First, let me try to elaborate on the second consideration I gave. Consider this argument:

1. It is impermissible to indirectly kill an infant
2. Killing an infant's parents will indirectly kill the infant (if left to itself)
3. Therefore, it is impermissible to kill an infant's parents (for any reason, so long as you cannot support the infant)

Would you agree with that argument? Because anyone who accepts that argument simply cannot justify killing the Amalekite parents, regardless of what the parents have done, unless of course all of the infants can be supported. — Leontiskos

That's not correct because you've decontextualized a fantastic tale and are trying to plug in a few facts to 2025 western civilization.

Per the story, Amalek attacked the Israelites unprovoked from the rear, picking off the weakest after they had recently been freed from 400 years of slavery through a series of miracles. The Israelites were under divine protection as part of a covenant between God and the Israelites at that time. This attack characterized absolute evil directed against God himself.

The sole survivor's descendant of these Amaleki went on to try to murder all the Jews 600 years later. That is, Amalek are the metaphoric spawn of Satan in this story and boldly confronted the the very force of good (i.e. God himself).

So, to your question: if there were a community of demons, some old, some young, and some cute as a button, all of whom you know for certain will perform horrible acts of violence, destruction, and mayhem because God himself told you they would, are you not obligated to nip that in the bud?

That, if Bob Ross' argument proves persuasive, then one will be pushed away from the OT whether or not they are Christian. So if one is a Christian and Marcionism is untenable, then then persuasiveness of such an argument would ipso facto push one away from Christianity.

- Not sure where you're coming from or where you're going with any of that. Nothing you quoted had anything to do with Biblical exegesis. I imagine I would have to speak to a story in order to "decontextualize it." It turns out I never did that in the quote you identify.

Edit:

So, to your question: if there were a community of demons, some old, some young, and some cute as a button, all of whom you know for certain will perform horrible acts of violence, destruction, and mayhem because God himself told you they would, are you not obligated to nip that in the bud? — Hanover

Else, given what Bob Ross has said, I am not convinced he would find this persuasive. He would ask whether it is permissible to "kill" a demon for their future crimes, Minority Report-style. Admittedly, I myself wouldn't have such qualms. :halo:

OP, the answers you seek will not please someone such as yourself. You have to remember, we're talking about the idea of a universe where a divine being exists that can literally speak things into existence, and has; not the least of which being the entire world we now live in. Or so it is written. That's not realistic to most people, quite understandably, I might add, and so most people will never find the answers they seek despite them being rather obvious and right in front of them.

I'll start with a few base concepts. Your flesh (in and of itself) is already dead; it's literally decaying as you read this (as is everything else in this world), except for, to religious people, the "divine essence" or "soul" or what have you that keeps it intact. Meaning, when the real you (not your flesh or body, but the deeper conscious being that is eternal) leaves your body, the body immediately and rapidly starts to decay as does every thing without a soul in this world. According to the body of literature in question, it's not impossible to raise the dead. That means, for a divine being, death or "killing someone" as we mortal beings would imagine it, is little more than how a parent would send a child to their room for misbehaving. It's literally that impermanent. Just as easily undone as it was originally done. If not even easier. Basically, the hallmark of this and many if not most religion is "Death is a lie." It's not rational, in a scientific sense, so if you don't accept that, that's the reason you find yourself unsatisfied with the answers being provided. Which again is perfectly understandable.

As far as I was made aware, the Amalekite people were known sorcerers. If you want to believe magic is not real, yet stick with the underlying narrative, call it some sort of alien technology, if that pleases you. In the world described in the Bible, sorcery is real. You can alter your flesh to appear as an older person, a younger person, an animal, even an inanimate object. Easiest thing in the world; provided you know how. But for mortal beings, this requires either a temple or obelisk or some sort of magic-related practice or place. So, prevailing theory in my circle is, obviously during an invasion if you are unable to repel the enemy, you hide. These people, according to the world the Bible describes, "hide" a bit differently than how you or I would I.E. altering their flesh to "become" non-hostile objects, be they children, animals, or even empty barrels and crates. But they can only do that in close proximity to the object or obelisk from which they draw their power from. Hence the order to "Destroy everything living and non-living" I.E. raze the place to the ground. Again, this is not what one would call "rational." But if you're asking questions about a school of thought or world that is inherently "not rational" by modern understanding, this should be expected and par for the course.

Call it all hogwash if you will, but, again, the above scenarios seem to be the only "logical" (heh) answers and explanations that line up perfectly with the world described in the text you reference in the OP.

As for the rest, I have no idea. Other than not that long ago there was one option to survive: war. And as to war there were only two options further when it was all said and done: to kill an entire population so that they would never rise up and rebel against you for what you did to them, or enslave them, for the same reasons. As to which is more or less cruel, that's not something I have much to say about.

Of course, even if everything is true, including my justifications, it still leaves one nagging question unanswered: Why? Why all of this? Well, that's just something I believe we'll find out one day. Or, maybe we won't! Could you even imagine a more interesting existence? I think not,

Agree. I see Bob's point as an ordinary and natural theological hurdle. “Man is by nature unable to want God to be God. Indeed, he himself wants to be God, and does not want God to be God" - Luther.

Who hasn't read the Hebrew Bible and thought, "If only I were in charge, I would have handled the situation better." However, upon deeper reflection, we find ourselves unjustified in our judgments of the divine. The Flood is the first central juncture point.

Yes, but you are thinking of liberty of indifference and not liberty for excellence; and this is why you will find it incoherent and probably downright contradictory to say that people in heaven cannot sin and yet are free. No different than how if you think freedom fundamentally consists in this indifferent ability to choose from contraries you will find it impossible that God is free, let alone perfectly and absolutely free, and yet cannot do evil.

There was nothing invalid about the form of my argument. Murder is the direct intentional killing of an innocent person. God did that in the OT, or rather it is purported that God did that. Either God did it and committed murder or He didn't. If He did and murder is unjust, then God is unjust. However, God is all-just, so God cannot commit murder; so the OT cannot be correct. You may not find it plausible, but the argument is logically sound.

@Hanover

So, to your question: if there were a community of demons, some old, some young, and some cute as a button, all of whom you know for certain will perform horrible acts of violence, destruction, and mayhem because God himself told you they would, are you not obligated to nip that in the bud? — Hanover

You are not obligated to nip that in the bud. The original premise is that God is perfectly good and not evil. God cannot and will not command you to do evil things, like murder. You cannot justify your evil acts by saying that God himself told you to do it. It is your choice.

There was nothing invalid about the form of my argument. Murder is the direct intentional killing of an innocent person. God did that in the OT, or rather it is purported that God did that. Either God did it and committed murder or He didn't. If He did and murder is unjust, then God is unjust. However, God is all-just, so God cannot commit murder; so the OT cannot be correct. You may not find it plausible, but the argument is logically sound. — Bob Ross

Bob, the form of your argument is valid, it is logically sound. Let's look at this another way. My argument is that God did not murder the Amalekites because they are not truly dead. God only destroyed their flesh and brought them to judgement. They will be properly tried and will not be truly dead until God passes His judgement. This is not murder.

Else, given what Bob Ross has said, I am not convinced he would find this persuasive. He would ask whether it is permissible to "kill" a demon for their future crimes, Minority Report-style. Admittedly, I myself wouldn't have such qualms — Leontiskos

It's not a speculative preemptive strike, but one where we know what will happen if we relent because the warning was from God, not just some UN inspectors who might be wrong.

You are not obligated to nip that in the bud. The original premise is that God is perfectly good and not evil. God cannot and will not command you to do evil things, like murder. You cannot justify your evil acts by saying that God himself told you to do it. It is your choice. — GregW

God didn't tell you to murder. He asked you to commit a justifiable killing.

