Is God Cruel?

[Deedee]

Not quite. The point I was making to Deicide is that the passage (Deut 21:18-21) makes reference to a rebellious son. But, nothing indicates that this son is a child. On the contrary, the context of the verses would suggest that this is a grown man (which, by OT law, means he's at least 20).

Point taken.  However, it still stands that in today's world, no one is having their children executed for rebellious behavior. Can you imagine?

In the ancient world, the family made the call. The assailant wasn't forced to marry the rapist. And, the whole purpose was to ensure care for the victim. That's for unmarried ones. For those who already had husbands to care for them, the rapist got executed. I'm sure many rape victims would prefer that to a prison sentence (subject to reduction, based on "good behavior"). Again, a rape victim may have a host of wounds (physical, psychological, and financial), because of the crime. The assailant isn't responsible for any of that, either in prion or upon his release. Is that necessarily a better way to handle the situation? And, if there are other means to take care of those things for the victim (married or single), why is the rapist still alive?

I'll go out on a limb and say that, if we were talking about Catholic priests or other religious leaders molesting people, some of our non-religious buddies wouldn't have such a problem with the death penalty for rapists.

I notice you've discarded many of my other examples to focus on this one. Are those just incidental? I'll go out on a limb and say that many non-religious people would favor the death penalty for rapists regardless of whether or not they are religious leaders.  However, those are simply not the laws of today.

Please see Deuteronomy 22:23-25.  Where does it say the victim may refuse her assailant? As well, in today's world a rape victim wouldn't be executed for "not screaming."

Indeed, context is important when comparing laws then and now. (i.e. causing a miscarriage in a pregnant woman was yet another capital offense in OT times). Take also the case of theft. If someone stole livestock; he had to return at least double of what he took. If you get your car stolen, the thief simply gets chucked in jail and (if you're lucky) you get your property back in one piece. You don't get two cars for the trouble.

Far as I remember, causing a miscarriage only carried the penalty of death if the woman was grievously harmed or died as a result. If not, the assailant paid a fine and that was that.  

Theft is generally a non-violent crime, both then and now,  and we were talking about violent, seemingly barbaric punishment or acts based on today's sensibilities.

Exactly what was stopping the judge from ordering counseling for this guy? And why would getting him such require a two-month jail sentence? Perhaps, he could have been set on the right course. But, the judge gave him 60 days and that would have been it, had O'Reilly not interjected himself into the situation.

The prosecution/state. They felt the rapist was at low risk for re-offending, so no in-house counseling, which pissed off the Judge. The judge thought he was dangerous and needed counseling in addition to jail time.  The rapist didn't get a two-month sentence.  He got 10 years to life with all of it suspended but for 60 days provided he complete out-patient counseling, which he wasn't going to get in jail. If he failed to comply it was back to the big house.  Was it a brilliant move? No, and you're talking about one isolated case here. Sounds like after 25 years on the bench, the Judge was going through a "thing."

http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2006/01/10/judge_cashman_defends_his_decision_to_impose_60_day_sentence/?page=2

[OzmO]

David proclaimed the goodness of God, and he lost his child, because of his adulterous act with Bathsheba.

So?

How did she lose or he lose the child?

And, with regards to those pesky Amalekites, you claimed that Jews made up the account. But, you've yet to explain how that makes any sense, based on the parameters involved. Again, Saul is punished for NOT finishing the job and keeping the choice livestock, gold, and silver.

So what?   It still comes down to killing children.  Can't get away from that or avoid it.  Killing children is evil.

From a human standpoint, defeating your enemies, making sport with their king, and walking away with their loot is a magnificent accomplishment. Yet, Saul got cursed, instead of blessed for his actions. And many Israelites, for generations to come, would suffer as a result of Saul's disobedience, starting with the members of his own family (none from the house of Saul inherited the throne of Israel, not even David's offspring from Saul's daughter).

Again so what?  Just becuase sins affects others who did not sin doesn't justify killing children ESPECIALLY when you have the power to prevent it.

[OzmO]

Ozmo go to this website.

http://www.ligonier.org/

Scroll down to the tab titled "Latest" and click on the audio broadcast "When towers fall" dated 4/21/2008

Please listen to this broadcast about "why does God let innocent people die" I think this might help you with the issue of why children died at the hand of God.

HMIC

I'm about to run out of here and won;t be back to my house for at least 6-7 hours.  I'll listen to it then or tomorrow sometime.  Thanks for the link.

But if its about natural disasters, i see them as two very different things when it comes to God ordering Jews to kill children.

[MCWAY]

Point taken.  However, it still stands that in today's world, no one is having their children executed for rebellious behavior. Can you imagine?

There wouldn't be enough graves to bury them.

I notice you've discarded many of my other examples to focus on this one. Are those just incidental? I'll go out on a limb and say that many non-religious people would favor the death penalty for rapists regardless of whether or not they are religious leaders.  However, those are simply not the laws of today.

No, I simply didn't have time to address them.

Please see Deuteronomy 22:23-25.  Where does it say the victim may refuse her assailant? As well, in today's world a rape victim wouldn't be executed for "not screaming."

See Exodus 22. The "not screaming" part has to do with the victim actually being just that...A VICTIM. If she willingly gives up the booty and she's married/bethroed, she's committing adultery, the penaly for which is DEATH (for both parties).

Far as I remember, causing a miscarriage only carried the penalty of death if the woman was grievously harmed or died as a result. If not, the assailant paid a fine and that was that.  

I think that applied to the unborn baby. If the baby died, then the offender got put to death.

Theft is generally a non-violent crime, both then and now,  and we were talking about violent, seemingly barbaric punishment or acts based on today's sensibilities.

My point was that our justice system for crimes (violent or non-violent) isn't necessarily better in some cases, just different.

The prosecution/state. They felt the rapist was at low risk for re-offending, so no in-house counseling, which pissed off the Judge. The judge thought he was dangerous and needed counseling in addition to jail time.  The rapist didn't get a two-month sentence.  He got 10 years to life with all of it suspended but for 60 days provided he complete out-patient counseling, which he wasn't going to get in jail. If he failed to comply it was back to the big house.  Was it a brilliant move? No, and you're talking about one isolated case here. Sounds like after 25 years on the bench, the Judge was going through a "thing."

http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2006/01/10/judge_cashman_defends_his_decision_to_impose_60_day_sentence/?page=2

If the judge felt he needed counseling, in addition to jail time, all he has to do is order the counseling during his 10-year sentence, NOT reduce his sentence to 60 days (with out-patient counseling). Again, it was only after the heat got put on him (once Bill O'Reilly got word of the story) that he bumped this guy's sentence up to 3 years.

[MCWAY]

So?

How did she lose or he lose the child?

So.....you said you believe God is good and good isn't killing children. David proclaimed that God is good, too. However, the prophet, Nathan, told David in advance that, while he and Batsheba would be spared, the child they conceived would die because of their sin.

So what?   It still comes down to killing children.  Can't get away from that or avoid it.  Killing children is evil.

I'm not avoiding anything. Once again, whether you like it or not, human life is the Lord's creation and, as such, He can do with it what He sees fit. It was His call to deal with the Amalekites via Saul. Defining good and evil is based on the Lord's criteria, not yours or mine. And, it was His call. He has the right to destroy that which He ultimately created. Man does not, unless he had His authorization, which was the case with Saul.

Again so what?  Just becuase sins affects others who did not sin doesn't justify killing children ESPECIALLY when you have the power to prevent it.

Sin affecting others means just that. It affects others; and in some tragic cases, that involves death. The blame goes on the Amalekites, period, which may be something YOU keep trying to avoid.

[OzmO]

So.....you said you believe God is good and good isn't killing children. David proclaimed that God is good, too. However, the prophet, Nathan, told David in advance that, while he and Batsheba would be spared, the child they conceived would die because of their sin.

Again so what?  Writing scripture after any fact can make anything look prophetic.  You are telling me someone in "B.C. whatever" knew whether or not the child died becuase of the sin or from some other cause the primitive minded people of David's day attributed to GOD becuase their knowledge about the causes of death ranked at the same level as that of a caveman's shaman?

oh please.   

