Killing children/your child because god told you to

[nodeal]

As I have said many times before, it is all about faith.  My Faith is the result of a combination of many things.  As a child, I was not taught any religious beliefs.  My mother took me took church only once (around the age of seven or eight).  Though I was never taught or read the Bible, things were revealed to me.  When I was 13, I had a discussion with a Minister, who also has a Ph.D in theology.  I will not bore you with details of our coversation, but he asked me many times, "how could you possibly know that?"  I do not say these things to be boastful in any manner, but rather show that I am living proof of God's Truth.  I believe that God has had mercy on me long before I accepted Him.  I have seen miracles.  You have called me crazy (nut-case...or something like that), but I could tell you things that I have witnessed that you, and most people, would not believe.  I have tried running away from God, but because He knows my heart, He has had mercy on me.   You are correct in that there are thousands of other gods.  Some are man-made and many are really gods...so to speak.  This is why our Father says not to put any other god before Him.  If you truly want to know if my God is real, put away all of your doubt and open your heart, mind and soul to Him.  I am not suggesting that you follow some TV Evangelist or even a local minister.  I suggesting that go straight to Him.  If He is real, and you are sincere, then change will happen.  If He is not real, what do you have to lose?  Believe it or not, I have actually been praying for you.  I understand that you may not want that or could care less, but as I have said to you before, I am not your enemy.  I do not have any agendas.  I only want that the Will of God be done.

god as you see him does not exist...your life is a sham.

[OzmO]

god as you see him does not exist...your life is a sham.

How is his life a sham if he believes in something that can be proved yet?

[fitt@40]

god as you see him does not exist...your life is a sham.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion.  I respect that, but you should have all of the facts when forming an opinion.
You say that my life is a sham.  From a religious point of view, I am happy with the path I have chosen.  I believe, without doubt, in my God.  From the world's perspective, I have friends and family who love me, I am extremely good health, I enjoy my work (and the six figure plus salary).  I am a happy man.  When I have trails and tribulations, I turn to my God for comfort.  I say these things not to be boastful, but rather to give you all of the facts.  Do you really call that a sham?  

[nodeal]

You are certainly entitled to your opinion.  I respect that, but you should have all of the facts when forming an opinion.
You say that my life is a sham.  From a religious point of view, I am happy with the path I have chosen.  I believe, without doubt, in my God.  From the world's perspective, I have friends and family who love me, I am extremely good health, I enjoy my work (and the six figure plus salary).  I am a happy man.  When I have trails and tribulations, I turn to my God for comfort.  I say these things not to be boastful, but rather to give you all of the facts.  Do you really call that a sham?  

faith driven meltdown

[fitt@40]

faith driven meltdown

LOL...okay, you win.

[nodeal]

LOL...okay, you win.

your kindness has guilted me...

as you can guess im just being an ass. doesn't matter what u believe in.. keep your shit going strong 

[fitt@40]

your kindness has guilted me...

You win again! 

[MCWAY]

What are you talking about?  You are the one that brought up assimilation laws. 

They don't have to make them slaves.  They can change the way they do things. 

Again what are you talking about?  What's your point?  That becuase of their laws and my refusal to justify slavery it's immpossible? 

that's stupid.  They only need to change the way they do things.

So, Israel is supposed to completely change their government and their social structure to accomodate the children of a bunch of people, that have been attacking and assaulting them for over three centuries. That is utterly ridiculous!!!!

You're the one that kept complaining that the Israelites should have assimilated the Amalekite children. As I've stated, were that to have occured, it would have been under the same rules as it was with the remnants of Israel's other enemies. And, it was those rules that you kept howling about "slavery".

Therefore, since you don't like Israel's "slavery" rules, the lone option left is DEATH for the Amalekite children.

They are primitive people.  I'm not surprised.

They're no more primitive than you or me.

We are you talking about?  After the threat is eliminated and all that's left is innocent children. 

How do you think that the Amalekites continued to attack Israel over the centuries? Those "innocent children" grew up and followed right in the footsteps of the ancestors.

Beach Bum made the point, regarding his friend who was stationed in the Middle East, that their children are taught the ways of warfare and to continue the fight against their enemies, should their fathers fall. If that happens TODAY (in the 21st century A.D.), don't you think that such would be the case in 9th/10th century B.C.?

