English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Why does the bible command the people to kill the enemies, their women as well as their children and infants! I'll quote "Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." (1 Samuel 15:1). Is there any country that would consider it humane to go and kill innocent women, children and infants? What sins could the poor children and infants have commited? So according to the Bible what is happening around the world nowadays i.e. innocent women and children being bombed, is totally ok ?
Some Chrsitians might try to get out by saying thats the Old Testament. Where did Jesus say not to follow the OT? Infact he said "Do not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to aboloish them but to fulfil them." (Matthew 5:16-18). And Matthew 23:1-3 tells us to follow every law and teaching of Moses, "So u must obey them and everything they tell u."
Can true Christians plz explain clearly. I don't want blind faith.

2006-07-31 23:46:44 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

If some ppl say that God knew in his infinite knowledge that these children and infants were going to become evil in the future - and thats why God commanded that these children and infants be killed; then what about the animals? What sins were the animal going to commit? Why did God command the animals to be killed too ???? Clearly it to me is nothing by preaching terrorism.

2006-08-01 22:19:05 · update #1

And if some ppl say that its the OT and it was one incident in which God commanded the ppl of those times to kill those women and children, he's not commanding us; even then you have a record in your bible in which God commanded for these innocent women and children (and their animals) to be killed! If someone now goes and bombs innocent women and children you can't say they're entirely evil bcoz God once commanded the same thing !!!

2006-08-01 22:24:02 · update #2

23 answers

"Because they were wicked they stole from God's people."

Actually, "god's people" stole their land from the "wicked" people.

I suppose it's okay to kill and rape people because god said so. "Oh, it's preventive killings! Yeah! That baby over there was Eeeeevil! He was gonna take some o' our promised land and raise sheep there! And a FAMILY! He had to die. Really!" Lol! And you christians go on about how abortion is wrong. But you would defend murder and rape. hypocrites, whenever this is brought up.

Tell me, if someone went up to YOUR kid and killed them as a preventive measure, wether sin or poverty, what have you, what would you do? How would you feel? How did those "wicked" people feel, seeing everyone they knew slaughtered?

to ernest: Moloch might actually be a sacrifice:

The arguments were that classical accounts of the sacrifices of children at Carthage were not numerous and were only particularly described as occurring in times of peril, not necessarily a regular occurrence. Might not the burned bodies of infants be mostly those of stillborn children or of children who had died very young of natural causes? Might not the burning of their bodies be a religious practice applied in such cases? Need one assume the burning of live children? Could the accounts be anti-Punic propaganda? Why were accusations of human sacrifice in Carthage found only among a small number of authors and not mentioned at all by many other writers who dealt with Carthage in greater depth or were more openly hostile to Carthage? Some accounts of the sacrifices described the children as lads and lasses, hardly infants.

Texts referring to the molk sacrifice mentioned animals more than they mentioned humans. Of course, those may have been animals offered instead of humans to redeem a human life. And the Biblical decrying of the sacrificing of one's children as a molk sacrifice doesn't indicate one way or the other that all molk sacrifices must involve human child sacrifice or even that a molk usually involved human sacrifice.

To Ellen: Sacred prostitutes were of Ishtar's temple, not Ba'al's.

Anyway, we call this Genocide. :) Not like the Israelis hadn't offered human sacrifice to Yhvh, keep looking it's in there. BTW, I have no idea what the animals were doing that was so wrong. O_O

2006-08-01 00:39:30 · answer #1 · answered by Kali 3 · 2 0

Because the bible verse you have pulled is out of context. The Lord is telling Samuel to destroy a certian tribe that had been doing their best to torture the good work of the jews. God tells Samuel in verse 2. "This is what the Lord Almighty says,'I will punish the Amalkites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egpyt."

This was a specific punishment for a specific crime. Therefore it was only applicable in that situation.

about the law or the prophets, people thought Jesus came to tell them that was all wrong, the Law was wrong and the Prophets were wrong when making their prophecies about the messiah. That is what He meant when He said that He did not come to destroy the Law and the Prophecies, but to fulfill the prophicies and to let everyone know He was the one they'd been waiting for.

