Isn’t simpler to just understand that God's actions supercede human morality? The moral guidelines that we humans should follow are not what a Supreme Being has to follow. An all powerful deity that created the universe and created life is not on the same level as a human, right? It would be like saying that a shepherd needs to follow the same rules that his sheep must follow. Or that a farmer must follow the same rules of survival that his plants must follow. When God destroyed people in the Old Testament it was because they were "unhealthy" and they were endangering the preservation of the rest of his healthy "flock". The age, whether babies, youth, or adult, of an infected sheep or a weed doesn't matter in comparison to the maintenance of the entire healthy flock or the healthy plants. Potentially harmful entities must be eliminated or all will be lost.

The reason Christians say that God is "good" is because he gave humankind life, and he gave us a special, unique intelligence to sustain it, and he gave us moral guidelines to help us cooperate with each other and to be happier. He isn't "good" because he follows the human rules of morality. His deadly actions, as depicted in the Old Testament, are not supposed to be a model for us to follow. We are not God. Later, He sent Jesus to serve as that model.

+1

So genocide or attempted genocide is good sometimes. Like with the commend to kill all the Amalekite, who some Jewish extremists today say are the Palestinians.

Please give me your definitions of "genocide" and "good", then I will answer your question. (I think I'm good on the definitions of "attempted" and "sometimes." )

Im not going to do that and i was not really asking a question. If you want to disagree alright.

genocide: the systematic eradication of an ethnic group
good: morally permissible

Sorry, my mistake. Thought you were asking a question.

By those definitions, I believe that it is logically possible for an act to be both an act of genocide and morally permissible.

Having said that, I believe that in order for the genocide to be morally permissible, the eradication of the group has to be based on the IMMORAL BEHAVIOR of the ethnic group, and not merely because they ARE a certain ethnic group. If possible, I would give members of that group the opportunity to repent of their immoral behavior. Anyone who repented would be spared destruction.

Someone who knows the Old Testament better than I do might be able to confirm or deny my understanding that in all cases in which God ordered the slaughter of an entire people-group, members of that group were given ample time to repent and avoid destruction.

I'm pretty sure that the children and infants of the Amalekites weren't given an opportunity to repent.

It seems to me that the morality of the Old Testament is not an individualistic morality, but more of a communal one. Moral responsibility can flow through communities and through generations. This concept of morality is echoed in New Testament theological constructions, such as "though one man sin entered the world."

So for that reason, I disagree with lagtight's attempt at interpreting the passage in search of opportunities for individual repentance.

I don't know of any other kind of repentance other than individual repentance. Can you please give an example of a "group" repenting? If a group of 500 has 284 people repent and 216 people not repent, do even the individuals who didn't repent receive the same blessings from God as the people who did actually repent?

Some of you must be a real hoot at the ayatollah's office mixer.

1. God doesn't have to abide by any standards
2. If religious people, who agree with my religion, or myself for that matter because I'm all religiousy, decide some other group or person has committed 'X' sin, we'll give that human being(s) a chance to repent, but then, It's time to kill. Yeah, baby.
3. And all of this is truly decided by human beings, just like horrible decisions by politicians, strong-men, etc.
4. Please let me and my sons not be around when you f&^*tards come into power in the western world.

Here is an example of Daniel repenting on behalf of others:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...9&version=NASB

Notice the repeated use of first person plural. His confession and his intercession are for the community. Here, we have an individual confessing on behalf of others. This is opposite of what you're asking for (which I'll get to below).

In the book of Jonah, do you believe that literally every single person repented? That there wasn't just one person in the very large city that was sleeping during Jonah's preaching? Or in the book of Exodus, do you think that literally every single person contributed to and worshipped the golden calf? Or what about Sodom and Gomorrah? Would he not spare the whole city if ten were found to be righteous?

It seems clear that community matters.

But presumably the rules of morality still apply to how humans treat other humans. So yes, maybe God can kill all the Amalekites and it isn't wrong, but wouldn't it still be wrong for Saul and the Hebrew warriors to kill them?

Apparently God holds grudges as the law states:

Deut 25:17Remember what Amalek did unto thee by the way, when ye were come forth out of Egypt; 18How he met thee by the way, and smote the hindmost of thee, even all that were feeble behind thee, when thou wast faint and weary; and he feared not God. 19Therefore it shall be, when the LORD thy God hath given thee rest from all thine enemies round about, in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance to possess it, that thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; thou shalt not forget it.

What changes if that task is delegated?

Deut 9:5 Not for thy righteousness, or for the uprightness of thine heart, dost thou go to possess their land: but for the wickedness of these nations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee, and that he may perform the word which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Morally permissible genocide? You are trolling.

Ok, let's not make this about me. Can you just answer the following with binary answers?

1. Do you believe in god?
2. Do you believe Jesus was the son of god?
3. Do you believe Jesus' mother was a Virgin?
4. Do you believe Noah lived to be 600 years old?
5. Do you believe Jesus was resurrected?

Ok, those were a bit easy (hopefully). Now for an essay question.

Do you consider yourself a Christian because you feel that morality is derived from an otherworldly source and is not an innate human quality?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whenever you're ready, Aaron

A lot of Christian and other believers think God gave humans an innate moral compass.

Aaron, and only Aaron, please.

The idea is that God makes the rules for humans. The rules don't exist without God. God designed human morality, presented the guidelines to us, and we are obligated to follow them. When in some specific instance he gives direct orders to kill, when even it is in opposition to His general guidelines, it is still morally correct de facto. It is similar to exceptions to "do not kill" for reasons of self-defense. God's orders are greater than morality. I'm sure you know of divine command theory.

Going further with this theory, the next question that follows is whether in modern times can anybody violate moral law and say it was okay by claiming he was given orders from God? The answer is no. According to religious scholars, direct orders from God was a procedure that only occurred in ancient times of the Old Testament. Later passages in the Bible along with the lack of such events indicate that such commands won't occur again. In modern times, they should always be considered invalid clams.

It appears to me that God wouldn't give any orders that are outside the parameters of His law, and notions of a more refined law would certainly have to rest within those parameters. To suggest otherwise appears to open yourself up to a lawful execution on many different counts.

-adultery
-blasphemy
-false prophet

Not until you're sober and demonstrate yourself mentally fit to have a conversation.

I just touched my nose and didn't fall over. I'm not exactly sure what sort of demonstration you're after here.

Field sobriety tests are ez. Next?

.