I'm not avoiding anything. Once again, whether you like it or not, human life is the Lord's creation and, as such, He can do with it what He sees fit. It was His call to deal with the Amalekites via Saul. Defining good and evil is based on the Lord's criteria, not yours or mine. And, it was His call. He has the right to destroy that which He ultimately created. Man does not, unless he had His authorization, which was the case with Saul.

Yes, if he created all this, which he has, he has the ABILITY to do what he wishes with it.  But in defining GOD, and the wisdom that is sure to be attached to such, and being the ultimate authority on right or wrong to commit such an evil hypocritical act, it does not match, it is not pure, it has no integrity or credibility.  You can't say GOD is all those things HT listed and not say he isn't the other things i listed when GOD order the killing of children.  If god is any of those things i listed he is a man.  Hence most of the OT is crap.

Sin affecting others means just that. It affects others; and in some tragic cases, that involves death. The blame goes on the Amalekites, period, which may be something YOU keep trying to avoid.

Whaty's tragic isd when there was no other choice or way.  There were other choices and ways with or without GOD.  It's a cop out and avoidance of the fact of barbarism and evil in an attempt to justify killing children to say, "oh well, in some tragic cases, that involves death but GOD made the children and can do what ever he pleases."

[MCWAY]

Again so what?  Writing scripture after any fact can make anything look prophetic.  You are telling me someone in "B.C. whatever" knew whether or not the child died becuase of the sin or from some other cause the primitive minded people of David's day attributed to GOD becuase their knowledge about the causes of death ranked at the same level as that of a caveman's shaman?

oh please.   

You asked why David's first son (from Bathsheba) died. I give you the answer, and you respond with this? First of all, you have no indication that Nathan's telling David of the fate of his son was done AFTER his death.

The account goes that Nathan informed the king, in no uncertain terms, what would happen. In fact, to drive the point home, he used a parable of a rich man who owned lots of sheep and a poor man who has one sheep that he treated as a pet. The rich man had a guest and wanted to serve him dinner. But, rather than taking from his many sheep to kill and serve to his guest, he took that of the poor man.

David was enraged and demanded that this man be put to death, but not before restoring fourfold what he had taken. Nathan dropped the bomb on the king and said that David was that rich man. Of all the women he could have had, he chose to take another man's wife, have sex with her and knock her up. Then, he tried to hide it by attempting to convice Uriah (Bathsheba's husband) to go home and be with his wife (i.e. have sex with her quickly, so when her pregnancy starts to show, Uriah will think it's his baby). When that failed, David put Uriah in the heat of battle and order a troop withdrawal to ensure he would die in combat. Then, he took Bathsheba for his own wife.

While David repented of his sin, Nathan informed him that his sin would not go unpunished. While he and Bathsheba would be spared, that child, conceived in wickedness, would die. This occured WHILE BATHSHEBA WAS STILL PREGNANT. A week after that child was born, it died.

Yes, if he created all this, which he has, he has the ABILITY to do what he wishes with it.  But in defining GOD, and the wisdom that is sure to be attached to such, and being the ultimate authority on right or wrong to commit such an evil hypocritical act, it does not match, it is not pure, it has no integrity or credibility.  You can't say GOD is all those things HT listed and not say he isn't the other things i listed when GOD order the killing of children.  If god is any of those things i listed he is a man.  Hence most of the OT is crap.

This is the same God, listed in the New Testament, who gave his only begotten Son to die on the cross to save mankind, as the OT predicted long beforehand. You can't separate the two. And, as you continually forget, it was the Father (in the OT) and the Son (in the NT) who stated that, when it comes to judgment, "Vengeance is Mine; I will repay!" "I will make recompense!".

He defines good and evil, not you or I. We don't create life; therefore we have no right to destroy it, UNLESS we have authorization to do so per HIS authority.

In other words, when the people of God gets mistreated, it is the Lord (not you, me, or anyone else) who decide how, when, and how severely the wicked get judged. And, in this particular case of the Amalekites (after centuries of their persecution of Israel, among other nations), the edict came down. Amalek was to be COMPLETELY DESTROYED: man, woman, boy, girl, cat, dog, sheep, oxen, gold, silver, etc. Nothing and no one was to remain.

Saul screwed that up and he lost the throne because of it. Worse still, Israel would be plagued by the Amalekites again.

Whaty's tragic isd when there was no other choice or way.  There were other choices and ways with or without GOD.  It's a cop out and avoidance of the fact of barbarism and evil in an attempt to justify killing children to say, "oh well, in some tragic cases, that involves death but GOD made the children and can do what ever he pleases."

That's not a cop-out. That is simple fact. The wages of sin is death. And that is not limited to the trangressors, which is why people need to monitor their behavior. Barbarism is done by those who have no right or authorization to destroy what they did not create. That is not the case with God. He created it; He can destroy it, whether you or I like it or not.

And BTW, what would these so-called choices be?

Assimilate them? Then, folks like you start crying about slavery. Or worse, the Amalekite children grow up and pick up where their parents left off (i.e. what happened during the time of Esther).

Leave them behind? Then, they either starve to death or get picked off by some other invading nation.

Translate them? Why? They didn't accept God as their Lord and Savior, and their parents surely didn't either.

It's the Amalekites' sin (and their refusal to repent) that brought such judgment on them and their offspring.

[Deedee]

Again so what?  Writing scripture after any fact can make anything look prophetic.  You are telling me someone in "B.C. whatever" knew whether or not the child died becuase of the sin or from some other cause the primitive minded people of David's day attributed to GOD becuase their knowledge about the causes of death ranked at the same level as that of a caveman's shaman?

oh please.   

Yes, if he created all this, which he has, he has the ABILITY to do what he wishes with it.  But in defining GOD, and the wisdom that is sure to be attached to such, and being the ultimate authority on right or wrong to commit such an evil hypocritical act, it does not match, it is not pure, it has no integrity or credibility.  You can't say GOD is all those things HT listed and not say he isn't the other things i listed when GOD order the killing of children.  If god is any of those things i listed he is a man.  Hence most of the OT is crap.

Whaty's tragic isd when there was no other choice or way.  There were other choices and ways with or without GOD.  It's a cop out and avoidance of the fact of barbarism and evil in an attempt to justify killing children to say, "oh well, in some tragic cases, that involves death but GOD made the children and can do what ever he pleases."

You and I share similar views.    But there are a few very valuable lessons to take from it too.  The dietary laws for instance. Very advanced for that age... and if more people kept kosher, they'd lose weight and be a lot healthier. Not mixing dairy with meat = instant weight loss, as all those rich sauces, cheese, etc are out of bounds. And if more people waited 5 hours after the big steak dinner to have their slab of cheesecake or mixing bowl sized ice cream dessert, this would would be a good thing. In many ways actually, the kosher way of eating is similar to a bodybuilding diet.  Without all the matzah of course.  I personally never found much more to take from it. Endless violence and bloodshed ad infinitum.

[Deedee]

No, I simply didn't have time to address them.

See Exodus 22. The "not screaming" part has to do with the victim actually being just that...A VICTIM. If she willingly gives up the booty and she's married/bethroed, she's committing adultery, the penaly for which is DEATH (for both parties).

MCWAY it doesn't take a lot of imagination to figure out how a man can overpower a woman very easily, and shut her up in innumerable ways... knife to the throat, shove a piece of cloth down her throat, strangle her, break her jaw, etc... so basically, if a woman was raped in a city, unable to call for help, she was stoned to death for abetting her rapist.

There's not really anything to address about the cutting off of women's hands for accidentally touching a man's private thang, jealous men forcing women to drink poison to get to the bottom of their potential unfaithfulness, and the myriad of other barbaric laws... which are topped off with the killing of your rebellious, cursing children, young or old alike.

Perhaps you do think that these quaint old customs were actually approved by God, and that there is some ancient wisdom in them, as is your prerogative. As far as I know, there are some places that still employ these means of "justice" and you might think it a little slice of heaven on earth, but many of us just call it Saudi Arabia. 

If the judge felt he needed counseling, in addition to jail time, all he has to do is order the counseling during his 10-year sentence, NOT reduce his sentence to 60 days (with out-patient counseling). Again, it was only after the heat got put on him (once Bill O'Reilly got word of the story) that he bumped this guy's sentence up to 3 years.

