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

Am I "taking this out of context".

(1 Sam 15:1-3 NIV) Samuel said to Saul, "I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD. {2} This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. {3} Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'"

I understand the Amalekites were enemies of God's chosen people, but for him to demand genocide can in no way, shape, or form be deemed just or moral by any rational humane being.

2007-10-27 16:55:42 · 14 answers · asked by Dog 4 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

Great insight Michael! So Saul wasn't that bad. He saved the King and the good cows at least. But those poor mothers and their children... seems pretty wrong doesn't it?

2007-10-27 17:11:56 · update #1

Chang- you are talking yourself in circles. Didn't you read my edit on the last question you posted this nonsense on? I suppose not.

2007-10-27 17:14:13 · update #2

Wow Chang! More circular babble? You're having a tough time with the logic chain kid. Slow down. Read. Think. Read again. Think harder. Then respond. Trust me.

2007-10-27 17:25:20 · update #3

14 answers

Well you are taking this out of the cultural context and trying to understand how "just" it is or how "moral" it is by today's standards.

This was an ancient type of warfare that was practices by all cultures and peoples of the time. I used to remember the name of the warfare and I don't have my resources in front of me but this was a VERY common in the Ancient Near East. Nothing "unjust" or "immoral" by Bronze Age Standards.

***UPDATE***
The most information in order to help us better understand these passages comes from the cultural context. God works and reveals himself through culture. In fact, that is the only thing that God has to reveal himself. Look at Webster's fifth definition of "culture":

5 a : the integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon man’s capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations
b : the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group
c : the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes a company or corporation

The problem is we are trying to understand a Biblical passage written in a specific time period to a specific people and evaluating its "rightness" with our own current cultural understandings. Therefore, there are many things that might seem "cruel and unusual" that occur in the Bible but were very normal in the culture it was written in.

Now, many people are not satisfied with the cultural argument but we have to understand that the Bible was written over a long period of time and is saturated with culture. The key is to understand the culture and the message in the text and determine what is the principle here, or what can be taken cross culturally.

2007-10-27 17:05:03 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

Samuel brought a critical message to King Saul, who he had annointed as king at the direction of the LORD after the Jews demanded a king. Now, the Lord has a direct command for Saul and delivers it through Samuel.

The Amalekites are enemies of Israel and disrespectful to the living God (whose people they were).

The Amalekites had been a hindrance to them when the Lord brought Israel out of Egypt, defying not only the Jews but God himself.

The LORD now commands Saul to kill all the Amalekites, including their women and children, and all of their livestock.

He is God, and cannot be questioned by mere mortals!

Is God directing you to do something now that appears too big or too outlandish?

What is it???

Saul goes to war against the Amalekites but redefines the Lord’s command.

Instead of killing all Amalekites, he spares their king, Agag.

Instead of slaughtering all their livestock, he saves the best animals. Then, he goes to Carmel and erects a monument to himself.

What do you think were Saul’s reasons for keeping the best livestock, even after he was told to slaughter them all?

In what areas in your life do you redefine your obedience to God?

The LORD regrets that He made Saul king. He reveals His feelings to Samuel. When Samuel confronts him, Saul immediately protests his innocence.

He claims that he kept the prize sheep and cattle so he could make a sacrifice to God.

Besides, he claims it really wasn’t his idea in the first place. He blames his army.

Have you ever made excuses? In what way do you believe that living a completely obedient life can cost you your career, friendships, and social status?

Samuel rebukes Saul. The Lord rejects Saul as king, promising to anoint another. A lie???

Saul pleads, saying that the real reason he was disobedient was his fear of the men in his army. Another lie???

Samuel teaches that the LORD does not go back on His word, so he indeed was rejected!

What are you doing today that is a reflection of your will and not God’s will? Do you question the almighty God, judge of your immortal soul?!?

2007-10-28 00:06:44 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

I Guess " Pity" should have been felt for Pharoah & his men who perished in the Red Sea as well huh?
The Amalekites were “the first one of the nations” to launch an unprovoked attack on the Israelites after the Exodus, at Rephidim near Mount Sinai. As a consequence, Jehovah decreed ultimate extinction for the Amalekites. A year later, when the Israelites attempted to enter the Promised Land contrary to Jehovah’s word, they were repulsed by the Amalekites. Twice during the days of the Judges these adversaries of Israel shared in assaulting Israel. They did it in the days of Eglon king of Moab. Again, with the Midianites and Easterners, they pillaged the land of Israel seven years before Gideon and his 300 men dealt them a smashing defeat.Draw your own conclusions as to when enough is enough from God's point of View.

2007-10-28 01:04:56 · answer #3 · answered by conundrum 7 · 1 0

God is not a human being and the Amalekites should have figured out they were not just dealing with God's people. They were doing evil against God himself.

2007-10-28 00:09:41 · answer #4 · answered by Uncle Remus 54 7 · 1 0

They were obeying GOD and cleaning the land of the Giants. The Giants were the product of the Fallen Angels crossing with fleshly woman in Gen 6. Trying to pollute the seed line in which Christ would come threw. Which was Satan's way to try to distroy the line of Christ.

The progeny of the fallen angels with the daughters of Adam (see notes on Gen. 6, and Ap. 23) are called in Gen. 6, Ne-phil-im, which means fallen ones (from naphal, to fall). What these beings were can be gathered only from Scripture. They were evidently great in size, as well as great in wickedness. They were superhuman, abnormal beings; and their destruction was necessary for the preservation of the human race, and for the faithfulness of Jehovah's Word (Gen. 3:15).

2007-10-28 00:06:13 · answer #5 · answered by Theophilus 5 · 1 0

Again?
So, you are totally OK with the genocide commanded by 'evolution'? but if there was an Almighty God involved you are not?
Let's just say, what if those commanded by God to be put to death were all members of white supremacist families, where the mothers and the children were all being brought up to hate and to kill the members of your particular race just because you are of that race- is it genocide then?

How about, if they were all part of a culture that was in the tradition of going forth on raids, where on these raids, they slaughtered innocent women and children of other tribes, to steal their possessions, and took the men captive to torture them until death, kept some of the children as sex slaves, and abused some of the women they kept alive to the point of utter degradation, would it be genocide then?

So, if in today's world (like in places like Bosnia, or perhaps Sierra Leone, where wanton murder and disfigurement and rape are typical) you would consider it genocide to bring the perpetrators of such horrible crimes to account for their actions to the point of death?
Maybe what we should do then for your bleeding heart liberal crap, is send to your house all those who prey upon others, the rapists, the murderers, the child molesters.... so that they can live under the umbrella of your benevolent mercies.

2007-10-28 00:10:59 · answer #6 · answered by Tim 47 7 · 0 1

God save the donkeys.

2007-10-28 00:14:41 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

2Pe 2:12 ¶ But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;

Yahweh was clearing a way for the Savior's blood line so as not to allow it to be defiled by these people.

Yahshua had to be born perfect so that he could live a sinless life, and die for your sins.

He wouldn't have accomplished this if his brain was contaminated with parasites, bacteria,and all the other abominations that the people of that nation practiced.

2007-10-28 00:03:31 · answer #8 · answered by YUHATEME 5 · 1 2

Yes Samuel had to do it because Saul disobeyed God. What the world was like back them is totally different than it is now. God knows what he is doing even if we don't.

2007-10-27 23:59:48 · answer #9 · answered by 9_ladydi 5 · 3 3

that is a good question but all bibles of all religions have passages to kill, is it history or is it a tale to be told to scare children

2007-10-28 02:43:54 · answer #10 · answered by sheilasays 3 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers