Why would I worship and love a "God" who ordered infanticide?

You don't know about Neanderthal family life....

 

You missed the point entirely. You panic when you think that the existence of feminists and homosexuals presents some vague, ill-defined "threat" to children, but you brush of the concern about the mass murder of children as nothing more than an emotional outburst.

Feminists and homosexuals? Quick, someone needs to do something, alert, alert!
Mass murder? Quit being so sensitive. People die.

And anyone who thinks that men aren't as emotional as women needs to do their homework. Look at the violence rates.

 

No one is ever for abortions.

It doesn't contradict anything. You asked why the Israelites didn't always destroy everyone during their wars. Well, they were supposed to destroy the Canaanites and the Amalekites completely, but they disobeyed God and chose not to. God then warned them that those people would be a thorn to their sides (which is precisely what you see when you read first and second Kings).

 

Nice dodge, but you've ignored the point again. There were other battles in which, according to the Bible, God commanded the Israelites to spare civilians. This proves that it your whole "there were no other options" argument is completely bunk. Sparing civilians was an option. Period. Your latest argument is contradicted by the Bible, just like your smallpox argument was.

 

I read the linked info. It is full of conjecture, and the field of anthropology would not accept much of what the guy said. You need to stick with what is accepted by current anthropology. It has enough of its own conjecture but would never move as far afield as this guy has.

 

Single mothers abound today because Feminists sexual revolt of 1965 changed the culture.
Gays become outspoken and demanded the same sexual freedom feminists were taking.

That is just the facts.

 

That is silly.
Your personal deductions are not important here.
The entire field of paleontology is full of conjecture, of course, as it is all based upon trying to make much out of bones and artifacts.
What is written may be denied of course, but the science used in this field does say what I said.

From the information available, the sex life of Neanderthal suggests a correspondence with the Bonono apes, which was homosexual and feministic.

 

Melchizedek was a Caanite king. Salem was a Caanite city until the Amalekites invaded, and the Hebrews invaded it later.


And how does that justify the wholesale slaughter of an entire people? Of children in particular.

 

What I'm saying isn't registering. You, just like another guy in this forum, aren't looking at context. You feel as though killing infants is wrong, no matter what the circumstances are. "Oh, God told them to spare some people once before!" you say. You never bother to research the reasons of why, because the "why" doesn't concern you.

If a husband had to choose between his wife or the unborn child, medical experts commonly suggest choosing the wife over the child. It's a completely moral option to choose. Instead, you say, "Off with the wife's head!".

If a woman has been raped by her father. Your take is, "Well, carry the child for 9 months and then send it off to adoption." Yet, you neglect the fact that whatever career plans she had would be interrupted by the fact that she's pregnant. Try getting a new job while being pregnant -- With corporate policies of the 21st century, it's almost considered "taboo" since every job one can think of has a probationary period. Not only that, but the pain of being reminded on the constant basis that the woman had been raped. Not to mention the fact that if she's having a black child, that offering up the child to adoption is nearly impossible since the adoption centers are overrun by black children.
Source: http://www.npr.org/2013/06/27/195967886/six-words-black-babies-cost-less-to-adopt

Context matters. No one is saying indiscriminately kill children. You need to examine the context. The "why" is important. Yet, you don't care about the why. Your issue with God is completely superfluous. You're just trying to find ANY excuse to hate God, because you feel God wasn't ever there for you during the hard and pressing times of your life.

 

including the child would represent the "entire spirit" which is the seed.

- - - Updated - - -

probably not.

 

No, that would mean they were INSANE....wouldn't it?

 

So now "the seed" has an animist spirit?

 

Did God tell the Israelites NOT to kill the PREGNANT Amalekite women???

- - - Updated - - -

What exactly happened in the year 1965?

- - - Updated - - -

So you DON'T feel that killing infants is wrong "in some circumstances"?

Do you consider fetuses to be "infants"?

 

i dont follow you..

 

Originally Posted by Gorn Captain
--So would you have killed German babies if you were serving in Europe in 1945 and could have not been punished?

Why not? You support the killing of the Amalekite babies and compared the Amalekites to Nazis.....

why wouldn't you support killing German babies in 1945???

 

the destruction of amalek and his entire dominion, to me, represent the spiritual rejection and eternal war between the children of Israel and pagan imperialism.

 

So the Nazis weren't as bad as the Amalekites?

 

probably not but im not going to split hairs here, germans are the descendants of Esau as was Amalek, they both have the same goal.

 

Were there any pregnant Amalekite women during that war? What was that? You don't know, but you're just taking a guess? Really? No way! Wait.. What was that? You're just saying that to justify your point without using any facts at all?? Get outta town!

Now you're just being over dramatic and are instigating the issue.

Personally, I don't agree with abortions, however, I'm pro-choice because I know what would happen if the government were to take away a woman's right to choose. Unlike you, I don't think in black and white. I look at the entire issue and draw my conclusions from there. Could the babies have been spared among the Canaanites and the Amalekites? I don't know, because I wasn't there to make any sort of judgment call. The bible doesn't go into detail on what the situation was among the Canaanites or the Amalekites. However, the bible does say that both tribes engaged in homosexuality, bestiality, incest and human sacrifices of children. When we observe those things today, we immediately see the consequence of engaging in those activities. Homosexuality leads to fewer children and further decreases a population. Incest leads to infant mortality. Bestiality leads to deadly diseases. Human sacrifice leads to a whole host of moral and psychological issues. When you combine all of those problems together, you get a group of people robbed of moral fortitude and filled with deformities and disease. I could only imagine the pain the children had to go through. You, however, do not see this because you do not care about the "why". I know God doesn't do things for no good reason and I'm sure He had a pretty legit reason to command the things He did. Not only that, but God has the keys to death and the grave.

Revelation 1:18 (NLT) says, "I am the living one. I died, but look—I am alive forever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and the grave."

So, if God has the keys to death and the grave, then what exactly does death mean to God? Atheists don't share this concept, so they believe death is the worst thing that could happen to someone.

 

"probably not"? The Nazis were "probably not" as bad as the Amalekites???


How many Israelites did the Amalekites kill?

Six million and ONE?

 

its not a numbers game. back in those days the populations were smaller. proportionately it could have been the same amount of victims but im not splitting hairs here. maybe hitler was worse than amalek. i wont argue that.

 

If "you don't know", then that means there could have been SOME scenario or plan by which the infants could have been spared.....yes?

- - - Updated - - -

You just did...you said the Nazis were "probably not" as bad as the Amalekites.

Hitler was a Nazi.

 

How about you read the rest of what I told you, hmm?

 

Zero evidence? That's an over exaggeration on your part. Do Canaanites exist today? Are we excavating cities from underneath the dirt? If they weren't destroyed, they'd still be around, wouldn't they? We aren't excavating their cities fully intact. Its pretty obvious they were destroyed.

 

i can change my mind cant i?