No not at all.  In fact I'm willing to bet that a primitive peoples who still bought and sold slaves and killed children never did much to change the cycle.   Even then, every time they commit their adult genocide, the slate is wiped clean with the children.

Wrong!! And the reason is as mentioned beforehand.
 

How could they have any intention of changing a cycle when the adults are dead?



I'm not suggesting they don't do anything about it.  I'm only saying murdering children and committing genocide isn't the answer.

Aside from that, the order came from God, who, as we established had the power to completely take care of it without murdering children.

That is predicated on the Amalekites' repentance, which they did not do. And the Amalekites were fully aware that, if they did not change their ways, they and their children would be destroyed as a result.

They chose to continue assaulting Israel and they paid the price for it, period.

The adults had opportunities to change the cycle and failed.  The children were not involved so killing them was murder.

Once again, confusing innocent children with guilty adults

I'm confusing nothing of the sort. The children are part of the "collateral damage".

Not at all.  Killing children for what they might do is wrong.  It is MURDER.  Your morals as we had also established put you on the potentially dangerous list.

They do nothing of the sort, not any more so that yours do. Your morals endanger your own people, because you would put their well-being (and their very lives) as risk, being ridiculously concerned about the welfare of the enemy's offspring, especially given the history of that enemy's children growing up and following in their forefathers' footsteps.

Personally i think the whole 300 years is more revisionist history to justify their act of genocide.  But whatever, even then, it doesn't justify murder.

If this were an act of "genocide", the Israelites would have destroyed the Amalekites from the get-go, after that initial attack during the transit from Egypt. That didn't happen. They defeated the Amalekites and went on their way. Of course, the Amalekites came right back and attacked them again.

As Loco indicated, from the time of Moses and Joshua, to the time of Saul and David, and even to the time of Esther and Hezekiah, we see the Amalekites persecuting the Israelites, in one form or another.

In other words (though that wasn't the plan after Saul), the Israelites tried your wacky idea. They spared a relative handful of the Amalekites and gave them opportunities to "change the cycle". The end result was that, at certain points, they were nearly driven into starvation.

Again, at some point, you have to make the call that enough is enough. Exposing your people to the repeated attacks of an unrepentant enemy is downright foolish.

And to think, with the power of God, that's the best he could come up with?  Commit genocide?  lol

The best He could "come up with" was sparing the Amalekites....UPON THEIR REPENTANCE and making peace with Israel. But once agian, the Amalekites did not cease. And per the 2nd commandment, they were cursed for generations to come. The sins of the Amalekites brought consequences which they and their descendants suffered.

[OzmO]

So, Israel is supposed to completely change their government and their social structure to accomodate the children of a bunch of people, that have been attacking and assaulting them for over three centuries. That is utterly ridiculous!!!!

Not at all especially since what ever they have been doing for 300 in dealing with it hasn't obviously worked.  Changing the way they handle this issue is paramount and worth saving innocent children.

You're the one that kept complaining that the Israelites should have assimilated the Amalekite children. As I've stated, were that to have occured, it would have been under the same rules as it was with the remnants of Israel's other enemies. And, it was those rules that you kept howling about "slavery".

Therefore, since you don't like Israel's "slavery" rules, the lone option left is DEATH for the Amalekite children.

You still haven't explained why it "has" to be under those rules.

Anytime you are ready.

They're no more primitive than you or me.

Genocide is renounced by these mordern day primitive people along with killing innocent children.

How do you think that the Amalekites continued to attack Israel over the centuries? Those "innocent children" grew up and followed right in the footsteps of the ancestors.

But at the time, they are still innocent children.  You don;t kill someone for something they might do.  People, especially children are not guilty until proven innocent.

Beach Bum made the point, regarding his friend who was stationed in the Middle East, that their children are taught the ways of warfare and to continue the fight against their enemies, should their fathers fall. If that happens TODAY (in the 21st century A.D.), don't you think that such would be the case in 9th/10th century B.C.?

I'm sure it would.  Doesn't change the evil act when a 3 year old child is murdered because he was taught to hate Jews.  Killing and hatred is not something people are born to do automatically.  they can be re-taught.  Murdering them is certainly not the answer.  especially when you have the power of God.

Wrong!! And the reason is as mentioned beforehand.

I'm sure they did somethings, but not everything.

That is predicated on the Amalekites' repentance, which they did not do. And the Amalekites were fully aware that, if they did not change their ways, they and their children would be destroyed as a result.

