Thank you, Gods thoughts are higher and faith. Does faith justify say, the murder of people who are not of the same faith. -2 Chronicles 14:12-13
At what point do you ask God “say what”?
The point is precisely where you distinguish between your moral responsibilities and God’s. If you suppose you have the wherewithal to judge God, it is at that point that you overstep your pay grade. What makes you presume you can make better judgements than God?
The crux of the problem becomes more obvious when we distinguish between a priori and a posteriori claims.
If there exists the omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent Being we call God, then logically and necessarily it follows that whatever judgements are made by this Being will be supremely good, properly arrived at and fulfilled in their due course. If judgements are not supremely good, properly arrived at or fulfilled, then it follows that they could not have been those of the Supreme Being.
It does not follow that human judgements made by individuals with scant evidence, a smidge of intelligence and a habit of not following through will be a priori (or even a posteriori) more sound or competently made than those of the 3 omni-God. We are the ones, by definition, that COULD be in error, and God is, by definition, the One who won’t be.
Of course, that is the a priori state of things, presuming that God DOES exist.
If God does exist, then we would not say to God, “Say, what?” It would, however, make sense to say, “I don’t understand.”
Now your argument is, I suppose, an a posteriori one. In other words, given the evidence, your claim is that a perfect God would not have issued such commands. The problem is that the evidence is insufficient to show that.
Imagine there is a perfectly just judge. This judge is not omniscient so he must have evidence presented to him and based upon that evidence makes a perfectly just a posteriori judgement with regard to every case before him. He never errs.
You bring this case before him as one of the litigants. Basically, your case is that evidence X and Y demonstrates that Z is wrong. X and Y being OT passages and Z being it was wrong to order the deaths of the Amalekites. You take your seat.
The defendant rises to plead his own case. The defendant, being omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent lays before the judge every possible particular of the case, including the mental states of every individual involved, acts of ill-will, repercussions of the decision down all through history, and a perfect depiction of why each person condemned to die merited death in every instance.
The judge listens intently. Your jaw drops to the floor. Which way do you suppose the perfectly just judge will rule?
Basically, your argument must amount to “God does not exist because an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient God would not order Z.” Yet you would have to be omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient to provide all the relevant evidence that would be required to conclusively show that. Are you?
You see, your argument fails because an incomplete body of a posteriori evidence cannot, in principle, rule out the possibility - based on more complete evidence - that God issued those orders precisely because you do not have access to the body of a posteriori evidence that would be required to demonstrate what the 3 Omni God would do to prove that this “God” is an imposter and not the 3 Omni God, after all.
Your case, in front of a perfectly just judge, would be dismissed for lack of evidence. You haven’t proven what you think you have.
Even, on utilitarian grounds, if it were the case that your conception of “the Good” perfectly aligned with the perfect “Good” for all, there is still the question of the means by which to bring that Good to fulfillment and safeguarding it against all possible threats down through all of history. You have very little knowledge or insight into long term consequences of the lives and actions of extant individuals, even your own. God, presumably, being eternal, and knowing every minute detail of the past, present and future along with the thoughts and motives of all individuals would better have a grip on the best course of action in every situation at every moment in time than you or I could ever imagine.
So, if God makes a determination, it might be beyond us as to why he did so, precisely because he has access to knowledge that is infinitely beyond us.
To ask of God, “Say, what?” is simply misconceived and presumptuous, although, “I don’t understand,” is quite legitimate.
You might retreat to a position that the Israelites were wrong for doing such things because they could not possibly have known what a 3 Omni God would command. However, you must recall that these commands were not issued in a vacuum and for no reason. They were preceded by a series of convincing wonders - the plagues, parting the Red Sea, pillars or smoke and fire, manna and quail in the desert, etc., that meant, minimally, a being with great authority was behind these commands. Presumably, this was the same God who made promises to Abraham some 400 years previously and who could clearly see into the future with regard to what will come about - no mean feat.
