The Character of God

[PaxRomana]

My question is for Christians, and has 3 parts:

#1-I consider myself a rational and compassionate person. How could I, in good conscience, follow a God who orders his people to do the following?:

Thus says Yahweh of hosts: 'I have observed what Amalek did to Israel, how he opposed him when he went up from Egypt. So then, go and attack Amalek and utterly destroy all that is his! You must not spare him, but kill both man and woman, both child and nursing infant, both ox and sheep, both camel and donkey.'
(1 Samuel 15:2-3 LEB)

(Similar episodes of divine genocide can be found in Gen: 6, Deut: 2, 3, 7, 13, 20 & Josh: 6, 10)


#2-If God commanded you to commit an atrocity, such as murdering 'nursing infants', as he commands the ancient Hebrews in the last passage, would you obey him, and would it change your perception of his character?


3-Finally, how do you reconcile this image of a wrathful & jealous God with the impression of God one might get from reading the following verses?:

Dear friends, let us love one another, because love is from God, and everyone who loves has been fathered by God and knows God. The one who does not love does not know God, because God is love.
(1 John 4:7-8 LEB)

Love is patient, love is kind, love is not jealous, it does not boast, it does not become conceited, it does not behave dishonorably, it is not selfish, it does not become angry, it does not keep a record of wrongs, it does not rejoice at unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth, bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
(1 Corinthians 13:4-7 LEB)

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 49 by DanieltheDragon]

You're trying to debate in a vacuum. You don't have adequate knowledge of the Canaanites or their context to make a sound judgment.

It's gotten to the point where you're distorting what the Bible is saying. The Bible didn't say that "in order to stop the killing of children, you have to kill the children."

The Bible actually says (in Genesis) that "the sins of the Canaanites are not yet ripe", and later "you are to destroy everything..."

It's not advisable to depart from the text, what it says or what it intended to mean, just for the sake of having a debate.

I really don't think you know me well enough to make those claims about me. Where have I distorted what the bible has said. Please feel free to use the quote feature.

You are the one who put context to genocide.

If you take those verses out of context, you most certainly have a point.

Too bad you can't do that (rationally).

If you were to view the context, you'd be shocked at the practices of the Canaanites who practiced child sacrifice by burning them at the stake. Even Egyptian writings describe them as grotesque cultures.

Think "Al Qaeda" and add a generous helping of cruelty.

this is your justification for mass genocide. You stated that because they sacrificed children, that it was justification for God to have his people kill not just the men not just the women and not just the children but also the unborn children as well.

So my question to you is why did the children have to die? can you answer that, why did the suckling infants have to die?

[The Me's]

[Replying to post 51 by DanieltheDragon]

Tell me which of the following is NOT true, and try to be honest about it:

1--You find fault with the Bible because it records an apparent genocide
2--You reject the entire Bible because of that one passage
3--You reject God because of that one passage

(It's as if I've seen this argument before. Spooky.)

What I'm attempting to do is explain to you that you're taking a passage out of the context of the Bible as well as out of the context of its history, and your using truncated interpretation to cast aspersion on both God and the Bible.

This is not sound reasoning, therefore you've arrived at a poor conclusion.

The writers of the Bible were honest enough to record the events that make them appear good as well as events that make them appear bad. This is what honesty demands, and it lends credibility to the text.

(What you forgot to ask yourself is "How do I know God made that command? How do I know the writer isn't putting words in God's mouth?"

So, are you REALLy giving God a fair shake, or are you looking for justification for a decision you already made?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 51 by DanieltheDragon]

Tell me which of the following is NOT true, and try to be honest about it:

1--You find fault with the Bible because it records an apparent genocide
2--You reject the entire Bible because of that one passage
3--You reject God because of that one passage

None of that is true. It appears you are stereotyping me. So you don't have to defend your claims. You made a claim now address it put context to it if you will, stop attacking me and defend your claims.

[The Me's]

None of that is true. It appears you are stereotyping me. So you don't have to defend your claims. You made a claim now address it put context to it if you will, stop attacking me and defend your claims.

