I have a niece and nephew who were stillborn. Some would see that as God’s will instead of attributing it to nature. How do you see it? Did God kill my niece and nephew or was it a work of nature? In the Bible, how do you see it? A work of nature or God killing infants? If infants were killed in the exact same manner today, would you say, “Act of nature” or “God killed them all.”
All good questions. But I am referring to when God commanded the Israelites to kill the children, including infants, of another tribe.
It’s easy. Just “re-interpret” it, or cherry pick what to take literally and not.
Ah, the Amalekites. I was studying journalism the first time I truly studied this story. The first thing that hit me from a journalistic point of view is that it was an account of a political difference among the Jews. Instead of Democrats and Republicans, we have the Kings and the Priests. The Priests pulled out the “God commanded” card because God did call upon the Jews to not mingle with others because there was to be no outside influence. The Kings, we see, saw no real harm with letting children, livestock, women–and even some men in high places survive. Reading on, the Priests were not to take this disregard of their wishes lightly. They deposed Saul (saying it was God’s will) and put David in his place. David was much better at listening to the priestly class.
Jews see it a little differently (although some I’ve talked with concede I have a point). They point to longstanding teachings. During the Jews sojourn in the desert, it was the Amalekites that harassed the Israelites when they were starving and sick. Many Israelites (not to mention their children) had perished due to the treatment of the Amalekites. In carrying out the command to raze a town of Amalekites, it is pointed out that in God’s mercy, not nearly the number of people were killed than had been killed by the Amalekites. It was seen as punishment for crimes against humanity, but the punishment was still seen as merciful.
One of the reasons Jews became so adamant about showing hospitality to strangers is based on memories and stories about how ill-treated they had been.
So was it moral that God commanded the murder of infants?
The Israelites wrote the account. Their thinking at that time: Would a just God allow the slaughter of their people at the time they were ill and starving, not warlike at all at that time to occur with no retribution.
How we might understand it today: The slaughter of families looking for a better life, encroaching on our borders. Should God allow that happen without stepping in, or should He remain indifferent?
Personally, I don’t think we should be slaughtering families on our border. I think we agree there.
In regards to my post, God COMMANDED the slaughter of infants. He wasn’t indifferent. He didn’t let the Israelites make up their own minds. He didn’t give advice. He didn’t just allow. He COMMANDED.
Was it moral that the American President commanded the murder of infants in 1945?
It’s simple. Just conveniently say it was allegory!
You didn’t answer the question Meri. Was it moral or not
Similar circumstances. A time of war. A choice between limited attack and prolonging the killing and increasing the body count significantly, or use a terrible weapon, kill thousands of innocents and bring the war to a quicker end.
@koushi_shinigami So instead of taking responsibility for his creation and trying to maybe fix it by presenting himself, God decides to murder 100,000s of innocent children. Because God forbid he provides universal evidence of his existence so that we can stop playing these games. Makes total sense.
That’s the way you see it.
Seems like a reasonable way to view that part of scripture. Care to present an alternative interpretation?
Meri already has. Or you can ask a Jew for their understanding. Personally, I don’t worry about being offended by a story that is thousands of years old and has been filtered through many languages and cultures. What you are reading now in modern English might very well not be a good representation of what was originally recorded.
And that was the Priestly interpretation of what God wanted based on the laws given to them. Do you remember President Bush saying he prayed over what to do in Iraq? Are you of the mind that God COMMANDED President Bush to take action? Likewise, when the Israelite Priests prayed over the matter and came to their conclusions, it was a COMMAND from God…or were the priests (led by Samuel) speaking for God.
Samuel and Saul were at odds with each other. Ultimately, Samuel won. Note in the account, Samuel says that God commanded him. Yet no account is written of God visiting Samuel (compared to the account of God visiting Moses via the burning bush and up on Mount Sinai). When God makes an appearance and says something, it was carefully recorded. Historically what also happens, is that the winner gets to write history. Samuel won. Saul was deposed.
Again, Rabbi apologetics (explanation) of God’s command is that it was just retribution to the Amalekites first slaughtering the Israelites when they were ill and starving in the desert. I tend to go with the political slant myself, but then political slants were what I most enjoyed covering in journalism.
And, it is certainly nothing like the original intent and purpose.
Of course. God is God. Not some president human on earth. Why hold God to such a low, sinful standard?
The implication from your response is that we cannot trust the Bible. We need to figure out what may be true and what may be embellishment or outright lies. The Bible no longer is inspired by God but is merely a collection of stories from a Bronze Age nomadic tribe.
Ok then.
1 Like