No MCWAY, that was the Judge's point. Sex offenders deemed "low-risk" are NOT entitled to receive counseling while they are in prison, I guess due to budgetary considerations.  The judge felt he was high risk, and after 25 years on the bench, I'm sure he learned a bit about that and his opinion was valid. Sex offenders released from prison without having received treatment are the MOST likely to re-offend.

O'Reilly is a self-serving, attention-grabbing yellow journalist, so even if you like to listen to him, it's usually better to get actual facts elsewhere.  Vermonters were upset by his ruling before O'Reilly got involved, so your yellow knight pretty much just jumped on his portable ratings soapbox, didn't actually help solve anything. On the other end of the spectrum, Judge Cashman was known as a law and order, distinguished and impartial judge for his entire tenure. 

All the judge wanted was for this kid to get counseling so that his chances of re-offending when he got out might be reduced, an admirable and caring ideal I think... so he provoked the prosecution/state, literally, with his ruling, designed to illustrate what he thought of the system. Finally, in the end, everyone got what they wanted. The kid got more time, AND he also got counseling while in prison. The Judge went out with a big bang, even though it was controversial, serving his community to the best of his ability right to the end.
 

[OzmO]

You asked why David's first son (from Bathsheba) died. I give you the answer, and you respond with this? First of all, you have no indication that Nathan's telling David of the fate of his son was done AFTER his death.

The account goes that Nathan informed the king, in no uncertain terms, what would happen. In fact, to drive the point home, he used a parable of a rich man who owned lots of sheep and a poor man who has one sheep that he treated as a pet. The rich man had a guest and wanted to serve him dinner. But, rather than taking from his many sheep to kill and serve to his guest, he took that of the poor man.

David was enraged and demanded that this man be put to death, but not before restoring fourfold what he had taken. Nathan dropped the bomb on the king and said that David was that rich man. Of all the women he could have had, he chose to take another man's wife, have sex with her and knock her up. Then, he tried to hide it by attempting to convice Uriah (Bathsheba's husband) to go home and be with his wife (i.e. have sex with her quickly, so when her pregnancy starts to show, Uriah will think it's his baby). When that failed, David put Uriah in the heat of battle and order a troop withdrawal to ensure he would die in combat. Then, he took Bathsheba for his own wife.

While David repented of his sin, Nathan informed him that his sin would not go unpunished. While he and Bathsheba would be spared, that child, conceived in wickedness, would die. This occured WHILE BATHSHEBA WAS STILL PREGNANT. A week after that child was born, it died.

Was this written before or after the event?   

This is the same God, listed in the New Testament, who gave his only begotten Son to die on the cross to save mankind, as the OT predicted long beforehand. You can't separate the two. And, as you continually forget, it was the Father (in the OT) and the Son (in the NT) who stated that, when it comes to judgment, "Vengeance is Mine; I will repay!" "I will make recompense!".

He defines good and evil, not you or I. We don't create life; therefore we have no right to destroy it, UNLESS we have authorization to do so per HIS authority.

In other words, when the people of God gets mistreated, it is the Lord (not you, me, or anyone else) who decide how, when, and how severely the wicked get judged. And, in this particular case of the Amalekites (after centuries of their persecution of Israel, among other nations), the edict came down. Amalek was to be COMPLETELY DESTROYED: man, woman, boy, girl, cat, dog, sheep, oxen, gold, silver, etc. Nothing and no one was to remain.

Saul screwed that up and he lost the throne because of it. Worse still, Israel would be plagued by the Amalekites again.

Look save the fire and brimstone crapola for bearing witness to someone who is foolish enough to allow himself to view GOD's actions as something that has no meaning when convenient.  God's actions do have meaning good or bad and if it is written that men slaughtered children on god's orders than it is a lie.

Again, you go on and on trying to justify, God's alleged action of ordering the death of children.  There is no capacity God or otherwise that justifies the killing of children.  Especially that of the "all powerful, all knowing, all good" GOD.

This is the same God, listed in the New Testament, who gave his only begotten Son to die on the cross to save mankind, as the OT predicted long beforehand. You can't separate the two. And, as you continually forget, it was the Father (in the OT) and the Son (in the NT) who stated that, when it comes to judgment, "Vengeance is Mine; I will repay!" "I will make recompense!".

That has nothing to do with killing children unless you look a the obvious hypocrisy of killing innocent in the name of vengeance, repayment or recompense

He defines good and evil, not you or I. We don't create life; therefore we have no right to destroy it, UNLESS we have authorization to do so per HIS authority.

So is killing innocent children whose parents commitment evil acts, good or evil?     

I know, i know, evil if we do it, good if god does it....    Yes, God's sets the fine example of do as i say not as i do.  brilliant!  Divine!  Godly!

In other words, when the people of God gets mistreated, it is the Lord (not you, me, or anyone else) who decide how, when, and how severely the wicked get judged. And, in this particular case of the Amalekites (after centuries of their persecution of Israel, among other nations), the edict came down. Amalek was to be COMPLETELY DESTROYED: man, woman, boy, girl, cat, dog, sheep, oxen, gold, silver, etc. Nothing and no one was to remain.

More Brilliance!  Genocide!  That's where Hitler got the idea!   Good thing God set such a good example!

Saul screwed that up and he lost the throne because of it. Worse still, Israel would be plagued by the Amalekites again.

lol  yeah,  God had no choice 

That's not a cop-out. That is simple fact. The wages of sin is death. And that is not limited to the trangressors, which is why people need to monitor their behavior. Barbarism is done by those who have no right or authorization to destroy what they did not create. That is not the case with God. He created it; He can destroy it, whether you or I like it or not.

And BTW, what would these so-called choices be?

Assimilate them? Then, folks like you start crying about slavery. Or worse, the Amalekite children grow up and pick up where their parents left off (i.e. what happened during the time of Esther).

Leave them behind? Then, they either starve to death or get picked off by some other invading nation.

Translate them? Why? They didn't accept God as their Lord and Savior, and their parents surely didn't either.

Gee, you are an all powerful, all knowing, only GOD........  And you can't think of any other options? 

McWay, you are not this brainless.  Do you really want me to list things an all-powerful God could have done not to KILL INNOCENT CHILDREN???

[columbusdude82]

OzmO, why do you hate Jesus this much?? Don't you know that he died for your sins?

Yet, here you are, your soul held captive by the Devil, criticizing the infallible Word of God.

You really need to re-consider your salvation.

[OzmO]

You and I share similar views.    But there are a few very valuable lessons to take from it too.  The dietary laws for instance. Very advanced for that age... and if more people kept kosher, they'd lose weight and be a lot healthier. Not mixing dairy with meat = instant weight loss, as all those rich sauces, cheese, etc are out of bounds. And if more people waited 5 hours after the big steak dinner to have their slab of cheesecake or mixing bowl sized ice cream dessert, this would would be a good thing. In many ways actually, the kosher way of eating is similar to a bodybuilding diet.  Without all the matzah of course.  I personally never found much more to take from it. Endless violence and bloodshed ad infinitum.

Much more than me, you seem to see things in a more practical vein and you get to the heart of it quicker.   I agree there are many things ancient people's have done better in living their lives.  They had another advantage in food.  There was virtually no choices when it came to processed foods 

[OzmO]

OzmO, why do you hate Jesus this much?? Don't you know that he died for your sins?

Yet, here you are, your soul held captive by the Devil, criticizing the infallible Word of God.

You really need to re-consider your salvation.

I need to further re-consider my diet.  and i'm not saying this becuase of what DeeDee said, although she's dead on.  I'm getting to the point of not wanting to ever buy produce at grocery stores anymore.  Farmer's markets all the way!

[MCWAY]

Was this written before or after the event?   

Perhaps, you should quit rolling the eyes and address the scenario at hand. Please give the specifics of thisgrand scenario in which David's son died and someone decided to craft the account, regarding David, Bathsheba, and Nathan.

BTW, we have no reports of David's other children dying in infancy, for any reason.

Look save the fire and brimstone crapola for bearing witness to someone who is foolish enough to allow himself to view GOD's actions as something that has no meaning when convenient.  God's actions do have meaning good or bad and if it is written that men slaughtered children on god's orders than it is a lie.