God didn't tell you to murder. He asked you to commit a justifiable killing. — Hanover

If God asked you to commit a justifiable killing, then you won't be in trouble with God. Do you wonder why the "God defense" don't usually work in a court of law?

How could the OT be wrong if Jesus frequently referred to the Old Testament and identified himself as the Messiah, fulfilling prophecies found within those scriptures?

If God asked you to commit a justifiable killing, then you won't be in trouble with God. Do you wonder why the "God defense" don't usually work in a court of law? — GregW

There are legally justified killings. Self defense is an example. If you know with 100% certainty that your failure to protect others will result in death, that would be justified. Our hypothetical is usual in that it gives literally god-like certainty, so I'd say it'd be justified.

1. It is impermissible to indirectly kill an infant
2. Killing an infant's parents will indirectly kill the infant (if left to itself)
3. Therefore, it is impermissible to kill an infant's parents (for any reason, so long as you cannot support the infant)

Would you agree with that argument?

No, I wouldn’t. But let’s say I did: is your argument that if it is immoral to kill or leave the infant, then the lesser of the two evils (that should be picked) is to kill it? I do accept the principle that if one has to do evil that they should do the lesser of the evils; but wouldn’t this argument require that God had to do evil?

The reason I wouldn’t accept the argument, on another note, is for two reasons:

1. It is sometimes permissible to indirectly intentionally kill an infant. Going back to our discussion about the principle of Double Effect, the tactical bomber, e.g., is justified in bombing the military base even if he knows with 100% certainty one innocent bystander will be killed.

2. Omissions and commissions are evaluated morally differently, such that if one can only do immoral acts then letting something bad happen is always the permissible and obligatory option. If I can only murder someone else to stop the train to save the five or let the five die, then letting the five die is morally permissible and obligatory; however, all else being letting the five die would be immoral. If you either have to let the children starve or murder them, then letting them starve is bad but morally obligatory and permissible.

I think you would have to, at the very least, deny the principle in 2 that <if one can only do immoral acts to prevent something bad, then it is obligatory that they do nothing>.

that one is permitted to indirectly kill an infant in certain circumstances. In that case a command to kill infants could be reasonably interpreted as a command to indirectly kill infants by killing their evil parents.

Well, this cannot be true. 1 Samual 15 makes it clear God is commanding Saul to directly intentionally kill them all. It even goes so far to explicate that Saul did it but kept some of the animals and God was annoyed with Saul for keeping the animals BUT NOT for directly intentionally killing the people:

“He took Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and all his people he totally destroyed with the sword. 9 But Saul and the army spared Agag and the best of the sheep and cattle, the fat calves and lambs—everything that was good. These they were unwilling to destroy completely, but everything that was despised and weak they totally destroyed.”

 God is allowed to "kill," given that every time anything dies God has "killed" it. Life and death are in God's hands. Can God delegate such a prerogative to the Israelites in special cases, such as that of the Amalekites? If so, then this "mercy killing" of an infant is not per se unjust, and it actually provides the infant with the best option, given the alternatives.

Yes, this seems to be Aquinas’ answer; but then you are saying that murder is not the direct intentional killing of an innocent person OR that murder is not always unjust. Would you endorse one of those?

Note though that collateral damage is part of war, and that it bears on the question of directly intended killing versus indirectly intended killing. 

But this seems disanalogous. The tactical bomber is not indirectly intending to kill an innocent bystander if he successfully bombs the military base, notices he has another bomb leftover, and uses it on an innocent person riding their bike. Going in and winning a war against the Amalekites and then killing en masse the women and children is not indirectly intentional. Technically, one could argue that the women and children were all killed in the heat of battle; but how honestly plausible is that? When has that ever happened in war?

GregW, murder is the direct intentional killing of an innocent person and a killing is to end the natural life of a being. By your logic, then, if I go and kill someone it isn't murder because they haven't truly died since their soul is immutable and ends up in heaven.

murder is the direct intentional killing of an innocent person — Bob Ross

It seems a medical professional who engages in euthanasia would fit this definition.

Because the OT claims God has done things that are evil; and God cannot do evil.

Yep, that's why it has been historical seen as immoral and has been illegal. Same with assisted suicide.

If you don't agree with the definition, then please provide the one you are using and we can discuss with that one.

Why did Jesus refer to Himself as the Messiah, the promised Person from the Old Testament, then? Do you give a reference to something wrong?

I haven’t responded in a while because I’m trying to shorten this. It seems impossible to make this simple and make it satisfactory.

1. I think it is contradictory to think of God as all good, Jesus as God the Son, and that the God of the Israelites in the OT was not one and the same all good God whom Jesus loved as his Father, and taught us to love as our Father. Jesus spoke of his Father, and Jesus spoke of fulfilling the promises made to Abraham fortold by all of the prophets and worshiped by David and the judges.

God is certainly all good, so the task is to answer how are the things God told Saul to do something an all good God would tell us to do? The task is not to weed out all of the lies and misrepresentations in the Bible. That would contradict what Jesus did, what Jesus died for.

We can reject all of Bible, but we can’t logically accept only the NT and say we are literally doing what God, in the New or the Old testaments. tells us to do.

So I think your whole approach, thinking the depictions in the OT are not God, is doomed to fail and will blind you to any real answer.

You need to trust there is an answer.

2. Who is innocent, of what are they innocent? My interpretation of the law against killing is that it is a sin to commit unlawful, unjustified killing of another person. It is NOT that we can never kill innocent people, but we can kill evil people.

So you need to stop looking for innocent people and guilty people to find who it is justified to kill and who isn’t justifiable to kill.

The law against killing is a law I am to follow regardless of the guilt or innocence of the other person. The question when I am faced with the choice of whether to kill another person is not “do they deserve it?” The question is “am I justified before God in killing that person.” Am I justified before my fellow man and the dead person when I kill them?

So if a person just killed your son on your front lawn and was now breaking down your front door while screaming “I’m going to kill you all!” And you take your shotgun and kill them, can you justify the killing of this person? Sounds like self defense. But what if you and your son just murdered 20 people. Was it still unjust for someone to kill your son and break down your door to kill you? Or let’s say you and your son did nothing wrong, so you killed the maniac in self-defense. Should the maniac take any responsibility for his own death?

And if you are a bomber during war and your bombs kill the enemy’s bomb factory, and bridges and military installations, and some families and children, and hospitals, and some gun factories and tank factories, and some elderly and sick people - will you be justified before God and the enemy?

The answer to your question is not about the innocence of the children - it is always and only about whether God will find your actions justifiable. Or is always about who looks to God to justify their actions and who does not.

According to you, Bob, you know the guilt or innocence of others without God, by your own reason. You know children are innocent, you know killing the innocent is always only wrong, and you know the OT story describes God as killing innocent souls. And from all of these you conclude that either God does evil, or the OT is lying when it talks about God, so therefore the NT is lying when it talks about the OT.

That makes a mess of logic and of faith.

But I would say we should never judge the guilt or innocence of other souls (just our own - we can judge other’s actions, make laws, put people in jail, etc, but not condemn them to hell for sin), killing other people can be justified regardless of innocence or guilt, God never once ordered the death of an innocent soul, God does not do evil and Jesus taught us to love the God of the OT.

Basically, killing kids is terrible nasty business, but not per se evil. If you know God’s will but do not follow it (by omission) or resist it (by commission), that is per se evil. I feel it is easier to find all people deserve to be slaughtered for their sins then it is to see some people are innocent. It’s not that babies are innocent, it’s that they are lovable and can be saved. But do you know what God did with the souls of the Amalekite children? If you believe Jesus was God, what do you think Jesus did for the Amalekite children?

