1 Samuel 15:2-
This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt.
Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.
I would like a Christian to explain to me how this direct order from your God is an example of him "not doing anything bad". This requires a justification for the mass slaughter of women, infants, children, and every man who had no involvement whatsoever with the 'crime' God cites as his reason for dooming them all, other than having the bad luck to be a citizen of the Amalekite kingdom. Please note that your God is all-knowing and all-powerful, meaning he could have, literally, solved this problem in any imaginable way, so his choice to massacre the entire civilization (or, indeed, to harm a single individual) was in no way necessary.
I anxiously await responses. And don't bore me by resorting to arguments of moral relativism you don't even accept yourself. Justify your morals and explain why you believe that the above passage is an example of righteous good rather than sheer malice and bloodlust.
This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt.
Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.
I would like a Christian to explain to me how this direct order from your God is an example of him "not doing anything bad". This requires a justification for the mass slaughter of women, infants, children, and every man who had no involvement whatsoever with the 'crime' God cites as his reason for dooming them all, other than having the bad luck to be a citizen of the Amalekite kingdom. Please note that your God is all-knowing and all-powerful, meaning he could have, literally, solved this problem in any imaginable way, so his choice to massacre the entire civilization (or, indeed, to harm a single individual) was in no way necessary.
I anxiously await responses. And don't bore me by resorting to arguments of moral relativism you don't even accept yourself. Justify your morals and explain why you believe that the above passage is an example of righteous good rather than sheer malice and bloodlust.