What on Earth are you talking about? I'm not claiming that God's actions have no meaning. Quite the opposite, I've stated the meaning of what when down with the Amalekites quite plainly. It's called JUDGMENT, namely that the Amalekites' repeated sinful behavior brought such judgment on their heads. And, it affected their entire kingdom, pure and simple.
 
The same God that sent His son to die for our sins is THE same God who ordered the Amalekites' destruction.

Again, you go on and on trying to justify, God's alleged action of ordering the death of children.  There is no capacity God or otherwise that justifies the killing of children.  Especially that of the "all powerful, all knowing, all good" GOD.

Wrong. Again, it's called judgment of sin. Since you believe in this God and in Jesus Christ, you must also believe in Jesus' Second Coming. When He returns, there will be judgment for the wicked, period.

If they weren't His actions or on His orders, then whose were they? More importantly, why was Saul STRIPPED of the throne of Israel, despite his overwhelming victory over the Amalekites (with loads of livestock and loot to boot)?

I know of no earthly kingdom that gets rid of its king for SUCCESSFULLY (at least, from a wordly perspective) defeating its enemies and collecting the spoils of war. Do you?

That has nothing to do with killing children unless you look a the obvious hypocrisy of killing innocent in the name of vengeance, repayment or recompense

That has everything to do with it. It's the same God. That's why Jesus' instructions, told by Him directly and later by Paul, said for us NOT to seek revenge. It's because He will avenge His people. He will choose the how, when, where, and the severity of such judgment.

Getting back to David, his sins cursed his family as well. In addition to telling David what would happen to his first son by Bathsheba, Nathan further revealed to the king that, because he killed Uriah with the sword (destroying Uriah's family), the sword would never leave David's house. And, if you read what happened to nearly all of his children, that curse came to pass in in great and terrible fashion.

Just as the sins of Saul cursed his family, the sins of David did likewise.

So is killing innocent children whose parents commitment evil acts, good or evil?     

I know, i know, evil if we do it, good if god does it....    Yes, God's sets the fine example of do as i say not as i do.  brilliant!  Divine!  Godly!

He's so unfair that He sent His son to die, for sins that YOU and I committed, to give us eternal life that NEITHER of us deserve. When you do that, then you can talk about "do as I say, not as I do". God gave His son for someone else's transgressions; I don't see you giving up yours (or planning to do so, if you have no kids, at present).

Gosh, Jehovah can be such a meanie!!! He told us to forgive 70 X 7, and even with those blasted Amalekites, He gave them OVER THREE CENTURIES to repent, before the edict came to utterly destroy them. He gave Pharoah nine chance to let His people go. The antediluvians got 120 years to repent.

Well, you have to give it up to the Ninevites. At least one occasion, when they were told to repent, they ACTUALLY DID and were spared (much to the chagrin of a certain prophet).

More Brilliance!  Genocide!  That's where Hitler got the idea!   Good thing God set such a good example!

Yet, the Jewish people are alive and well. As for Hitler and his bunch........... What sins did the Jews commit to merit Hitler's wrath? Did the furor give them a chance to repent? Did he give warnings or lesser punishments to indicate that Israel needed to change its way?

lol  yeah,  God had no choice 

I'm sorry. I must have missed the part where God is required to do things your way (or mine, for that matter). Of course, He said he would do away with the Amalekites and I don't see any running around today, do you?

Gee, you are an all powerful, all knowing, only GOD........  And you can't think of any other options? 

McWay, you are not this brainless.  Do you really want me to list things an all-powerful God could have done not to KILL INNOCENT CHILDREN???

You aren't this brainless, either.  I already listed three and you have yet to deal with those. As for the options, those are predicated on the actons of the Amalekites. Had they repented; they'd have been spared. And, as history as shown (and you fail to acknowledge), we saw exactly what happened when these "innocent children" got spared: They followed right in the footsteps of their parents and persecuted the Israelites AGAIN.

[OzmO]

Perhaps, you should quit rolling the eyes and address the scenario at hand. Please give the specifics of thisgrand scenario in which David's son died and someone decided to craft the account, regarding David, Bathsheba, and Nathan.

BTW, we have no reports of David's other children dying in infancy, for any reason.

I am addressing the scenario at hand......that's why i'm rolling my eyes.

You can make anything sound prophetic after the fact.

And people having a child die in infancy while all their others don't is significant as if it that never happens?

Let me get this right.....the kid was conceived out of adultery and died before birth and the OT says it was foretold?  Read my second sentence. 

What on Earth are you talking about? I'm not claiming that God's actions have no meaning. Quite the opposite, I've stated the meaning of what when down with the Amalekites quite plainly. It's called JUDGMENT, namely that the Amalekites' repeated sinful behavior brought such judgment on their heads. And, it affected their entire kingdom, pure and simple.
 
The same God that sent His son to die for our sins is THE same God who ordered the Amalekites' destruction.

You are claiming they have no meaning in regards to what morality of what he did......kill children

Wrong. Again, it's called judgment of sin. Since you believe in this God and in Jesus Christ, you must also believe in Jesus' Second Coming. When He returns, there will be judgment for the wicked, period.

And children are wicked?  here it comes...........eyes are starting to go up.......   BAM!  sorry.     couldn't help it.

If they weren't His actions or on His orders, then whose were they? More importantly, why was Saul STRIPPED of the throne of Israel, despite his overwhelming victory over the Amalekites (with loads of livestock and loot to boot)?

I know of no earthly kingdom that gets rid of its king for SUCCESSFULLY (at least, from a wordly perspective) defeating its enemies and collecting the spoils of war. Do you?

Fact is, we don't know what really happen there except what was written and what was written told of God ordering the death of innocent children, so that makes the whole book suspect.   Which is what i've been saying.

That has everything to do with it. It's the same God. That's why Jesus' instructions, told by Him directly and later by Paul, said for us NOT to seek revenge. It's because He will avenge His people. He will choose the how, when, where, and the severity of such judgment.

Getting back to David, his sins cursed his family as well. In addition to telling David what would happen to his first son by Bathsheba, Nathan further revealed to the king that, because he killed Uriah with the sword (destroying Uriah's family), the sword would never leave David's house. And, if you read what happened to nearly all of his children, that curse came to pass in in great and terrible fashion.

Just as the sins of Saul cursed his family, the sins of David did likewise.

I don't believe in curses.  Curses are easy to write about after the fact which is what happened here. 

He's so unfair that He sent His son to die, for sins that YOU and I committed, to give us eternal life that NEITHER of us deserve. When you do that, then you can talk about "do as I say, not as I do". God gave His son for someone else's transgressions; I don't see you giving up yours (or planning to do so, if you have no kids, at present).

Gosh, Jehovah can be such a meanie!!! He told us to forgive 70 X 7, and even with those blasted Amalekites, He gave them OVER THREE CENTURIES to repent, before the edict came to utterly destroy them. He gave Pharoah nine chance to let His people go. The antediluvians got 120 years to repent.

Well, you have to give it up to the Ninevites. At least one occasion, when they were told to repent, they ACTUALLY DID and were spared (much to the chagrin of a certain prophet).

All that's wonderful McWay.  But it has nothign to do with killing children.

I'm sorry. I must have missed the part where God is required to do things your way (or mine, for that matter). Of course, He said he would do away with the Amalekites and I don't see any running around today, do you?

I don't buy into the idea that a race of people are  evil. 

We don;t see those people running around today for many reasons, mainly they were slaughtered at the hands of the child murdering Jews.  As for the adults they probably deserved to die.

You aren't this brainless, either.  I already listed three and you have yet to deal with those. As for the options, those are predicated on the actons of the Amalekites. Had they repented; they'd have been spared. And, as history as shown (and you fail to acknowledge), we saw exactly what happened when these "innocent children" got spared: They followed right in the footsteps of their parents and persecuted the Israelites AGAIN.

No McWay, we this based on what an ancient history book has to say.   A race of people aren't evil.  There are evil people in every race.

There are many things God could have done.  You are not using creative problem solving abilities. 

I'll post more later, got to get to work.   

