Read Exodus again. The Amalek - and only the Amalek - were the subject of such fierce vengeance not because the Israelites needed their land (as desert nomads, they didn’t live within the borders of Canaan) but because they tried to commit genocide against the 12 tribes soon after leaving Egypt. Basically, God ordered the Jews to do to the Amalek what the Amalek had tried to do to the Jews.
(One might wonder why God didn’t make a similar injunction against the Egyptians themselves; my belief is that He know His Chosen People’s limitations. Wiping out some nomads is one thing, but destroying the ancient word’s most powerful civilization was a bit beyond their capabilities).
Meh, I think I am pretty witty, personally, and I believe that I have gotten some good results from this thread. I don’t see how you believe I should post here, when I have gotten such priceless responses. No, I understand it doesn’t take much wit to post a quot which would seem to put god in a bad light, but it doesn’t take much wit to worship such a god, so I guess it evens out.
According to the the bible “19 When the LORD your God gives you rest from all the enemies around you in the land he is giving you to possess as an inheritance, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget!” http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy%2025:19;&version=31;
Wouldn’t you then have to destroy all the bibles in the world then. I mean, in fact, would we even remember the Amalek if it was not for the bible???
Well, first of all, of course the morality of killing is relative to the context in which it takes place. The morality of most actions are relative to the context in which they take place. If I knock you unconscious and rip your teeth out, I could be a sadist, or I could be your dentist.
The nation of Israel is commanded to wipe out Amalek, not because the tribe of Amalek lives in any area that Israel was promised (as a matter of fact, they didn’t. They supposedly lived in what’s now eastern Jordan and Northern Arabia), but because when Israel was helpless in the desert, Amalek attacked them and slaughtered women and children. And they didn’t do it because they were threatened or in any danger. They did it for no other reason than that they were evil and hated Israel. The people of Amalek made a vow that they would wipe out Israel, and they’re all inherantly evil.
You might not believe that, but that’s the context that the commandment is in.
Also, I think it was because Egypt never tried to destroy Israel entirely. Even when Pharaoh commanded that the Israelite babies be killed, he only said “Kill all the male babies”, not everyone, and even in the end, when he sent his army out, it was only to return Israel to slavery, not to exterminate us.
I know that was meant to be an insult, but I enjoy rereading threads, so here are a few topic I have started or posted on, containing, witty, clever or funny comments from me. How can Star Wars be any worse? Suggestions, please.
I could post more, but I believe I have made my point. Oh, and before I finish writing, let me say something in order to take it away from you. “Just because you believe it, that doesn’t mean it’s true.”
I have to give props to Scott plaid – faced with Tom~'s demand for a Cite?!?! quoted above, he actually gave some! (I leave it to the reader to decide the veracity of their contents in proving his remark, but at least he followed up on it!)
Meanwhile, this makes the fifth time I’ve seen “Why do I hafta kill Amtrak?..” on the last-thread-in-each-forum list, and come in to discuss passenger railroads. :Sigh:
Now, I have already decided my mind on this matter, but that is no reason why others should not enjoy discussing that topic. Now, I know that once I have posted the OP, people will take it wherever they want, but for what it’s worth, you have my permission to discuss why ice cream must die. (“I didn’t even know you could kill chocolate ice cream!”)Anyway, if you feel like discussing why a commuter service must die, instead of starting a new thread you have my permission to do so here.
Sorry, I started thinking about ice cream and possible lines of the obscure quote contest.
This is the same God who later inspired “turn the other cheek?” This is the same God whose son was known as the “Prince of Peace”? This is the same God who values forgiveness? And further, you say that his lack of a genocidal mandate against the Egyptians boiled down to the fact that Israel wasn’t powerful enough to kill them all. So, might makes right, eh?
So God created these people who were evil and then commanded his chosen people to wipe them out. In your experience, are people always either wholly good or evil? Why isn’t God the one that judges the evil Amlekites and punishes them?
That whole “turn the other cheek” thing and the son who’s the “Prince of Peace” is your religion, remember. It’s not Judaism. Besides, Judaism does value forgiveness and peace. This was just a special case, and Amalek is the only tribe or group that “kill them all” applies to.
No, God created these people and they chose to be evil, just like the people in the time before the flood chose to be evil. Remember, they all got wiped out too. And God did judge the Amalekites and punished them. The tribes of Israel just are to be his means of doing so.
At what point did God stop using the Israelites as his tools for earthly judgement and start handling things in-house? Does he still use them (or anybody else, for that matter) as tools today?
If he were a real person, I would definitly call him a tool, but as far as I can tell. He chose to use people, instead of getting his hands dirty from time to time, with no reason or rhyme.
In Genesis he kills almost everyone on earth. Er… In 38:7
Then, in Joshua 8:22-26,Joshua and his army, as per God’s instructions, slaughter all the inhabitants of Ai.
Then it’s back to god slaying people all by himself. Remeber what happend to the nazis in the Indian Jones movie?
The idea is that sometimes God acts directly through miracles, and other times God acts through people, and yeah, God still uses people to work his will today. In fact, Judaism says that we don’t really live anymore in an age of miracles. We can’t expect God to give manna to feed us anymore…we have to feed each other.
But whenever we do a mitzvah, we’re doing God’s work.
What’s all this about “I wouldn’t believe in a God that demanded such things”? Hello? He’s God. He can demand whatever the heck He wants. Supposedly, He tells us that He’s a nice guy at heart and plays by His own rules, but there’s aboslutely nothing to stop Him from doing otherwise.
(Maybe that’s why God’s followers can be so insufferable sometimes–He Himself being a pretty staunch Fascist. :wally )
As an aside, I’ve always found it very amusing that the the Chinese versions of Christianity adopted the words originally used for the Emperor, the “Son of Heaven”. (And conversely, it always creeped me out to hear phrases like “The Holiest Most High Supreme Being” in historical dramas.)
Scott_plaid Man, I love to see your OP’s come up. Put the crap in the blender and hit puree. But, what of the ever-present: "Funny, you don’t look Amalekitish"
Good to see ya again.
“ Put the crap in the blender and hit puree.” Ummm… thanks?
But really, I am glad that I only posted minimally and did not make my position clear at the begining of this thread, for it seemed like when it wasn’t clear on my stance, more people post candid opinions. However, I feel the need to post my stance. In both the old and new testaments, there is plenty of bloodshed both caused by, and due to “god.” Some of this can be attributed to a legitimate need to kill people, in order to avoid themselves being killed, such as what the jews today must do in Israel, while other examples seem like made up boast, such as the destruction of Jericho, which I believe actually exists today. Having such behavior recorded in a “holy book”, however seems horrible. So what if much, though not all the barbarisms can be explained by an examination of circumstances? It is still a violent, bloody book that is taught to children, and I cannot condone holding such a book in such regard.
I’m sorry if my intent was also unclear. By my comment I meant I enjoy the way you can stir up some crap to get discussions off to a witty and lively start. They are always energetic and informed discussions.
And yes, I vote for witty.
(I leave it to the reader to decide the veracity of their contents in proving his remark, but at least he followed up on it!)