2006-08-01 00:04:26 · answer #2 · answered by Alicia A 4 · 0 0

When the Israelites came into the valley that would become Israel there were groups of people living there who worshiped a god called Baal. This was a god of consummate evil. Sexual orgies with temple prostitutes was part of the worship process.
This was nothing compared to the sacrifices that were offered up to Baal. A families first born was to be offered to this god.
An iron effigy was filled with wood and heated red hot from the fire. There was a incline which led into the belly of the idol and on this was placed the screaming infant. The infant was allowed to roll into the fire and was burned alive. The people in attendance celebrated with their orgy.
YHWH (God), understandably, was not happy with this and wanted this religion destroyed. Also, he was afraid that His people would be turned aside from worshipping the true God and would instead want to follow Baal who offered drunkeness and sex.
People of that day were required to avenge their family if their family was killed. This meant that the captured survivors would start a blood fued that would tear the culture apart. Rather than allow this, God wanted the entire group destroyed. It's not that God wanted to kill infants or any of them, for that matter. It's that they refused to give Baal up.
Even with this destruction, the worship of Baal and other gods like him continued to plague the Jews for a long time. They were constantly falling away from God and having to be chastened by God before they would return to Him.
Don't assume that God was senselessly bloodthirsty but He is God and He wasn't going to allow His chosen ones to be destroyed by the evil paganism of the day.

2006-08-01 00:14:24 · answer #3 · answered by Ellen J 7 · 0 0

That command was a specific command at a specific time. Yes, that passage is in the OT, but more importantly it is a historical account of what God commanded Saul to do specifically to the Amalekites at this time. It is not an outstanding order for all Christian's to do to their enemies. So, this is descriptive, not prescriptive.

We may wonder even if this is an isolated incident, why this is okay? Certainly it goes against what we think of God to advocate. And certainly, our feelings are correct. However, it is important to remember that our internal sense of right and wrong has its origin in the moral law creator - God. He is good, so His judgments then are good. We cannot always rectify this in ourselves, yet to rest upon the fact that He is sovereign and omniscient.

2006-07-31 23:57:47 · answer #4 · answered by KHB 2 · 0 0

You have to be kidding dude, what have you been smoking? Btw, isnt it amusing that nobody commented when Israel was attacked by thousands rockets before the war, no country at all. Then they warn that they will take action unless the bombing stopped, come on man what the heck do you expect them to do just give all their citizens helmets and hope for luck. Then when the bombing and missiles dont stop, they do what they had warned that they would have to (protect their citizens) and now the whole world cries foul. To me we´re all hypocrites to start with, and so is Hamas for provenly hiding amongst innocent civilians while using mortars or sending missiles and then running away knowing that the innocent will be hit after they leave cause they don´t give a damn and just think that the children they endanger are "martyrs". That´s bullshit man! Seriously....

2016-03-27 12:04:52 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Every one should answer the question in a good civilized manner, when christans attack Islam without any knowledge and at that time where is their spirit? Do you think you are following what jesus said and what is in your bible? What are the moral and social values of your religion. This was also a divine religion but now it has become a man made religion. In Islam Jesus ( Easa) is known as a highly respected prophet and his mother Meryam is most respectable woman. You need to read Quran with open minded with the illustration of back ground of verses.Then compare with Bible. I think that would be quite enough for your understanding.

2006-08-01 00:22:27 · answer #6 · answered by good 1 · 0 0

Jesus and the Mosaic Law


Many Christians are perplexed when they confront the issue of the Mosaic Law. How binding is the Law on the Christian? Some have said that Jesus abolished the Law of Moses. I would have to disagree, based on the following passage spoken by Jesus Himself:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. (Matthew 5:17)
Some have suggested that by "fulfil," Jesus meant "abolish." Indeed, "abolish" is one meaning of "fulfil," but it is also the only meaning of "destroy." So if He had meant "abolish," He might as well have said, "I am not come to abolish, but to abolish." We can assume, therefore, that Jesus meant, "to develop the full potentialities of" when He said "fulfil."