They chose to continue assaulting Israel and they paid the price for it, period.

So what?  the children didn't choose that.  Killing them is murder.  the children didn't attack israel, the parents did.  the parents are dead.  all you have is children and infants.  Big threat. 

I'm confusing nothing of the sort. The children are part of the "collateral damage".

The children were murdered because they weren't part of the battle.  The swords would reach them after they went through the adults.  lol.  They are defenseless innocent children murdered by god as told in the OT after the Amalekites adults were dead.  Hence:  MURDER. 

They do nothing of the sort, not any more so that yours do. Your morals endanger your own people, because you would put their well-being (and their very lives) as risk, being ridiculously concerned about the welfare of the enemy's offspring, especially given the history of that enemy's children growing up and following in their forefathers' footsteps.

Being concerned about innocent children being murdered because of what they might do is ridiculous?  And you question my morals?  but then, hate to bring this up all the time, but you seem to make it apply so well; you were the one who said you'd kill a child on god's orders, so i'm not so surprised you say that.

If this were an act of "genocide", the Israelites would have destroyed the Amalekites from the get-go, after that initial attack during the transit from Egypt. That didn't happen. They defeated the Amalekites and went on their way. Of course, the Amalekites came right back and attacked them again.

Not according to the Organization that defines genocide and the definition of genocide.

 

As Loco indicated, from the time of Moses and Joshua, to the time of Saul and David, and even to the time of Esther and Hezekiah, we see the Amalekites persecuting the Israelites, in one form or another.

In other words (though that wasn't the plan after Saul), the Israelites tried your wacky idea. They spared a relative handful of the Amalekites and gave them opportunities to "change the cycle". The end result was that, at certain points, they were nearly driven into starvation.

it doesn't matter how long they attack them.  You can't confuse a history of a people's with the innocence of a child.

Again, at some point, you have to make the call that enough is enough. Exposing your people to the repeated attacks of an unrepentant enemy is downright foolish.

There are 2 avenues here:

1.  What the Jews did.  Which as i said, I'm willing to bet they didn't do everything they could.
2.  What god did with his power.

Both of which ended in Murder when it could have been avoided.

[MCWAY]

Not at all especially since what ever they have been doing for 300 in dealing with it hasn't obviously worked.  Changing the way they handle this issue is paramount and worth saving innocent children.

My point exactly!!! Sparing the Amalekites didn’t work, as they kept up their attacks on Israel when their numbers replenished. And, since they had no intentions on making any peace or truce, the Israelites are under no obligation to take care of their offspring.

You still haven't explained why it "has" to be under those rules.

Anytime you are ready.

Nor have you explained why Israel (or any other society, for that matter) needs to change their social structure to accomodate the children of an unrepentant enemy, other than the fact that you don't like it.

Anytime you are ready.

Genocide is renounced by these mordern day primitive people along with killing innocent children.

Yet, modern day primitive people have done just that, at least with the killing of innocent children. It's simply become less personal with the advent of modern weapons.

But at the time, they are still innocent children.  You don;t kill someone for something they might do.  People, especially children are not guilty until proven innocent.

But, those people will suffer nonetheless, due to the actions of their leaders and those in higher authority. That is how it works, both then and now. This is why it is IMPERATIVE that those in positions of power do what is right. Otherwise, the consequences for their ill deeds will not only affect them, it will adversely impact all under their authority.

I'm sure it would.  Doesn't change the evil act when a 3 year old child is murdered because he was taught to hate Jews.  Killing and hatred is not something people are born to do automatically.  they can be re-taught.  Murdering them is certainly not the answer.  especially when you have the power of God.

God is not obligated to save anyone, who will not repent of their actions. And as His 2nd commandment indicates, the punishment of those who commit evil can (and often does) stretch to the 3rd and 4th generation. Whether you like it or not, there are certain sins that, if committed, could destroy not just you but your entire family.

I'm sure they did somethings, but not everything.

So what?  the children didn't choose that.  Killing them is murder.  the children didn't attack israel, the parents did.  the parents are dead.  all you have is children and infants.  Big threat. 


The children were murdered because they weren't part of the battle.  The swords would reach them after they went through the adults.  lol.  They are defenseless innocent children murdered by god as told in the OT after the Amalekites adults were dead.  Hence:  MURDER. 
Being concerned about innocent children being murdered because of what they might do is ridiculous?  And you question my morals?  but then, hate to bring this up all the time, but you seem to make it apply so well; you were the one who said you'd kill a child on god's orders, so i'm not so surprised you say that.