[MCWAY]

MCWAY it doesn't take a lot of imagination to figure out how a man can overpower a woman very easily, and shut her up in innumerable ways... knife to the throat, shove a piece of cloth down her throat, strangle her, break her jaw, etc... so basically, if a woman was raped in a city, unable to call for help, she was stoned to death for abetting her rapist.

The verse doesn't say that. If such indicators like a broken jaw or any other wounds are on the body, then it doesn't take a lot of imagination to figure out that she was indeed assaulted. Therefore, it's time to get the rocks and find the rapist. The woman was stoned to death for adultery (i.e. she, a married/bethroed woman, had sex with another man willingly; or she had consensual sex with a married/bethroed man).

There's not really anything to address about the cutting off of women's hands for accidentally touching a man's private thang, jealous men forcing women to drink poison to get to the bottom of their potential unfaithfulness, and the myriad of other barbaric laws... which are topped off with the killing of your rebellious, cursing children, young or old alike.

Cursing your parents was a serious offense. And, that ain't simply uttering expletives. In addition to a blatant violation of the 5th commandment, such might involve the invocation of demon spirits to do ill toward one's parents (and invoking demons is a BIG no-no).

About the "private thang", there was no accidental contact; it involved crushing a man's nuts (hence destroying his ability to have children). ENOUGH SAID!!!

As for the jealous men thing, when it came accusations of adultery, such matters went before a priest. This wasn't something you could do casually or on a whim. In fact, the labor of having to undergo this procedure was to the woman's advantage. If you believed your wife had been trickin', you'd better have all your ducks in a row. Unlike the cultures of many of Israel's neighbors in matters like this, the burden of proof was with the husband, NOT the wife. In other words, the wife was INNOCENT, UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY (Sound familiar?).

To top it all off, the "poison" was simply water, with the curse for infidelity, written on a piece of paper and mixed into it. This has more supernatural connotations than anything else. If she were really drinking poison, it would kill her (or mess her up), REGARDLESS of her innocence or guilt.

Here's more (from Glenn Miller, via Christian Think-Tank/Tektonics.org):

The trial of bitter waters (Sotah) is an amazing provision by God for a woman to publicly clear her name (and indict a dysfunctional husband in the process). This is the procedure invoked by a jealous and/or paranoid husband who suspected his wife of infidelity. God gave this law to protect the woman from physical and economic abuse from a capricious and petty husband. In many of the cultures of that day, men had absolute dictatorial rights over their wives. If they suspected adultery, they were allowed to kill the woman without any appeal on her part. There was not a process of justice, or process where they BOTH had to appear before a higher authority. In fact, in the Code of Hammurabi (c. 1720 BC.), CH 132, women who were suspected of this type of infidelity were required to throw themselves into the Euphrates river--if they drown, they were guilty; if not, they were innocent! (Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 171).

God would instead provide a public vindication process, before His leaders, his people, and the couple. If the woman was vindicated, the man would bear the stigma of unfounded and paranoid jealousy, and slanderous accusation before his friends/family (with possible legal consequences). Her rights were protected by this very ceremony. This was a very, very advanced pro-women procedure for those times.

 -- By comparison, in the other law codes of that time, ANYONE could accuse her and force her to undergo the River Ordeal(!). So, the Laws of Ur-Nammu, 14 [ca. 2100bc, Ur in Sumer]: "If a man accuses the wife of a young man of promiscuity but the River Ordeal clears her..." (LCMAM:18).

And, once a woman's name was cleared, the husband was the hook to care for her FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE.

No MCWAY, that was the Judge's point. Sex offenders deemed "low-risk" are NOT entitled to receive counseling while they are in prison, I guess due to budgetary considerations.  The judge felt he was high risk, and after 25 years on the bench, I'm sure he learned a bit about that and his opinion was valid. Sex offenders released from prison without having received treatment are the MOST likely to re-offend.

Then he can get the counseling, upon his release. That does not warrant his cutting a 10-year sentence to 60 days.

O'Reilly is a self-serving, attention-grabbing yellow journalist, so even if you like to listen to him, it's usually better to get actual facts elsewhere.  Vermonters were upset by his ruling before O'Reilly got involved, so your yellow knight pretty much just jumped on his portable ratings soapbox, didn't actually help solve anything. On the other end of the spectrum, Judge Cashman was known as a law and order, distinguished and impartial judge for his entire tenure. 

Key word: WAS

All the judge wanted was for this kid to get counseling so that his chances of re-offending when he got out might be reduced, an admirable and caring ideal I think... so he provoked the prosecution/state, literally, with his ruling, designed to illustrate what he thought of the system. Finally, in the end, everyone got what they wanted. The kid got more time, AND he also got counseling while in prison. The Judge went out with a big bang, even though it was controversial, serving his community to the best of his ability right to the end.

More time? You said the sentence, initially, was 10 years to life. Cashman reduced it to 60 days. Then, upon the the people protesting this foolishness (given more visibility by O'Reilly's telecast), the judge sentenced the rapist to 3 years.

But, that gets me back to the point of material care. This girl will be messed up for years to comes (perhaps, for life). Yet, as soon as this rapist serves his three years and goes through his counseling, that's it. He doesn't fund the medical bills, psychiatric care, etc.
 

[MCWAY]

I am addressing the scenario at hand......that's why i'm rolling my eyes.

You can make anything sound prophetic after the fact.

And people having a child die in infancy while all their others don't is significant as if it that never happens?

Let me get this right.....the kid was conceived out of adultery and died before birth and the OT says it was foretold?  Read my second sentence. 

No, the child died about a week after it was born. David knew what would happen to his son, becaus Nathan told him of the child's fate, WHILE Bathsheba was still pregnant. In fact, after the child's birth, David fasted, hoping God would reverse His decision. And what happened to his grown sons and daughters was a direct reflection of the sword never leaving David's house, as Nathan also mentioned.

You're simply trying to brush off this incident as something as merely happened, because you refuse to accept the fact that sinful behavior affect more than the trangressors. In this tragic case, David's son paid for his parents' sin.

You are claiming they have no meaning in regards to what morality of what he did......kill children

And children are wicked?  here it comes...........eyes are starting to go up.......   BAM!  sorry.     couldn't help it.

They can be. Apparently, you haven't been watching the news. Regardless (and here's the point you refuse to accept), when you are in a position of authority, the sin you commit adversely affects those under that authority. Look at the folks at Enron. Why do you think, especially in political years, we wail about corporate greed? It’s because, when these executives go down, a lot of honest, hard-working people will go down with them. The corruption of the executives destroyed the whole company, right down to the janitors and secretaries. Investors, who had no part in the corruption, lost millions. Middle-class people, who had 401s and pensions, got wiped out, having nothing to show for all their hard work and savings.

That's the morality of the situation. In certain aspects, when you screw up, YOU ARE NOT the only one who suffers for it, period. In the same vein, when you do what is right, your family is BLESSED by your actions.

Fact is, we don't know what really happen there except what was written and what was written told of God ordering the death of innocent children, so that makes the whole book suspect.   Which is what i've been saying.

Then, you should cease with the speculation about God not ordering the judgment on the Amakelites. And, if the whole book is "suspect", so too is what YOU believe about God, because the same book described Him as the one who sent Jesus, in whom you claim to believe, to give us eternal life. And that same book foretold that Jesus would come to Earth to do that for us.

I don't believe in curses.  Curses are easy to write about after the fact which is what happened here. 

Notwithstanding that your disbelief in curses has no bearing on the matter, it that's the case, again, explain why Saul LOST the throne of Israel (i.e. none of his descendants ever became king, not even those from the intermarriage of David and Saul's daughter), DESPITE A tremendous military victory over one of Israel's most dogged enemies.

Jesus believed in curses, and you claim to believe in Him. In fact, His death is described as taking the curse of sin for us (so that we might have eternal life), for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs from a tree".

All that's wonderful McWay.  But it has nothign to do with killing children.

Yes, it does. Had the Ninevites not repented, ALL OF THEM (men, women, and children) would have been destroyed.  When did Pharoah FINALLY release Israel from bondage, again? OHHHH!!! When the firstborn of Egypt, including his own son, got struck down. That tenth plague hit home, showing Pharoah how powerless he actually was. And, thus Israel left Egyptian bondage.

I don't buy into the idea that a race of people are  evil. 

But, they can COMMIT evil, which is what the Amalekites did for centuries. They weren't destroyed, because of their ethnicity; they were destroyed because of what they did. They were given chances to repent; they did not. Hence, it's judgment time.

We don;t see those people running around today for many reasons, mainly they were slaughtered at the hands of the child murdering Jews.  As for the adults they probably deserved to die.

The Lord said He would blot out the Amalekites and, guess what, THEY'RE GONE.

No McWay, we this based on what an ancient history book has to say.   A race of people aren't evil.  There are evil people in every race.

Who said the Amalekites got pummeled, because of their race? There are evil people in every race and they get the chance to repent and be spared judgment. You will also notice that much of God's wrath comes against ISRAEL itself, for mimicking the wicked behavior of its neighbors.

There are many things God could have done.  You are not using creative problem solving abilities. 

Name such that don't fall under the categories I already mentioned:

- Assimilating them (OOPS!!! We already know what happened as a result of Saul sparing some of the Amalekites; see the book of Esther)
- Leaving them behind (result: death by starvation and/or enslavement by another group of people).
- Translating them (reason for translating the children of a people who spend 300+ years assaulting your chosen clan would be what; there's no
   covenant with the Amalekites) 

[OzmO]

No, the child died about a week after it was born. David knew what would happen to his son, becaus Nathan told him of the child's fate, WHILE Bathsheba was still pregnant. In fact, after the child's birth, David fasted, hoping God would reverse His decision. And what happened to his grown sons and daughters was a direct reflection of the sword never leaving David's house, as Nathan also mentioned.

You're simply trying to brush off this incident as something as merely happened, because you refuse to accept the fact that sinful behavior affect more than the trangressors. In this tragic case, David's son paid for his parents' sin.

No, McWay, really, I'm not brushing off the fact that sinful behavior affects more than the transgressors.  My point is that there was a choice and or option, to avoid, in the case of killing innocent children.  The choice was made to kill them.   A very ungodly act considering the morality of killing, the morality of killing innocent people, the morality of killing children and the available options of an all powerful God to not kill them.

They can be. Apparently, you haven't been watching the news. Regardless (and here's the point you refuse to accept), when you are in a position of authority, the sin you commit adversely affects those under that authority. Look at the folks at Enron. The corruption of the executives destroyed the whole company, right down to the janitors and secretaries. Investors, who had no part in the corruption, lost millions. Middle-class people, who had 401s and pensions, got wiped out, having nothing to show for all their hard work and savings.

That's the morality of the situation. In certain aspects, when you screw up, YOU ARE NOT the only one who suffers for it, period. In the same vein, when you do what is right, your family is BLESSED by your actions.

Everything you talked about there does not include killing innocent children, so therefore i do agree as i i said in the above paragraph.

Then, you should cease with the speculation about God not ordering the judgment on the Amakelites. And, if the whole book is "suspect", so too is what YOU believe about God, because the same book described Him as the one who sent Jesus, in whom you claim to believe, to give us eternal life. And that same book foretold that Jesus would come to Earth to do that for us.

That's very incorrect.  The bible is a collect of writings, letters and books that are believed to be the Word of God.  My contention is the OT is not the 100% WOG and one very good example is the alleged orders from GOd to kill innocent children.

Notwithstanding that your disbelief in curses has no bearing on the matter, it that's the case, again, explain why Saul LOST the throne of Israel (i.e. none of his descendants ever became king, not even those from the intermarriage of David and Saul's daughter), DESPITE A tremendous military victory over one of Israel's most dogged enemies.

Jesus believed in curses, and you claim to believe in Him. In fact, His death is described as taking the curse of sin for us (so that we might have eternal life), for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs from a tree".

Do you want me to explain how it is possible for a person to lose his or her king ship after a great military victory?

Can you please post the verses that talk about his removal?

Yes, it does. Had the Ninevites not repented, ALL OF THEM (men, women, and children) would have been destroyed.  When did Pharoah FINALLY release Israel from bondage, again? OHHHH!!! When the firstborn of Egypt, including his own son, got struck down. That tenth plague hit home, showing Pharoah how powerless he actually was. And, thus Israel left Egyptian bondage.

Well then i can add killing the first born to the list of acts not consistent with GOD. 

But, they can COMMIT evil, which is what the Amalekites did for centuries. They weren't destroyed, because of their ethnicity; they were destroyed because of what they did. They were given chances to repent; they did not. Hence, it's judgment time.

So can anyone else. We all have the potential for evil.  But guidance, wisdom and the spirit of God, if we allow will keep us on the right path.  And as children we are the most impressionable and mold-able.

Who said the Amalekites got pummeled, because of their race? There are evil people in every race and they get the chance to repent and be spared judgment. You will also notice that much of God's wrath comes against ISRAEL itself, for mimicking the wicked behavior of its neighbors.

I see what you are saying i think.  My point is, it's unrealistic to say and entire people or race is evil.  So when you site that it says the Amelekites are evil, it's much like saying muslims are evil or all radical muslims are evil which is not true.

Name such that don't fall under the categories I already mentioned:

- Assimilating them (OOPS!!! We already know what happened as a result of Saul sparing some of the Amalekites; see the book of Esther)
- Leaving them behind (result: death by starvation and/or enslavement by another group of people).
- Translating them (reason for translating the children of a people who spend 300+ years assaulting your chosen clan would be what; there's no
   covenant with the Amalekites) 

It's ridiculous to think that the 0-5 year olds were already evil or were surely to grow up evil.  That goes back to thinking the "race" is evil.

Here's some possible options off the top pf my head:

-  separate and spread each child across the globe and have a family adopt them on God's behalf. Allow them to grow up and make choices between good and evil and when they chose to be evil then punish them by sending down a lightning bolt and kill them instantly.  But at least as God you gave the Children a fair chance to chose.  Just like we all have.
-  Put them (children) all on an island and feed them and send angels down to teach them and mentor them, parent them etc... 
-  Kill only those who violated the peace and sinned profusely and make a show of God's power in plain view then transport the rest of them to a remote place at the time  like Australia and give them a second chance.  If they don't change then kill them.  Of course don't immediately kill the children until they reach an age of accountability.

I could think of more.

[OzmO]

Just to add, McWay,

God's grace and spirit is a powerful and amazing thing isn't?

[MCWAY]

No, McWay, really, I'm not brushing off the fact that sinful behavior affects more than the transgressors.  My point is that there was a choice and or option, to avoid, in the case of killing innocent children.  The choice was made to kill them.   A very ungodly act considering the morality of killing, the morality of killing innocent people, the morality of killing children and the available options of an all powerful God to not kill them.

And this choice would be what? I believe I asked you this earlier. Furthermore, the "morality" is based on God's instructions, which (to Saul) were to completely destroy the Amalekites.

Everything you talked about there does not include killing innocent children, so therefore i do agree as i i said in the above paragraph.

It includes the innocent (i.e. hard-working people who did not engage in the corporate corruption) being adversely affected. Innocent Enron employees STILL SUFFERED by losing their jobs, pensions, and savings . Innocent stockholders lost millions. And the innocent families members of these employees lost food on the table, tuition for school, etc.

Adverse consequences can affect the innocent; and, unfortunately, that includes DEATH.

That's very incorrect.  The bible is a collect of writings, letters and books that are believed to be the Word of God.  My contention is the OT is not the 100% WOG and one very good example is the alleged orders from GOd to kill innocent children.

The Old Testament doesn't foretell of the coming of Christ or His sacrifice to save man? Which Old Testament are you reading?

Do you want me to explain how it is possible for a person to lose his or her king ship after a great military victory?

Can you please post the verses that talk about his removal?

Try 1 Sam 15. In fact, it was the prophet Samuel, who was charged with finding Saul's replacement, which turned out to be David. Saul lost the throne nobody from his family ever succeeded him. David tried to play peace-maker, between his supporters and those who still followed Saul ,by marrying one of his daughters, so that Saul would still have a royal descendant to rule Israel.

