How can God be against abortion when he ordered the deaths of Amalekite infants/children?

[buffalo]

When a person goes to a doctor to excise a tumor does the doctor only remove part of it?

 

[JamesATyler]

Perhaps you should read 1 Samuel 15 more closely. The Lord did not kill everything. The Lord commanded Saul to do so, and Saul did not do it.

Oh, I thought he did it. Have not read it in years. I’ll have to read it again.

 

[openmind77]

Openmind77, again, I simply don’t understand how you can be so sure and certain of the nature of God, but you are not Christian? You have made claims such as “I’m sure . . .” and “there is absolutely no way . . . “ in describing what God can and cannot do and what God is or is not. Perhaps you have divinely infused knowledge about the nature of God that far exceeds what mortal man can comprehend? …
.

Perhaps!

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

You’re ignoring the context of war vs the context of everyday life…

Oh, so God is a moral relativist? I see.

 

[dskysmine]

I think most of you guys are evading the question…
If you look at the topic at hand you have to equate the two situations just in what it relates to the innocent.
If you read Jimmy Akin’s blog too literally you could think that abortion is actually “good”, because the babies, which are innocent, would surely go to Heaven/Limbo.
The issue here is that Christians are not just worried at what happens to the child that gets aborted, but about the women that aborted, killing their own child, (and the doctors and nurses involved as well). Christians are judged if they did not warn their bretheren that what they are doing is bad for them, and that is why abortion is bad. It does commit a great injustice towards the baby that God may in His infinite mercy heal through bringing to Him the babies, but it also hurts all the people involved in a very deep sense that cannot get healed easily. Just because God is merciful doesn’t mean that we should abuse His mercy. He wants us to take part in Him… all of us.

Just my 2 cents.
God bless,
D.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

I think most of you guys are evading the question…
If you look at the topic at hand you have to equate the two situations just in what it relates to the innocent.
If you read Jimmy Akin’s blog too literally you could think that abortion is actually “good”, because the babies, which are innocent, would surely go to Heaven/Limbo.
The issue here is that Christians are not just worried at what happens to the child that gets aborted, but about the women that aborted, killing their own child, (and the doctors and nurses involved as well). Christians are judged if they did not warn their bretheren that what they are doing is bad for them, and that is why abortion is bad. It does commit a great injustice towards the baby that God may in His infinite mercy heal through bringing to Him the babies, but it also hurts all the people involved in a very deep sense that cannot get healed easily. Just because God is merciful doesn’t mean that we should abuse His mercy. He wants us to take part in Him… all of us.

Just my 2 cents.
God bless,
D.

In light of the original question, wouldn’t it be a danger to the Israelites to kill the Amalekite prenant woman as much as one having or preforming an abortion?

 

[DefenderPro]

The Natural Law is for man, not for God. His actions do not invalidate it, not that they violate them anyway.

Harem warfare was the way of the land back then. This is the complete destruction of opposing tribes. Whole cultures had to be destroyed so as to not lead Israel astray. We see Israel fall away and return to God on numerous occasions. The neighbouring tribes with their own beliefs would have simply led Israel astray once again.

Remember that God’s covenant was not with anyone but Israel at this time. They were His people and He would protect them.

Remember Jesus’ teaching on divorce. God allowed divorce because the hearts of the Israelites were hard. In the same way, harem warfare was allowed because of the cultures and ingrained societal thinking of the time.

The same logic cannot be applied to couples having an abortion for the simple fact that there is a difference between warfare and everyday life.

By your logic, the warfare permitted by God would also make it okay for us to kill our neighbour and kill our neighbour’s cattle etc. There is a clear difference between warfare and how we live our lives and the morality involved.

Killing of an enemy in warfare is not murder, and never has been.

In this case it would have been OK for Jesus to commit adultery, get drunk, sing loudly, and pass out in the temple. Invoking that principle that he is after all God.

I’m not having a go at you, but honestly, this is the stock-standard “do as I say, not as I do” rhetoric that is easily dismissed and has no credibility as being a valid point.

I am not implying that God is wrong or what not, just that the argument you put forth is nonsensical in many aspects and can easily be taken apart with a few scenarios.