I never claimed that I have context, I claimed that YOU DON'T (emphassis to point out your symantic alteration of what I said).

I don't have a burden, YOU DO.

It's okay with me if you don't want to tell me why you said you reject any God who would command such a thing (that was you, right? Or am I quoting someonee else?)

I try to work from a moral perspective as often as possible. I believe that it's immoral to level a false accusation or an unsupportable accusation. It's far better to err on the side of being positive about others rather than to automatically assume the negative first.

This goes along the same lines as presumption of innocence. It's wrong to presume someone guilty without evidence.

I'm not ashamed to admit when I don't have enough information, but that's not the case here. I have the Bible which indicates the Canaanites were an absolutely horrid culture, and I have corroborating Egyptian references spread over 12 centuries. That's enough for me.

(If you want to know where I'm getting these alleged Egyptian references, read the first volume of "Ancient Records of Egypt" by Henry Breasted. His 5-volume book is mostly full translations of Egyptian records; he inserts only brief explanations and on rare occassion his own opinion.)

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 54 by The Me's]

what am I trying to prove?

You stated genocide was ok because the Canaanites were evil.

I asked why?

You claim I have a burden of proof, but I still want to know what am I trying to prove?

You made a claim not me, I have claimed nothing.

So like I said stop attacking me and backup your words. You said

What I'm attempting to do is explain to you that you're taking a passage out of the context of the Bible as well as out of the context of its history, and your using truncated interpretation to cast aspersion on both God and the Bible.

So I asked you to provide the proper context. So I can understand your view point.

If you won't provide context to the genocide, and continue to claim that I have some imaginary burden of proof to something I am not trying to prove, I think we will just have to agree to disagree.

[The Me's]

You stated genocide was ok because the Canaanites were evil.

Never said that.

I have done nothing more than question your conclusion. When interpreting history, you need to be more cautious and use only the evidence provided without reading your own bias into it. As of this answer, you've provided nothing more than a Bible verse and your interpretation of it. You won't even take into consideration that your interpretation might be erroneous or unclear.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 1 by PaxRomana]

If you take those verses out of context, you most certainly have a point.

Too bad you can't do that (rationally).

If you were to view the context, you'd be shocked at the practices of the Canaanites who practiced child sacrifice by burning them at the stake. Even Egyptian writings describe them as grotesque cultures.

Think "Al Qaeda" and add a generous helping of cruelty.

I am sorry but this is a claim is it not?

So let me ask you this was it ok for God to kill all the Canaanites?

if so why?


lets just keep this simple and give me a direct response please.

[The Me's]

[Replying to post 1 by PaxRomana]

If you take those verses out of context, you most certainly have a point.

Too bad you can't do that (rationally).

If you were to view the context, you'd be shocked at the practices of the Canaanites who practiced child sacrifice by burning them at the stake. Even Egyptian writings describe them as grotesque cultures.

Think "Al Qaeda" and add a generous helping of cruelty.

I am sorry but this is a claim is it not?

So let me ask you this was it ok for God to kill all the Canaanites?

if so why?


lets just keep this simple and give me a direct response please.

You've presented two disconnected thoughts.

I claimed that you're taking a Bible passage out of context.
I claimed that the Canaanites were truly evil.
I claimed that both the Bible and Egyptian records demonstrate as much.

My claims have been generally satisfied.

*********
Your second thought is different, and I've made no claim requiring support.

YOU imply that the Bible's passage indicates injustice (insert whatever word you wish).

Your claim, your burden.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 58 by The Me's]

Yeah good luck, there is not point discussing anything with you. Just a concept shifting of burden.

[The Me's]

[Replying to post 58 by The Me's]

Yeah good luck, there is not point discussing anything with you. Just a concept shifting of burden.

Thank you for making my point for me.

All those who wish to find fault with the Bible fail to demonstrate support of any kind. When asked to do so, you seem offended at the request and claim that it's my place, not yours.