Verses 26-28

And Samuel said unto Saul, I will not return with thee: for thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, and the LORD hath rejected thee from being king over Israel. And as Samuel turned about to go away, he laid hold upon the skirt of his mantle, and it rent. And Samuel said unto him, The LORD hath rent the kingdom of Israel from thee this day, and hath given it to a neighbour of thine, that is better than thou.


Not only did Saul NOT obey the word of the Lord, he lied to Samuel, by saying that he did. Of course, the bleating and moo-ing of what was supposed to be dead Amalekite livestock betrayed his word. To top it all off: First, he then tried to blame it on his troops, as if he had nothing to do with the matter. They killed the sick animals and destroyed what was deemed worthless. But, Saul and crew kept the good stuff, which Saul tried to pass off as saying that such was for the Lord.

Well then i can add killing the first born to the list of acts not consistent with GOD. 

And you would be incorrect, especially in that case. Unlike the issue with the Amalekites, Israel NEVER engaged the Egyptians in combat. Why do you think the Jews, to this day, celebrate the Passover? It's about their deliverance from Egypt. And the final straw that broke Pharoah's back, getting him to yield, was the slaying of the firstborn.

So can anyone else. We all have the potential for evil.  But guidance, wisdom and the spirit of God, if we allow will keep us on the right path.  And as children we are the most impressionable and mold-able.

Indeed. But, if that guidance is not followed but continually rejected, manifesting evil behavior, then the judgment of God comes upon those transgressors (as well as those under their authority).

I see what you are saying i think.  My point is, it's unrealistic to say and entire people or race is evil.  So when you site that it says the Amelekites are evil, it's much like saying muslims are evil or all radical muslims are evil which is not true.

Not quite. The Amalekites were judged for their ACTIONS, much as the "radical Muslims" are today. We ain't after Al Qaeda, because they're Arab. We're after them, because they slammed jets into our buildings, killing 3000+ American people. And, I don't hear Bin Laden saying he's sorry. Or Zawahiri calling for the AQ crew to repent and make atonement for 9/11.

It's ridiculous to think that the 0-5 year olds were already evil or were surely to grow up evil.  That goes back to thinking the "race" is evil.

Here's some possible options off the top pf my head:

-  separate and spread each child across the globe and have a family adopt them on God's behalf. Allow them to grow up and make choices between good and evil and when they chose to be evil then punish them by sending down a lightning bolt and kill them instantly.  But at least as God you gave the Children a fair chance to chose.  Just like we all have.

-  Put them (children) all on an island and feed them and send angels down to teach them and mentor them, parent them etc...

In other words, "Assimilate". (I mentioend that already). The Amalekites that Saul didn't destroy did get assimilated. And when their numbers grew, guess what happened. They picked up where their ancestors left off. Again, refer to the book of Esther.

-  Kill only those who violated the peace and sinned profusely and make a show of God's power in plain view then transport the rest of them to a remote place at the time  like Australia and give them a second chance.  If they don't change then kill them.  Of course don't immediately kill the children until they reach an age of accountability.

Ummmmm.....how many chances do you think the Amalekites got during the 300+ years that they were persecuting Israel? Not to mention that Saul warned the Kenites, a race of people who lived among the Amalekites, that judgment was coming. But, because they were kind to Israel, they would be spared. However, it would be in their best interested to leave the area.

The Amalekites had PLENTY of opportunities to repent but did not do so.

[Deedee]

The verse doesn't say that. If such indicators like a broken jaw or any other wounds are on the body, then it doesn't take a lot of imagination to figure out that she was indeed assaulted. Therefore, it's time to get the rocks

But, that gets me back to the point of material care. This girl will be messed up for years to comes (perhaps, for life). Yet, as soon as this rapist serves his three years and goes through his counseling, that's it. He doesn't fund the medical bills, psychiatric care, etc.
 

You don't have to keep justifying God's edicts to me.  They were what they were.

That verse pertaining to rape simply says if she don't scream, it means she wants it. Ergo, she gets executed. The other verse doesn't specifically state that the prerequisite for hand chopping requires the crushing of a man's genitals. It talks about grabbing. Perhaps you have a different translation than I do. It's possible.

The term "Bitter waters" had a different, less innocent connotation back in the day, and leading up to modern times. Women have used "bitter waters' to induce abortion over the centuries. How do you know what was scooped up from the floor surrounding the tabernacle. Ingesting ink is always a good idea too. Was there a similar trial by fire for men? And of course, what better way to divine a person's guilt or innocence than trial by fire? Sort of like throwing someone into a body of water.  If they float, means they're a witch.  If they sink and drown, they were innocent. We should def reinstate that wisdom into our society. 

But regardless of all that, my point is that we don't feel it necessary to execute people for these infractions today. It simply wouldn't fly. Neither does barring illegitimate children, or men who have been castrated, from entering places of worship. And I'll bet you're wearing clothes made from more than one fiber. I'll also bet you don't keep a kosher home, even though you've been admonished to do so. The list goes on and on.

Then he can get the counseling, upon his release. That does not warrant his cutting a 10-year sentence to 60 days.

You're right. It's much better to send a pedophile to prison for 3 years without giving him an understanding that what he did was wrong, so when he gets out starving for kiddie sex, he can just go on his merry way.

Key word: WAS

More time? You said the sentence, initially, was 10 years to life. Cashman reduced it to 60 days. Then, upon the the people protesting this foolishness (given more visibility by O'Reilly's telecast), the judge sentenced the rapist to 3 years.

3-10.  The original sentence was 10-life, most of it suspended unless he was found to not complete couseling and/or reoffend. And yes, was.  The Judge is retired now, and perhaps it was time. The key point also, is that it was only after all the doodoo hit the fan, that the prosecution backed down and agreed to allow the offender to receive treatment while in prison.

As far as I know, and I may be wrong, but victims of violent crime do have civil courts to their avail today.

But according to you, ancient wisdom would have prevailed in a much better way, without any prison time at all. Since the parents willingly allowed their child to sleep in the same bed numerous times with a grown man they knew had the hots for their child, perhaps he wouldn't have been punished at all.  And if he did, what was it, 50 shekels for the father and he marries the girl? That's a terrible penalty!!! I think more parents today should marry off their children to the pedophiles that molest them. It would do such much more to help a child's messed up psyche. It makes perfect SENSE!

[OzmO]

And this choice would be what? I believe I asked you this earlier. Furthermore, the "morality" is based on God's instructions, which (to Saul) were to completely destroy the Amalekites.

Based on God's instructions is killing innocent poeple ok or not?

It includes the innocent (i.e. hard-working people who did not engage in the corporate corruption) being adversely affected. Innocent Enron employees STILL SUFFERED by losing their jobs, pensions, and savings . Innocent stockholders lost millions. And the innocent families members of these employees lost food on the table, tuition for school, etc.

Adverse consequences can affect the innocent; and, unfortunately, that includes DEATH.

The US government didn't go and kill their children.  Very poor comparison McWay.

The Old Testament doesn't foretell of the coming of Christ or His sacrifice to save man? Which Old Testament are you reading?

In some of the books and writings that make up the OT, the coming of of the messiah was foretold.  So what?

What's incorrect about your statement is that the OT is a self contained book,  It is not.  It is a collection of ancient writings incorrectly believed to be the word of GOD.

Try 1 Sam 15. In fact, it was the prophet Samuel, who was charged with finding Saul's replacement, which turned out to be David. Saul lost the throne nobody from his family ever succeeded him. David tried to play peace-maker, between his supporters and those who still followed Saul ,by marrying one of his daughters, so that Saul would still have a royal descendant to rule Israel.

Verses 26-28

And Samuel said unto Saul, I will not return with thee: for thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, and the LORD hath rejected thee from being king over Israel. And as Samuel turned about to go away, he laid hold upon the skirt of his mantle, and it rent. And Samuel said unto him, The LORD hath rent the kingdom of Israel from thee this day, and hath given it to a neighbour of thine, that is better than thou.


Not only did Saul NOT obey the word of the Lord, he lied to Samuel, by saying that he did. Of course, the bleating and moo-ing of what was supposed to be dead Amalekite livestock betrayed his word. To top it all off: First, he then tried to blame it on his troops, as if he had nothing to do with the matter. They killed the sick animals and destroyed what was deemed worthless. But, Saul and crew kept the good stuff, which Saul tried to pass off as saying that such was for the Lord.