 

[Tomdstone]

Akin says that God could make it up to the innocent Amalekites by giving them heaven. That applies just as well to abortion. He also says that perhaps the whole thing is metaphorical, but does God need a story where he explicitly commands the wiping out of infants and children, and implicitly commands the wiping out of pregnant women, to make his point? That really confuses matters if God also wants to condemn abortion, and the Bible says that God is not the author of confusion.

I don’t know, but I would prefer the story if it were metaphorical.

 

[manualman]

So if you believe that God prohibits abortion, how can you reconcile that with God’s actions in the Bible? There seems to be two alternatives: either God is guilty of murder because he commanded abortion, or abortion is not always murder because it might be the will of God.

This is a terribly vexing question if the asker sees God as merely a highly capable man with a big stick and bully pulpit. But if you understand God as someone outside of time and space itself able to know the past, present and future simultaneously and even able to see how intervention at particular times will affect the entire course of history, the answer becomes nearly trivial.

You and I aren’t worthy to judge a person worthy of execution. God is. There is no future or past for God. To Him, all is now. Based on what He’s done for us and the other revelation given, I’m satisfied that if God commanded someone to be killed, it was because that He already knew nothing good would ever come of that person, but that a great deal of good would come from that particular intervention in history.

Again, God can make those sorts of judgements. We can’t.

 

[devoutchristian]

In this case it would have been OK for Jesus to commit adultery, get drunk, sing loudly, and pass out in the temple. Invoking that principle that he is after all God.

I’m not having a go at you, but honestly, this is the stock-standard “do as I say, not as I do” rhetoric that is easily dismissed and has no credibility as being a valid point.

I am not implying that God is wrong or what not, just that the argument you put forth is nonsensical in many aspects and can easily be taken apart with a few scenarios.

Jesus was a man, even though he was God also. BTW, what would be wrong with singing loudly?

 

[Bradski]

How can you be against your 12-year-old daughter having sex when you slept with your wife last night? Ahh, because some actions are appropriate to certain times and places and circumstances and even people, and the same actions inappropriate with respect to other times and places and circumstances and people.

You mean actions and decrees and commandments are relative to their times?

I don’t think you understand Jesus. God will do more than destroy bodies. He destroys souls. His wrath is real too. God can be merciless if he chooses to be. Jesus says those who are merciful will receive mercy.

That’s like me saying that my wife is a terror and will tear you a new one as soon as look at you but the mother of my children is kind, generous and loving. Can I possibly be talking about the same person?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I definitely don’t believe in a literal hell (with fire and brimstone etc). God does not destroy any souls either. He is never merciless - such is not the God that Jesus described. Hell is someplace that we send ourselves, God does not send us there. (However I don’t believe in eternal Hell either - but that is definitely off-topic - lets just stick to the deaths God is being accused of ordering).

The God that Jesus described and preached is infinitely loving, infinitely merciful and infinitely kind - there is absolutely no way that he ordered any massacres of anybody, least of all of women and children (we can assume the children were merciful per your requirement). These are just stories told by humans to justify their own evil acts - they claim God ordered them to commit these atrocities.when they committed them on their own. Also God is never wrathful, angry or vengeful.

Your contributions are great OM.
However I have no problem with the Lord of Life commanding the leaders of His Chosen People to kick butt to ensure their survival. That is His perogative as Creator.

As you rightly say, whether God ever gave such a direct command re the Amalekites is probably the key question. I find that most unlikely.

The far more likely solution is that such things were “de rigouer” in those days and not considered always unjust. Much like early Christian attitudes to slavery.

That the Bible is true does not mean everything is literally or historically true as you rightly point out. Discernment is required.
To say that “God wanted this” and “God wanted that” really doesn’t mean much more than “we leaders believed that war/action was just”.

The Bible does not force us to sully God’s name with atrocities done in his name by the self-righteous victors and writers of history.

 

[DefenderPro]

Jesus was a man, even though he was God also. BTW, what would be wrong with singing loudly?

Read that sentence carefully, I used commas, not full-stops. It was a progression of events.

He was still God though, so would it have been OK for him to do that? (Reading now in light of my clarification.)

 

[CaptFun]

CaptFun = RED

The Natural Law is for man, not for God. His actions do not invalidate it, not that they violate them anyway. :sad_yes: - Go on …

Harem warfare was the way of the land back then. This is the complete destruction of opposing tribes. Whole cultures had to be destroyed so as to not lead Israel astray. Interesting historical data - seems to turn the focus from God to the Israelites a bit here … but opcorn:We see Israel fall away and return to God on numerous occasions. true … The neighbouring tribes with their own beliefs would have simply led Israel astray once again. Ok. God told Moses and Israel He was driving many peoples out of the land He was going to give to them. And told them not to imitate their practices - one aspect of which was babykilling - immolating children to the (false) god Molech.

Remember that God’s covenant was not with anyone but Israel at this time. They were His people and He would protect them.

Remember Jesus’ teaching on divorce. God allowed divorce because the hearts of the Israelites were hard. In the same way, harem warfare was allowed because of the cultures and ingrained societal thinking of the time. Well, and as the OP noted God was commanding this one, not just giving his approval after Israel’s prayer (which was done in other cases).

The same logic cannot be applied to couples having an abortion for the simple fact that there is a difference between warfare and everyday life. Well yes. And also that God commanded the Amalekite action (with all its consequences) – whereas the couple opting for abortion is acting destructively on their own and destroying life that belongs to - and is created by God.

By your logic, the warfare permitted by God would also make it okay for us to kill our neighbour and kill our neighbour’s cattle etc. There is a clear difference between warfare and how we live our lives and the morality involved. You make a good point - but “permitted” is wrong in this case, the critical word is “commanded” by God.

Israel obedient to God here is not willing in itself to break “Thou shalt not kill” nor even “Thou shalt not covet” as they’d have kept livestock and spoils if acting selfishly. The Amalekites were under a doom, like the people in Noah’s time. Instead of nature, God commanded obedience of His people.

HE created the Amalekites, the Israelites, the people of Noah’s time. All dead now (with most lives ending in not so nice ways) - even old age or a death so sudden one didn’t have time to say “ouch”.

Killing of an enemy in warfare is not murder, and never has been. Agreed. The additional dooming of women and children … even unto children in the womb was the OPs point though.

In addition to your best points I’d add these to address other aspects of the OPs “possible justiification for
abortions today - from God and the Bible.” < WHAT a breathtaking mission THAT is! :hypno:

**CFun: **Things to consider:

• It is appointed for all men to die.
• God desires that none should perish but that all should come to repentance.
• There is an afterlife which is eternal.
• Jesus Christ is the resurrection and the life. Can and does raise the dead.
• God has mercy on whom He will.

And as regards the “ordering of abortions” via the killing of the mother too - God has the ability and the inclination to raise the creatures He has created to life again.

WAY more important than answering the “Green Eggs and Ham” like abortion question “Can we do it NOW?” Look - even GOD did it! :nope::tsktsk: Is whether the Amalekites were doomed to hell – or if the downfall of their kingdom and loss of their lives, led to their salvation – or that of some of them – in eternity. Was that enough Purgatory to pay for their sins?

Your first two lines were quite good! God can resurrect. Sometimes He wills “miscarriages” that accomplish some purpose that is beyond us. Those who abort have stolen an innocent person’s WHOLE life and have destroyed a work of God!

Thank God this is an interesting theoretical question for use to excercise our intellect mulling - and not (I hope) a present day near reality where someone is on the verge of killing a baby and drawing justification for it out of this unique Old Testament “test” God gave Israel!

It could be that some Amalekites (who’d been unmerciful to others, even their own babies)
turned to God’s mercy at the point of death like the thief on the cross next to Jesus did.
And like him, suffered justly … but were later welcomed into paradise by their creator (who loved them but is totally just).

The Israelites may have been better for this too. Fearing God. Learning to hate war? Not having to fight so many wars (sometimes complete victories frighten other would be enemies), etc.

Bottom line: God is against (deliberate) abortion - it is murder for human beings. Accountable. What was done to the Amalekites might be done to US if we become guilty of being heartless as they were (and abortion is about the worst injustice of OUR time) that we can DO something about, in big and small ways.

“What you do to the least of my brethren you do to me. …” was spoken to those judged as merciful and those judged merciless. It is guileful and risking hell to deviously try to justify such a clear evil as abortion with clever (possibly demon “inspired”) arguments.

Run from that sin like you’d run from an army of angels coming to GET you for judgement and justice! :bigyikes: :sad_yes:

When considering the gross topic of abortion - sing a reverent chorus of “Silent Night”
first. It improves the spirit and leads the mind to better things. **- in my opinion **

 

[seanflynn]

Akin says that God could make it up to the innocent Amalekites by giving them heaven. That applies just as well to abortion.

That doesn’t apply to abortion even in the least. God can only “owe” something to the Amalekites (or first-born of Egypt before the Exodus) because he specifically ordered their killings. God doesn’t command the modern pregnant woman to abort. She has no indication that it is God’s will for her and her child, yet chooses it of her own volition (theoretically).

 

[CaptFun]

When a person goes to a doctor to excise a tumor does the doctor only remove part of it?

Interesting point - I had a cancer removed … and the doc took out a perimeter of “good tissue” too - to make sure the cancer was completely removed. Skin cancer, not malignant BTW.

Per this thread (I took it that) the point of it was to justify abortion or ridicule faith by bringing up the supposedly unanswerable riddle God did THIS. Why can’t WE? OR why couldn’t it be a GOOD thing too! :banghead: < if so.

Earthly justice - Amalekites were without mercy, judgement had come. God’s instrument THAT time was the Israelites. Would they be obedient THIS time (as they did not invade the land previously on command, BTW).

GOD’S justice - We ALL die! God created the Amalekites. He might have saved some in the next life - which would be more important. ON THEIR OWN the Israelites would have been guilty of “Thou Shalt Not Kill” or “Thou shalt not steal, covet” by starting a war.

Babies in the womb were killed. But God is the resurrection and the life. And has made
human beings eternal beings. Our lives now vs. to come – may be as different as our lives in the womb were from now! This story is about judgement and punishment.

There is a hopeful scripture saying that “God does not cast off forever …” how that applies or how far is beyond me … but it’s nice to know.

Per your statement - and to the horror of some - the Amalekites were not the only people God told the Israelites to conquer. Some “dooms” were carried out halfway and came back to haunt Israel. God had a plan. We still don’t know it - but total obedience is a good idea for he means good for us.

He desires that none should perish. But warns us to fear the one that can not only take one’s earthly life – but has the power to cast people into hell. “Yes I tell you - fear Him!” Jesus emphasized.

Doing something unjust like participating in any way in the sin of abortion could make one like one of the Amalekites, merciless and due for punishment. Mercy is available however. And God grants it over and over again in the Bible. Sometimes to those whose crimes were quite great.

Your cutting out the cancer insight made me think of Purgatory. I had pain during my operation, and some anxiety – but the pain was for the better, so I endured. Who knows, maybe some of the Amalekites repented at the last moment or sought God’s mercy and got it. With the babies, their slates did not have much sin on them, none for the unborn.
They lacked baptism, etc. of course - but as the Church has remarked, some are saved
" … in ways known but to HIm …"

 

[Bradski]

With the babies, their slates did not have much sin on them, none for the unborn.
They lacked baptism, etc. of course - but as the Church has remarked, some are saved
" … in ways known but to HIm …"

The get-out-jail-card to end all get-out-of-jail cards. But isn’t it a little capricious that God commands others to kill on his behalf and then does the deed himself on other occasions?

Is there a difference? Or do we play the card again?

 

[dskysmine]

In light of the original question, wouldn’t it be a danger to the Israelites to kill the Amalekite prenant woman as much as one having or preforming an abortion?

A danger of what?
How do you compare both?

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

A danger of what?
How do you compare both?

If the reasoning is that abortions damage the souls of the aborter, wouldn’t killing prenant women also carry the same damage to the souls of the Israelites?

Also the Babalonian conquests like Amalekite seem to point to the non universality of God for all men. He obviously in the O.T. is playing favorites. I find this troubling. It points to God as a God for the Israelites not all men.

 

[DefenderPro]

I’m inclined to agree with Roscoe, having read this several times over the years, I really see no other agreeable position.