So why then do Christians not observe the Mosaic Law? The answer is that they do observe parts, but not all of it. Some parts of the Law were meant to be temporary, while others were intended to be permanent. This is seen in the fact that before Moses, the ancient Jews were not bound to the ritual commands (except circumcision). If the Mosaic Law was not meant to be temporary, then either God changes or the God of the righteous men and women before Moses was a different god. But this is absurd. We know that the God of Abraham was the God of Moses, and that He is our God today. The coming of Christ made parts of the Mosaic law unnecessary.


In order to understand this, we must realize that the Law is made up of three parts: ceremonial, civil, and moral.


The ceremonial law related specifically to Israel's worship. Since its primary purpose was to point to the coming Savior, Jesus made it unnecessary. He did not abolish it, in the sense of destroying it; He fulfilled it. Nowhere do we read that Jesus thought that the ceremonial law was wrong. The principles behind the ceremonial law are still applicable to us today, that is, the principles of worshipping and serving a holy God.


The civil law prescribed rules for the Israelites' daily living. These laws separated the Jews from the Gentiles, and gave the Gentiles the example of how a holy people should live. Since much was given to the Jews, much was expected. But God gave a new covenant in Christ, and there is now no distinction to be made between Jew and Gentile. We are still to follow the requirements of this law as God's people, but the punishments are not for any nation to impose on its people, because we are no longer separated by nations but by God's grace (Christians and non-Christians).


The moral law is basically the Ten Commandments. We are still bound by these laws, not for salvation, but to live a holy life. Jesus not only desired that His followers adhere to these commandments, He wished that they would go above and beyond them. He said, "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: but I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment..." He desired not only an outward observance of these laws, but an inward observance as well.


So we see that the parts of the Law that have been rendered obsolete are those that contain ordinances. An ordinance is either a memorial of something that has already passed or a type of something in the future. The Old Testament laws containing ordinances were not meant to be permanent. There are no ordinances in the Ten Commandment Law.


Now, we must remember that following rules and regulations will not get us into heaven. It is only through the blood of Jesus that we can see heaven. But if we love Him, we will keep His commandments.

2006-08-01 00:09:47 · answer #7 · answered by williamzo 5 · 0 0

This is a god, that if you do the wrong thing, he is going to torture you for all eternity. If someone commits a crime, we punish them with 20 years jail, but this isn't good enough for god, not even a hundred years, not even a million year punishment is enough for crossing him, for some petty sin. And then he isn't content with just locking you away, no, he is going to torture you with the most horrific torture imaginable that not even our worst war criminals would be capable of, he is going to burn you alive non stop 24 hours a day for all eternity as you cant die, and you will never have paid him back for the wrong you have done him by sleeping with your neighbour. And despite this absolute cruelty people worship him when he is so cruel. This is why these religions are so idiotic, they are illogical. Who in their right mind would worship someone a trillion times more vindictive than Hitler?

2006-08-01 00:00:23 · answer #8 · answered by ByeBuyamericanPi 4 · 0 0

All reasonbale people do not accept that Holly Scriptures propagate any violence message. The mentioned verses taken from Bible or Quran should be judged based on the historical context and not on the personal feelings. People who use them to discredit any religion must read the verses from the beginning.
I think that it's not worth debating over this. Bad tendency leads only to hate. Peace!!!

2006-08-01 00:01:59 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

These people that were to be killed were not inocent, they were pagens worshiping molech which things are an abomenations to God, These people were sacrifice there own children by burning them in fire to thier god, the children were not inocent because they have learn these things from thier parents, plus God was also showing His people just how disgusting this is by having His people utterly destroy these idol worshiping beings, teaching Gods people never to do what these infidals are doing.

2006-08-01 00:06:45 · answer #10 · answered by His eyes are like flames 6 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers