Yukon Cornelius said:

---

Not really. I'm asking about one verse. I'm not trying to play gotcha or anything. In fact I've stated multiple times now how much I agree with you. Except for that fact that all war is bad because we see God wage war here in the verse. Not only does He do it He asks Saul to be the instrument of that war. I'm just asking how you interpret that verse. I'm not trying to ruffle feathers.

I've read your posts. Maybe I'm missing it? But I don't see any explanation for that verse to make it not be war waged by God. You posted a lot about our calling of Christians which I agree with but it doesn't explain that verse.

---

He has said in the past that the Israelites attributed it to God in order to justify their war. But God never ordered them to strike Amalek because it would go against his loving and pacifist nature as seen at the cross.

Ah I missed that post then. So the opinion is when the Bible says this:

"And Samuel said to Saul, "The Lord sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore listen to the words of the Lord. Thus says the Lord of hosts, 'I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'""
1 Samuel 15:1-3 ESV

That Samuel was not speaking on behalf of God?

Well, given the rise of violence in our culture, and the incredibly long response times by police to calls, if one is even able to call, is it excessive to have multiple firearms so that one is handy?

Isn't the threat of violence from living in a city today roughly the equivalent of the threat of fire from living in the mountains surrounded by trees?

Is it weird for so many politicians and celebrities to have multiple armed guards around them 24/7?

If you're sitting in your living room when someone breaks in, having your only firearm in a safe in your bedroom won't do you much good, will it?

I used to own a duplex in Dallas that I'd rent out. I once declined to rent it out to a woman because her credit report was messed up. I asked for a guarantor which she refused. Her dad called me on the phone and threatened to come to my house and kill me for not renting it to his daughter. (The next night after that call, someone vandalized the duplex.) Was I weird for keeping a gun handy for a while after that?

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

Ah I missed that post then. So the opinion is when the Bible says this:

"And Samuel said to Saul, "The Lord sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore listen to the words of the Lord. Thus says the Lord of hosts, 'I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'""
1 Samuel 15:1-3 ESV

That Samuel was not speaking on behalf of God?

---

The post I'm referring to is from one of the many war/gun/self defense threads in the past. Yes, Samuel was not speaking on behalf of God. Maybe he made it up or Satan tricked him. But God would never have said it because...well just look at the cross!

It's convenient for his worldview and honestly lazy.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

Not really. I'm asking about one verse. I'm not trying to play gotcha or anything. In fact I've stated multiple times now how much I agree with you. Except for that fact that all war is bad because we see God wage war here in the verse. Not only does He do it He asks Saul to be the instrument of that war. I'm just asking how you interpret that verse. I'm not trying to ruffle feathers.

I've read your posts. Maybe I'm missing it? But I don't see any explanation for that verse to make it not be war waged by God. You posted a lot about our calling of Christians which I agree with but it doesn't explain that verse.

---

Sigh...yes you are missing it. Do I believe God commanded genocide and infanticide? Absolutely not. It would be entirely incompatible with the nature of God revealed through Christ crucified. I'm just dumbfounded that people will claim that God is unchanging, condemn abortion, but then believe God commanded the slaughter of infants.

So here...no, God didn't command infanticide. Samuel, being a product of an ANE world where genocide was considered an act of worship (harem), likely truly believed this was a command of God. But we know that God, as revealed by Christ crucified, would never do that. That said, God is willing to be blamed for all manner of evil if it maintains relationship with His people. We see it most clearly on the cross. This is why Boyd calls verses like these "literary crucifixions". When you look at the surface, yes it looks as though God is commanding evil (genocide and infanticide are always evil, or else morality is relative). But if you dig beneath the surface, you find a God who is willing to take on and accommodate evil depictions as He moves His people closer and closer to Him. It's just like we see on the cross.

We read these texts through a 21st century Western perspective, which causes us to strip away the Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) context in which they were written. A cultural context in which genocide was considered an act of worship. God meets His people where they're at, though. He has shown that He'll even die the death of a common criminal and hang on a cross surrounded by sinners as passersby are likely think this criminal got what he had coming just to maintain relationship with us. He did that on the cross, but we also know that the ugly surface of the cross is not the real story. The same with this verse. He'll accommodate being portrayed as a genocidal deity that will even order the slaughter of infants, but we know that that's not who He is. We know there has to be something deeper at play here, because we know it would be contrary to His nature as revealed by the exact representation of His nature in Christ crucified.

So did Samuel really believe that this was a command of God? Sure. Was it written from that perspective? Yes. The OT writers, though, didn't have a full picture of God. Samuel was operating with the most knowledge possible to him about God, but the OT writers were operating with a shadow. The example I use often are shadow puppets on the wall. OT writers would have assumed that that shadow puppet is being cast by a dog. I mean, it looks exactly like a dog. It has floppy ears. Jaw that opens like a dog's jaw. Surely it must be a dog. But Christ comes along and shows us what's really at work here. It's not a dog casting the shadow, but actually just a hand. He reveals the truth to us, so we no longer have to have a flawed understanding of the shadow.

In that verse, God is shown to be exactly who Christ showed Him to be while He hung from the cross. He is an accommodating God that will go to unimaginable lengths to be with and redeem His people. Even if those lengths include being portrayed as commanding unspeakable evil or even being nailed to a tree like a common criminal.

Btw, do not listen to MQB as he tries to clarify my position. He's proven himself over the years to be a dishonest troll who will mischaracterize everything said.

I don't believe that to be true because we see Saul lost Kingship from his disobedience.

"And the Lord sent you on a mission and said, 'Go, devote to destruction the sinners, the Amalekites, and fight against them until they are consumed.' Why then did you not obey the voice of the Lord? Why did you pounce on the spoil and do what was evil in the sight of the Lord?" And Saul said to Samuel, "I have obeyed the voice of the Lord. I have gone on the mission on which the Lord sent me. I have brought Agag the king of Amalek, and I have devoted the Amalekites to destruction. But the people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the best of the things devoted to destruction, to sacrifice to the Lord your God in Gilgal." And Samuel said, "Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of divination, and presumption is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, he has also rejected you from being king.""
1 Samuel 15:18-23 ESV

And you're free to disagree. I disagree with your interpretation. Nobody here is 100% correct. I don't believe Christ would ever command the slaughter of infants, but if that's where you stand then go right ahead.

PacifistAg said:

---

Btw, do not listen to MQB as he tries to clarify my position. He's proven himself over the years to be a dishonest troll who will mischaracterize everything said.

---

Did I not just accurately summarize your long winded post? I do not appreciate you calling me names. I consider you a fellow brother in Christ.

Interesting. Again I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm truly curious here. So how do you view the 10th plague in Egypt?

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

Interesting. Again I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm truly curious here. So how do you view the 10th plague in Egypt?

---

Yet this is exactly what I said was going to happen. I'm on my phone now. I'll address this later though. I'm going to try to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Jabin said:

---

Well, given the rise of violence in our culture, and the incredibly long response times by police to calls, if one is even able to call, is it excessive to have multiple firearms so that one is handy?

Isn't the threat of violence from living in a city today roughly the equivalent of the threat of fire from living in the mountains surrounded by trees?

Is it weird for so many politicians and celebrities to have multiple armed guards around them 24/7?

If you're sitting in your living room when someone breaks in, having your only firearm in a safe in your bedroom won't do you much good, will it?

I used to own a duplex in Dallas that I'd rent out. I once declined to rent it out to a woman because her credit report was messed up. I asked for a guarantor which she refused. Her dad called me on the phone and threatened to come to my house and kill me for not renting it to his daughter. (The next night after that call, someone vandalized the duplex.) Was I weird for keeping a gun handy for a while after that?

---

YOu know, I have spent my entire adult life living in suburban and metro cities. I've lived in Fort Worth, Mid-Cities and San Antonio. I've never owned a gun and I've never felt unsafe. Maybe that's just luck.

But to your point, I don't think it's crazy for someone to have a gun for home protection. However, I think the example was someone that basically has loaded guns staged in several spots in the house as if they're expecting some foreign invasion. As with anything, it's a matter of degree and it's subjective. At some point, it becomes overkill and kinda weird and obsessive.

Haha you're right. I did do it. I'm sorry. I'm fascinated here. I'm curious like a cat, that's why my friends call me whiskers

Quote:

---

At some point, it becomes overkill and kinda weird and obsessive.

---

Ha ha, most of my non-Aggie friends think constantly posting on and reading TexAgs threads is kinda weird and obsessive.

Long time ago I realized that everyone is weird, myself especially included.

And, truthfully, I don't think that guys with guns staged around their house are weird or obsessive. I kinda admire them for being so proactive, but am just too lazy to do it myself, and worry that some day I'll kick myself for not being better prepared.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

Haha you're right. I did do it. I'm sorry. I'm fascinated here. I'm curious like a cat, that's why my friends call me whiskers

---

No problem. I will absolutely respond. My apologies for being standoffish. Too many years of dealing with disingenuous and dishonest trolls on here.

While I will answer, please do consider the book recommendations I made earlier. If you like in-depth theology, you'll love Crucifixion of the Warrior God. You may not agree with it, but it's such a meticulously researched work. Boyd is far more learned than I am, but it is a surprisingly accessible read given it's in-depth theology.

Haha no apologies necessary! I get it. Plus it's hard to convey tone over typed words. Not the greatest medium. Feel free to PM it if you want to take it off the thread

dargscisyhp said:

---

UTExan said:

---

I prefer Ruger revolvers over semi autos because of added time to assess danger during trigger actuation.

---

How slowly are you pulling the trigger in these life and death situations?

---

If you have a double action revolver, the long trigger pull gives a fraction of a second longer to abort the shot. Rugers have a heavier coil spring while Smith and Wesson uses a a leaf spring for trigger energy. If it's immediate, I doubt you will notice the difference. Shooting a Glock will vary, but once the front part of the two part trigger system is actuated, the shot is nearly immediate with continued pressure. Not to be pedantic, but go to a gun store and try the triggers for a sense of the timing and pressure application required.