Nor am I surprised to hear you say that you would foolishly put your own people's lives (children and all) at stake, for centuries/millenia on end, out of blind sympathy for the children of an unrepentant enemy (one who has made it abundantly clear, that their objective is to destroy you and that they will do such, when they get the means).

That is why I question your morals, continuing to let YOUR children die, worried about those of your enemies.

Not according to the Organization that defines genocide and the definition of genocide.

Notwithstanding the fact that this organizaiton's definition is utterly worthless to a soceity several centuries prior to it, this was not a case of genocide, anyway.

it doesn't matter how long they attack them.  You can't confuse a history of a people's with the innocence of a child.

On the contrary, it does.

Israel's top concern is NOT the Amalekites' children. Of course, it'd be awfully difficult to support them, especially considering that their dear old dads scorched Israel's crops, making it difficult for Israel to feed its own children, much less those of the people responsible for nearly driving them into starvation in the first place.

There are 2 avenues here:

1.  What the Jews did.  Which as i said, I'm willing to bet they didn't do everything they could.
2.  What god did with his power.

Both of which ended in Murder when it could have been avoided.

In no way, shape, or form, is Israel obligated to overextend itself to help an enemy, bent on their utter demise.

The only way Amalek's fate gets avoided is if, AND ONLY IF, the Amalekites repent and make peace with Israel, which they clearly did not. They had centuries to do that; they chose instead to continue their persecution of Israel. And, since their end-goal was Israel's destruction, the judgment came that their utter destruction was to occur.

[OzmO]

My point exactly!!! Sparing the Amalekites didn’t work, as they kept up their attacks on Israel when their numbers replenished. And, since they had no intentions on making any peace or truce, the Israelites are under no obligation to take care of their offspring.

They have every obligation since they murdered all the women and elderly who would have taken care of them.  which they didn't need to do either and still qualifies as murder.

Nor have you explained why Israel (or any other society, for that matter) needs to change their social structure to accomodate the children of an unrepentant enemy, other than the fact that you don't like it.

Anytime you are ready.

Governments that last from time to time make changes.  Our own government has adjusted itself many times.  Even on the constitutional level as we have amended the BOR some 17 times.  We make mistakes and we try fix them.

Anytime you are ready to explain to me why they couldn't change in order to prevent more bloodshed and murder.

Yet, modern day primitive people have done just that, at least with the killing of innocent children. It's simply become less personal with the advent of modern weapons.

Not true because the modern day equivalent of what the Jews did would be (not in size or numbers) like a company of US soldiers defeating dug in taliban units, killing every one of them and then  proceeding to a village and killing every elderly, every woman, and every child.  We don't that.  That's cold blooded murder.  And we are not engaged in Genocide there.  The Jews were.

But, those people will suffer nonetheless, due to the actions of their leaders and those in higher authority. That is how it works, both then and now. This is why it is IMPERATIVE that those in positions of power do what is right. Otherwise, the consequences for their ill deeds will not only affect them, it will adversely impact all under their authority.

They will only suffer because some ancient barbaric primitive society chooses to make them suffer.  The choice to kill innocent children lays squarely on those ancient Jews.

God is not obligated to save anyone, who will not repent of their actions. And as His 2nd commandment indicates, the punishment of those who commit evil can (and often does) stretch to the 3rd and 4th generation. Whether you like it or not, there are certain sins that, if committed, could destroy not just you but your entire family.

God actually, in this case faulted in 2 areas.  First he orders the murder of innocent women and children.  And then he order men to carry out this heinous crime for ever damaging those men who shoved spears in the bellies of helpless innocent children.

Nor am I surprised to hear you say that you would foolishly put your own people's lives (children and all) at stake, for centuries/millenia on end, out of blind sympathy for the children of an unrepentant enemy (one who has made it abundantly clear, that their objective is to destroy you and that they will do such, when they get the means).

That is why I question your morals, continuing to let YOUR children die, worried about those of your enemies.

My morals don't allow me to kill an innocent child.  I can't live in the past and I cannot live in the future.  NOTHING can prove that all those children will grow up to attack Israel regardless of how many times other generations have.  At that point those children are innocent and it is evil to murder them.  If god was that concerned about he could have done something to prevent it.  But this has nothing to do with God.  It has everything to do with the barbaric times this was written in.

