge that my objections to Singer's ideas are culturally conditioned.
That explains the butchering of the wives and kids - what about the cattle, sheep, goats, camels, and donkeys ?
That's not difficult. It's calling on the Israelites to exercise self-denial of useful resources in consecration of their lives to the service of their God; sacrifice as a demonstration of theological fidelity.
Re: William Lane Craig v Polly Toynbee, « Reply #85 on Nov 7, 2011, 12:41pm »
fortigern wrote: That's not difficult. It's calling on the Israelites to exercise self-denial of useful resources in consecration of their lives to the service of their God; sacrifice as a demonstration of theological fidelity.
If that's true, then why wasn't Saul's answer to Samuel, that he kept the best of the sheep and oxen to sarifice to the Lord, good enough?
If that's true, then why wasn't Saul's answer to Samuel, that he kept the best of the sheep and oxen to sarifice to the Lord, good enough?
Because it was a lie. They hadn't been told to give anything to God, they'd been told to deprive themselves of it. Saul chose not to, and made up a pathetically transparent lie in an attempt to justify what was flagrant disobedience.
Joined: Jun 2009 Gender: Male Posts: 365 Karma: 19
Re: William Lane Craig v Polly Toynbee, « Reply #88 on Nov 22, 2011, 7:12pm »
There is an Egyptian stele in which the king brags that he destroyed Israel and "his seed is no more." This would have been before the Hebrew kingdoms had formed, so it is very clear that Israel's seed was at least a little more. In fact, ancient peoples tended to pad their resumes because they lived in a rough tough neighborhood and needed street cred to walk with the big boys. There was a technical term for this sort of history, but I have forgotten what it is. "xxxxxxxx history."
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif "[Search]")
![[Calendar]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/calendar.gif "[Calendar]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
Author
![[avatar]](http://i1071.photobucket.com/albums/u504/unklee99/f075d7d4.jpg "[avatar]")
![[homepage]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")
Logged![[avatar]](http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/9020/basil.png "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://i.imgur.com/ZY7Pk.png "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://images.proboards.com/avatars/linux.gif "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://www.bitgamer.su/imagebucket/german_knt.gif "[avatar]")