So i guess Saul didn't kill all of them when he thought he did. Because i doubt the King would spawn an new nation all on his own. lol
In end it doesn't matter much what Saul did or didn't do. Looks to me like Samuel was a primitive sort who thought killing children was the answer, (i know he allegedly got orders from god 
).
Which still brings us back to the point: there is no justification for killing children.
Well, the voice the Lord is how he got his job. It was God who told Samuel, as a boy, that he would replace his mentor, Eli, as high priest, because Eli stood idly by and watched his grown sons (also priests) extort money from the Israelites and fornicate with the women in the temple. Eli's boys were drunks and whoremongers. The text states that Eli's sons "made themselves vile and he (Eli) restrained them not".
And, it was Samuel who, through God's leading, chose Saul to be Israel's initial king.
Regardless of whether you think Samuel was a primitive sort, he got the message to Saul (regarding the Amalekites) and Saul agreed to obey it. However, not only did he not do so, but he lied to Samuel's face, claiming that he did. Saul didn't plea for the Amalekites or ask that any of them be spared.
Plus, he was supposed to destroy everything, NOT take the choice livestock or treasure of Amalek for himself, later feigning that he got it to offer before God.
That brings us back to the point: The Amalekites sins caused judgment to be handed to them. And their children suffered as well.
Yes it does, unless of course you want to ignore that fact putting your common sense on hold for fear of the foundation of your beliefs falling apart. But in the real world, that's hypocrisy plain and simple.
The foundation of his beliefs hasn't fallen apart in over 2000 years. I seriously doubt it's going to fall apart now, simply due to the wailing of Biblical skeptics.
Yeah, but i have a different book that states it's the word of god and because it states that mine is true and yours is not.
Because something is written in a book that supports itself doesn't make it true. Anyone can write anything. Zeus is true becuase it says so in this book, this book is true becuase the book says so......
Anyone can write anything. To have those writings preserved and validated in history over thousands of years is quite another thing. The Bible has that; Zeus' book, whatever it is, does not.
This is how some people think; primitive, like the people who wrote the books of he bible.
It was the hand of God, well in this case the hand of the Jewish soldiers, that kill them. We always have choices and so does God. If God was al powerful he would have raptured the children right in front of the amalikites and then gave them one more chance and then killed them if they screwed up again.
This would have been a divine thing to do, what did happen was a human fearful, vengeful, barbaric thing to do. The Moral thing to do would have been to assimilate them (children) into their culture.
Now, you're claiming that God isn't omnipotent, simply because He didn't do things the way YOU THINK He should have done them. That's rich!
We do have choices, indeed. The Amalekites chose to continually harrass Israel and, as FreakShow stated, they paid the price for it.
The Amalekites had over 300 years to repent; that's more than enough time, as far as I'm concerned. And what did they do, during that span of time? Continue to assault the Israelites, targeting primarily their weak and feeble; destroy their crops, nearly pushing Israel to starvation; etc., etc. I think it's safe to say that sparing the Amalekites any longer would have done little-to-nothing to change their ways.
Plus, as FreakShow also mentioned (and I have, on multiple occasions), in certain instances, the sins of the fathers affect the children. You aren't the only one who pays for your trangressions. On a larger and more tragic scale, that's what happened to the Amalekites.
God gave the Bible as SOLE IMMUTABLE AUTHORITY on which to validate His Word?
That Bible is the most incompetent thing written and if that was it's purpose, there wouldn't be the hundreds for denominations and freak cults that get their source of truth from the Bible.
The same bible that has helped spur countless instances of suffering form the crusades to the inquisition to what helped some Germans justify the genocide of the Jews?
That alone proves that God is either stupid or it isn't the word of God.
The Bible had nothing to do with the actions of the Crusaders of the Third Reich, anymore than converting Africans to Christianity had anything to with whites subjecting blacks to chattel slavery hundreds of years ago.
Cops will not threaten to shoot you unless you are threatening them or someone else with bodily harm. So again, your comparison is very unrealistic and doesn't apply.
Threatening somebody else? That's part of the point. The Amalekites weren't just threatening the Israelites; they're were flat-out assaulting them and had been doing such for three centuries. They had a chance to repent, to apologize, to make amends. They got worse, instead of better. God placed judgment on them; they got wiped out.
If you get warned of the consequences of certain actions and continue your course, then you're subject to have those consequences
Yeah, but he did not kill me because of it, like he (allegedly) ordered the slaughter of 3000 men and plague the families for being insecure and making a gold calf.
That shows rage, ego, anger and jealousy. all traits of men not God.
And God isn't supposed to feel anything, because His chosen people, who prayed for Him to deliver them from slavery and bondage (and did so, without one Jew dying in combat) are now using the very treasure (that He gave them from the Egyptians) to make a golden calf and credit it for their deliverance?
As I said before, the Israelites weren't praying to "Bessie", when Pharoah had his foot in their behinds.
And, based on the religious practices of Israel's neighbors, human sacrifice and sexual perversion were likely involved in Israel's newfound (but short-lived) praise ceremonies. To top it all off, Moses offered the idolators a chance to repent,
Who is on the Lord's side? Let him come to me!. Those who did were spared; those who didn't..........
No people are brainwashed who think God killing innocent children is not subject to morality. Moral is defined by actions. God's actions (alleged) in the OT show insecure, jealous, murder, dedicative etc... MAN not God and not moral.
Subject to whose morality, yours or that of God? It's His creation. He can do with it, as He sees fit, whether you or any other skeptic likes it or not.
I'm talking about children.
The second commandment states that God visits the iniquity of those that hate Him unto the third and fourth generations. The greater the sin, unfortunately, the more people get affected by it. Certain sins carry grave consequences, which are not just limited to the transgressors.
One of the things that define our progress as a society is proportional responses. If your neighbor takes your morning paper you don't rape his wife as a punishment. That's part of what eye for an eye means. Again more ungodly behavior by the alleged God in the OT.
Now, that's an analogy that doesn't make sense, especially in light of the Amalekite scenario. What was not proportional about the judgment handed to Amalek? Samuel said it best, when dealing with King Agag (king of Amalek). His sword made women childless; now his mother (and mothers of his people) would be made childless. The Amalekites killed women and children, unapologetically for hundreds of years; now their women and children would meet the same fate, as would they.
You really didn't get what i was saying there.
My point is there isn't an absolute doctrine save only that which is contained in different religions including Christianity. We are all creations of God. Loved by him. He speaks to us in many different ways and provides vehicles (different religions) based on what we will respond to considering our environment the culture we are in and the society we live in. to accept that would take the power of exclusivity these different religions have away from them. That's were this doctrine was born, by the hand of man to control and keep followers. Christianity is no different. the NT is full of it. Your beliefs are so ingrained you can't even see the blatantness of this.
Miracles happen every day outside of Christianity, prayers are answered, the holy spirit helps those you ask giving hope and strength. all of which have nothing to do the christian church's view of the truth.
He does speak to us in many ways. Among the things He says to us is how He wants us to obey Him, which includes the blessings that come with obeying Him and the curses that come with disobeying Him.
If the above spiel is true, then anyway you slice it, there are rules and principles to obeying God, with consequences (good and bad) that accompany them. This has nothing to do with "exclusivity" or "control". Your entire complaint is based simply on your disliking the severity of the consequences, metted on a group of people (the Amalekites) for their continued disobedience and disregard.
[/quote]