Notwithstanding the fact that this organizaiton's definition is utterly worthless to a soceity several centuries prior to it, this was not a case of genocide, anyway.

It fits the definition exactly.  Doesn't matter if a definition of this time of barbaric mass murder was founded after the fact.  The Jews committed genocide.  It's not my definition.  I didn't write it. 

On the contrary, it does.

Israel's top concern is NOT the Amalekites' children. Of course, it'd be awfully difficult to support them, especially considering that their dear old dads scorched Israel's crops, making it difficult for Israel to feed its own children, much less those of the people responsible for nearly driving them into starvation in the first place.

The people "responsible" are dead.  The people who could help feed these innocent children are those adults that weren't in the army or remain.  Or god could take of it many different ways.

In no way, shape, or form, is Israel obligated to overextend itself to help an enemy, bent on their utter demise.

Innocent children is no one's enemy except the foolish.

The only way Amalek's fate gets avoided is if, AND ONLY IF, the Amalekites repent and make peace with Israel, which they clearly did not. They had centuries to do that; they chose instead to continue their persecution of Israel. And, since their end-goal was Israel's destruction, the judgment came that their utter destruction was to occur.

I think it would have been very easy to get children and infants to repent.  Unless of course Israels destruction is hard wired into their genes.  lol

[big L dawg]

[MCWAY]

They have every obligation since they murdered all the women and elderly who would have taken care of them.  which they didn't need to do either and still qualifies as murder.

No, they don't. Their obligation is to the safety and defense of their own people and to keep the Amalekites from harming them. If the Amalekites don't wish to make peace, Israel is under no requirement to care for their children, whatsoever.

Furthermore, your claim makes even less sense. As stated earlier, the women and elderly would have been sitting ducks for another group of Amalekite foes (and they had quite a few of them).

Governments that last from time to time make changes.  Our own government has adjusted itself many times.  Even on the constitutional level as we have amended the BOR some 17 times.  We make mistakes and we try fix them.

Unfortunately, the Amalekites didn't. And, no matter how Israel's assimilation laws were, the Amalekites CONTINUED to attack their people, nearly driving them to starvation, on a least two occasions.

Anytime you are ready to explain to me why they couldn't change in order to prevent more bloodshed and murder.

Anytime you are ready to explain to me why anyone needs to overhaul their government or social structure to appease or accomodate an enemy hell-bent on destroying them.

Not true because the modern day equivalent of what the Jews did would be (not in size or numbers) like a company of US soldiers defeating dug in taliban units, killing every one of them and then  proceeding to a village and killing every elderly, every woman, and every child.  We don't that.  That's cold blooded murder.  And we are not engaged in Genocide there.  The Jews were.

They will only suffer because some ancient barbaric primitive society chooses to make them suffer.  The choice to kill innocent children lays squarely on those ancient Jews.

What happens to those children is solely the fault of the continued actions of their ancestors, especially when they've had centuries to end the conflict. And whether they're left to starve to death or they meet the sword, their fate is tied to that of their unrepentant forefathers.

God actually, in this case faulted in 2 areas.  First he orders the murder of innocent women and children.  And then he order men to carry out this heinous crime for ever damaging those men who shoved spears in the bellies of helpless innocent children.

Last time I checked, HE, not you, determined who's innocent and who's guilty and to what degree punishment is to be dealt. Again, all the Amalekites had to do was cease and desist (and perhaps make some restitutions). Instead, they choose to pester Israel. So, the judgment was made.

My morals don't allow me to kill an innocent child.  I can't live in the past and I cannot live in the future.  NOTHING can prove that all those children will grow up to attack Israel regardless of how many times other generations have.  At that point those children are innocent and it is evil to murder them.  If god was that concerned about he could have done something to prevent it.  But this has nothing to do with God.  It has everything to do with the barbaric times this was written in.

This has everything to do with God. As stated earlier, there comes a point where enough is enough. Endangering a people (especially God's chosen people) for centuries on end, based on utter blind and foolish sympathy for an unrepentant enemy make your morals questionable, with regards to the safety and security of those you are expected to protect and defend.

For all of your complaining, you erroneously the blame everywhere but where it belongs.....ON THE AMALEKITES. God gives people the chance to repent and change their ways. The Amalekites didn't take any of the chances given them. Therefore, they are subject to God's judgment.