Sounds like Samuel carried as much weight as the king.  Might explain how a king was removed.

And you would be incorrect, especially in that case. Unlike the issue with the Amalekites, Israel NEVER engaged the Egyptians in combat. Why do you think the Jews, to this day, celebrate the Passover? It's about their deliverance from Egypt. And the final straw that broke Pharoah's back, getting him to yield, was the slaying of the firstborn.

I don't disagree with you just wrote McWay, I disagree that killing innocent children is godly or right.  And it's the same with this instance.

Indeed. But, if that guidance is not followed but continually rejected, manifesting evil behavior, then the judgment of God comes upon those transgressors (as well as those under their authority).

Nope not at all.  Maybe in the twisted world of the OT.  But in more civilized less primitive, less barbaric, less OT following cultures, innocent people do not pay the price of their master's (leaders, employers, etc...) sins with their lives IF it can be avoided.  Which is certainly the case with an All-powerful God.  Now in Radical Islamic cultures, which are very similar in barbarism to the OT, innocent people do and we already now what the rest of the sensible world thinks of that.

Not quite. The Amalekites were judged for their ACTIONS, much as the "radical Muslims" are today. We ain't after Al Qaeda, because they're Arab. We're after them, because they same jets into our buildings, killing 3000+ American people. And, I don't hear Bin Laden saying he's sorry. Or Zawahiri calling for the AQ crew to repent and make atonement for 9/11.

So should kill all OBL's children?  Would that be right?

In other words, "Assimilate". (I mentioend that already). The Amalekites that Saul didn't destroy did get assimilated. And when their numbers grew, guess what happened. They picked up where their ancestors left off. Again, refer to the book of Esther.

You didn't read what i wrote or i didn't explain it right......  Separate them around the world.  you could probaly place them 500-1000 miles from each other all over the planet.

Ummmmm.....how many chances do you think the Amalekites got during the 300+ years that they were persecuting Israel? Not to mention that Saul warned the Kenites, a race of people who lived among the Amalekites, that judgment was coming. But, because they were kind to Israel, they would be spared. However, it would be in their best interested to leave the area.

The Amalekites had PLENTY of opportunities to repent but did not do so.

I don't place blame on those who do not deserve any.  the OT seems to teach people to do that.   That's a sign of primitive regression.  Should we today pay the price of what our ancestors did in the 1800's with Africans?   That's pretty much what you saying.   Should we persecute Germans by killing all their children in 1946?

The Amelikites had plenty of opportunities, but not the children who were murdered and likely beheaded at the hands of jewish soldiers.

EVERYONE deserves the right to make the right choices.  Isn't even talked about the NT?  Something about the age of accountability?  To not allow a child that opportunity by killing them becuase their parents were bad is evil and barbaric and NOT GOd.  It's man in his righteousness and judgment and vainness who would think they speak for GOD.

[Hustle Man]

Did any one listen to the audio file I posted?

[OzmO]

Did any one listen to the audio file I posted?

I listened to the first few sentences after the advertisement to join them on on glacier bay.

My issue is NOT about God letting innocent people die, it's about GOD ordering innocent children to be killed and how that's evil behavior and hypocritical and therefore the OT is not the 100% WOG.

[MCWAY]

Based on God's instructions is killing innocent poeple ok or not?

His instructions to Saul, regarding the Amalekites, were to destroy every one and everything. The innocence or guilt factor is for God to decide, not you.

The US government didn't go and kill their children.  Very poor comparison McWay.

The US government took down that company and nearly everyone associated with it suffered for it, WHETHER THEY PARTICIPATED IN THE CORRUPTION OR NOT. They didn't spare the janitors or secretaries. They didn't go out and find the mid-level managers new jobs or provide means for them to feed their families.

The point which you keep missing is that the sinful actions of the heads of Enron affected those under their charge. In this particular case, the "judgment" was financial loss.

In some of the books and writings that make up the OT, the coming of of the messiah was foretold.  So what?

What's incorrect about your statement is that the OT is a self contained book,  It is not.  It is a collection of ancient writings incorrectly believed to be the word of GOD.

So.....what that means is your cherry-picking what you think is and isn't the word of God, simply because you have a problem with His judgment on certain people, doesn't fly.

Sounds like Samuel carried as much weight as the king.  Might explain how a king was removed.

Samuel was the prophet, who acted as the messenger and conscience of the kingdom. However, he had no say in the matter. In fact, when God tasked him to find Saul's replacement, among the sons of Jesse, the LAST person Samuel thought should be king was David. Had it been up to Samuel, David's big brother, Eliab, would have been the new king. It was God's call to go with the Jesse's youngest boy, a shepherd.

I don't disagree with you just wrote McWay, I disagree that killing innocent children is godly or right.  And it's the same with this instance.

Nope not at all.  Maybe in the twisted world of the OT.  But in more civilized less primitive, less barbaric, less OT following cultures, innocent people do not pay the price of their master's (leaders, employers, etc...) sins with their lives IF it can be avoided.  Which is certainly the case with an All-powerful God.  Now in Radical Islamic cultures, which are very similar in barbarism to the OT, innocent people do and we already now what the rest of the sensible world thinks of that.

"IF it can be avoided"? And, therein lies the problem with your statements. This could have been avoided...BY THE AMALEKITES, had they repented and made amends with Israel (which they had over 300 years to do). God gave them more than enough time to turn from their wicked way; they didn't; therefore, it's judgment time.

BTW, you mentioned "leaders, employers, etc." Exactly how did the US government compensate those employees who suffered when Enron went down?

So should kill all OBL's children?  Would that be right?

Were they involved with Al-Qaeda? If so, did they try to make amends with the US?

You didn't read what i wrote or i didn't explain it right......  Separate them around the world.  you could probaly place them 500-1000 miles from each other all over the planet.

I did read what you wrote. Again, what's stopping the spared Amalekites from growing in numbers and resuming the Israeli persecution that their forefathers started? Remember, that they were separated, displaced from Amalek. But, when their numbers increased, it was business as usual for the children of Amalek.

I don't place blame on those who do not deserve any.  the OT seems to teach people to do that.   That's a sign of primitive regression.  Should we today pay the price of what our ancestors did in the 1800's with Africans?   That's pretty much what you saying.   Should we persecute Germans by killing all their children in 1946?

Wrong again.

Once again, you keep forgetting the REPENTANCE factor. Again, look at the Ninevites. They were to be destroyed for their wickedness. But, they repented and were spared. And, therein lies the difference between them and the Amalekites. Had the Amalekites of Saul's day made amends for what their forefathers did to Israel, when Moses was alive, what happened with Saul never would have occured.

The Amelikites had plenty of opportunities, but not the children who were murdered and likely beheaded at the hands of jewish soldiers.

Their parents are responsible for their fate. And, this sentence was placed on them, because it was the Amalekites who targeted Israel's weak and feeble citizens. As Samuel told king Agag, "As your sword has made women childless, so your mother will be made childless".

EVERYONE deserves the right to make the right choices.  Isn't even talked about the NT?  Something about the age of accountability?  To not allow a child that opportunity by killing them becuase their parents were bad is evil and barbaric and NOT GOd.  It's man in his righteousness and judgment and vainness who would think they speak for GOD.

But, you know that everyone doesn't get what they deserve in this sinful world. And that means that innocent people will suffer for the sins of others.

That's why man must monitor his behavior. Because, the wrong decisions can bring poverty, disease, despair, or even DEATH upon his whole family, his company, or his kingdom.

Man's righteousness doesn't strip a king of his throne for nearly destroying his enemies and bringing home their loot and choice livestock. Man's righteousness doesn't pick a scrawny shepherd boy to replace that king, especially when that boy has bigger, stronger, and more skilled brothers.

The NT is not in conflict with the OT, when it comes to judging sin. Jesus told His disciples that if they loved Him, they would keep His commandments. And last time I checked, one of those commandments (I believe it's #2) said something about visiting the iniquities of the fathers to the THIRD AND FOURTH generation. Certain sins have heavy consequences that affect children and even grandchidren.