One of the lessons of Saul story is that, if we would just listen to God, we can let God work out what is just and good and evil because by always listening to God, we are always good and justified. We have the ability to judge good and evil for sake of judging our selves and so that we can face God honestly and knowingly like men - not for the sake of judging others, and certainly not for judging God.

murder is the direct intentional killing of an innocent person — Bob Ross

Again, more assumptions. If, right now, I break into your house, kill everything alive, including you (or so I thought, but you instead manage to escape) and afterward, while I have died, but my kids end up living in the house that rightfully belongs to you, and would kill you (gladly) if you tried to reclaim what is yours, are they innocent? Who is more justified in the death of the other, and why?

The fundamental concept is that people are individuals, souls that may have lived before, perhaps responsible for many terrible things, not "nationalities" that fundamentally possess an inherent right to exist simply for existence sake.

God didn't tell you to murder. He asked you to commit a justifiable killing. — Hanover

Is it just because God says so, or does God say so because it is just? :)

There are legally justified killings. Self defense is an example. If you know with 100% certainty that your failure to protect others will result in death, that would be justified. Our hypothetical is usual in that it gives literally god-like certainty, so I'd say it'd be justified. — Hanover

I agree that there are legally justified killings. If you commit a legally justified killing, then you will likely not be in trouble with the law. let's look at a hypothetical example. God asked a man to hijack an airplane and crash it into a building full of evil people. In obeying God's command, is he justified in killing thousands of people? Is this a justifiable killing in a court of law?

GregW, murder is the direct intentional killing of an innocent person and a killing is to end the natural life of a being. By your logic, then, if I go and kill someone it isn't murder because they haven't truly died since their soul is immutable and ends up in heaven. — Bob Ross

Bob, by your reasoning, if "murder is the direct intentional killing of an innocent person and a killing is to end the natural life of a being", then aren't we destined to be murdered by God eventually and intentionally as we lead our innocent ordinary lives? By that reasoning, all human deaths are murders by God. I would argue that If God go and kill someone it isn't murder because they haven't truly died since their soul is immutable and ends up in heaven to face God's judgement.

I don't think that is true. God may indirectly intentionally kill people or let them die; but He does not directly intentionally kill people (notwithstanding just punishment).

What definition of murder are you using?

You are just shifting the goal post to a discussion about what constitutes innocence. There is a wide consensus that unjust acts involve a victim and a victim, as the name implies, was innocent.

Innocence, I would say, has to do with being morally blameless as it relates to the incident at hand. Hence, an ex-convict would be an innocent victim if they were shot point blank on a sidewalk because someone didn't like the fact they had been previously convicted of a crime.

I didn't give a reference for that because I do not see the relevance. The OP is arguing that the OT depicts God in a light that is contradictory to God's nature. Even if the NT depicts God accurately or inaccurately, that is a separate issue.

Hence, an ex-convict would be an innocent victim if they were shot point blank on a sidewalk because someone didn't like the fact they had been previously convicted of a crime. — Bob Ross

Sure. If it was "just someone". But what if the person who was shot actually got away with a crime they were never charged with, say killing a man's sister, and the person who shot him was said man whom he robbed of a family member.

Getting deep down to the root issue in question, to refine it (or perhaps invalidate the premise itself), while distracting for some, is not "moving goalposts", respectfully.

You are making my point for me! In my example I am right that they are innocent because they are morally blameless as it relates to the incident; whereas you are right in your example that we could import variables into the hypothetical where they are not morally blameless in ways where it may be justified to kill them.

My point was that murder is considered normally killing someone that is innocent, although I would refine it a bit, and you were asking about what constitutes innocence. In both our examples, it is evident that innocence is about whether or not a person is morally blameworthy in a relevant way for the other person(s) to be justified in what they did to them.

I said you were shifting the goal-post because obviously innocence is a key component of murder: no one disputes that and my original comment was a definition of murder.