It fits the definition exactly.  Doesn't matter if a definition of this time of barbaric mass murder was founded after the fact.  The Jews committed genocide.  It's not my definition.  I didn't write it. 

No, they did not. I've seen the definition, too (I posted it, remember). And what happened to the Amalekites doesn't fit the bill.

The people "responsible" are dead.  The people who could help feed these innocent children are those adults that weren't in the army or remain.  Or god could take of it many different ways.

None of which matters, if the Amalekites don't repent, which they didn't. And their foolish decision brought death upon themselves and their children.

Innocent children is no one's enemy except the foolish.

I think it would have been very easy to get children and infants to repent.  Unless of course Israels destruction is hard wired into their genes.  lol

The Israelites were no more obligated to care for the Amalekites' children than your boss would be required to feed your wife and kids, if he fired you for disciplinary reasons.

[OzmO]

Man, these things just go on and on and on....

No, they don't. Their obligation is to the safety and defense of their own people and to keep the Amalekites from harming them. If the Amalekites don't wish to make peace, Israel is under no requirement to care for their children, whatsoever.

If they kill all the women that would take care of them they are guilty of war crimes/murder and are obligated to care for those children.

Furthermore, your claim makes even less sense. As stated earlier, the women and elderly would have been sitting ducks for another group of Amalekite foes (and they had quite a few of them).

Kill them so they won't be killed by someone else?   I seem to remember a south park episode poking fun of that logic.

Unfortunately, the Amalekites didn't. And, no matter how Israel's assimilation laws were, the Amalekites CONTINUED to attack their people, nearly driving them to starvation, on a least two occasions.

And what does that have to do with the newly orphaned baby girl who just got disemboweled by a soldier?

Anytime you are ready to explain to me why anyone needs to overhaul their government or social structure to appease or accomodate an enemy hell-bent on destroying them.

No need to overhaul the government or change the social structure.  Do we overhaul our government every time we make a change?

And how are these children hell bent their destruction?  Are their DNA altered to make them grow up wanting to do that?

Any time you are ready to answer those 3 questions.

My answer to your question is that over hauling the government isn't needed.  A few simple changes designed to prevent murder is needed.

What happens to those children is solely the fault of the continued actions of their ancestors, especially when they've had centuries to end the conflict. And whether they're left to starve to death or they meet the sword, their fate is tied to that of their unrepentant forefathers.

No their fate is tied to those standing before them who have killed their parents, mothers and caretakers.

The amalikites leadership and soldier's fate was sealed by their decision to continue war with Israel.

Just as it is today.  We will not go in a murder women and children after the fact/battle.  The jews did.

Last time I checked, HE, not you, determined who's innocent and who's guilty and to what degree punishment is to be dealt. Again, all the Amalekites had to do was cease and desist (and perhaps make some restitutions). Instead, they choose to pester Israel. So, the judgment was made.

Yes the Amalekite adults made bad choices.  So did the Jews when they murdered innocent children.

This has everything to do with God. As stated earlier, there comes a point where enough is enough. Endangering a people (especially God's chosen people) for centuries on end, based on utter blind and foolish sympathy for an unrepentant enemy make your morals questionable, with regards to the safety and security of those you are expected to protect and defend.

When have i ever said the Jews shouldn't have defended themselves?  They should have and did.  But they also committed murder by killing children.  There was no guarantee those children were going to attack Israel when they grew up. 

For all of your complaining, you erroneously the blame everywhere but where it belongs.....ON THE AMALEKITES. God gives people the chance to repent and change their ways. The Amalekites didn't take any of the chances given them. Therefore, they are subject to God's judgment.

No.  Each and every adult or person above the age of consent made a choice.  Those that chose to attack and murder innocent jews were punished.  I don't know why you keep coming back to that.  I agree with you there.  We are in agreement.   

No, they did not. I've seen the definition, too (I posted it, remember). And what happened to the Amalekites doesn't fit the bill.

No, you ignored the definition, i was the one who posted it.  And it fit.  If it fits, you cannot acquit.   

None of which matters, if the Amalekites don't repent, which they didn't. And their foolish decision brought death upon themselves and their children.

There decision force death upon themselves,  Death came to their children by genociding murdering jews after the fact.

The Israelites were no more obligated to care for the Amalekites' children than your boss would be required to feed your wife and kids, if he fired you for disciplinary reasons.

My boss didn't kill me.  I was still there to take care of them by finding another job.   

[big L dawg]