1 Samuel -
1: Samuel also said unto Saul, The LORD sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD.
2: Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
3: Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
God ordered Saul to kill babies and wipe out an entire civilization. How is that any different than what MoslemMaggots claim Allah tells them to do?
And how can the God of the New Testament ("forgive them for they know not what they do, turn the other cheek, forgive seventy times seven times, etc.") be the same who ordered genocide and baby-killing?
I don't believe God did order that. Power hungry men ordered it and claimed it was God. Just as they did in the time of Islam's expansion and as they do now.
"Gott mit uns." and "Deus Volta!" are the ultimate justifications for the ultimate solution.
With God On Our Side
Oh my name it is nothin'
My age it means less
The country I come from
Is called the Midwest
I's taught and brought up there
The laws to abide
And that land that I live in
Has God on its side.
Oh the history books tell it
They tell it so well
The cavalries charged
The Indians fell
The cavalries charged
The Indians died
Oh the country was young
With God on its side.
Oh the Spanish-American
War had its day
And the Civil War too
Was soon laid away
And the names of the heroes
I's made to memorize
With guns in their hands
And God on their side.
Oh the First World War, boys
It closed out its fate
The reason for fighting
I never got straight
But I learned to accept it
Accept it with pride
For you don't count the dead
When God's on your side.
When the Second World War
Came to an end
We forgave the Germans
And we were friends
Though they murdered six million
In the ovens they fried
The Germans now too
Have God on their side.
I've learned to hate Russians
All through my whole life
If another war starts
It's them we must fight
To hate them and fear them
To run and to hide
And accept it all bravely
With God on my side.
But now we got weapons
Of the chemical dust
If fire them we're forced to
Then fire them we must
One push of the button
And a shot the world wide
And you never ask questions
When God's on your side.
In a many dark hour
I've been thinkin' about this
That Jesus Christ
Was betrayed by a kiss
But I can't think for you
You'll have to decide
Whether Judas Iscariot
Had God on his side.
So now as I'm leavin'
I'm weary as Hell
The confusion I'm feelin'
Ain't no tongue can tell
The words fill my head
And fall to the floor
If God's on our side
He'll stop the next war.
We believe that God did, in fact, order such a slaughter...for reasons that we can only guess at, through a glass, darkly.
We do not believe that Allah exists, so any orders that the Islamic god might give are simply fictitious.
His Ways are not our ways.
It is sin that caused, and continues to cause, the death of every human being.
A personal revelation to one man ordering others to commit infanticide demands a little more explanation than simply "obey".
900 koolaid drinkers in Jonestown followed the personal revelation of someone whom they were convinced was a prophet.
I know that but in this case, comparing what God says in the OT to what God says in the NT - it's more like "His ways are not His ways"
Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
Well, the Prophet Samuel was believed to be a man who spoke with God, and nowhere in the Old Testament is it urged by anyone that Samuel was a false prophet,
We Believers believe that Samuel was inspired and directed by God to speak what he did to Saul.
King Saul, BTW, disobeyed the clear command of God....and lived to regret it.
He, of course, had great human reasons for his disobedience...but God requires obedience above a 'Plan B.'
Now, IF you think that infanticide should have been unthinkable back in those days, I am reminded by an article that I read from a Texas newspaper that dated from 1839.
It seems that some Comanche Indians had attacked an outlying settlement, killed some settlers, their wives and children, and then retreated.
A group of Texas Rangers and others caught up with these Comanches, in their camp, with the scalps of their recent victims drying in full view.
They killed not only the warriors, but the wives and the infants, as well.
And the newspaper wrote of the killing of the Comanche infants in the newspaper with little apparent embarrassment.
Why? I suppose that after killing the parents, it was viewed as an act of mercy to kill the infants.
There are good prophets and there are bad prophets.
Choose to whom you will listen.
There was a shift in the perception of what God desired.
He didn't change in the least.
This is explained well in the Gospel of Matthew.
The Beatitudes (Jesus and his Sermon on the Mount)
God did order it.
It could be because of the reason the Lord gave, indicating that the Amelekites were being punished for what they'd previously done to Israel. It could also have been a test of Saul's obedience (he was punished by the Lord for not being completely obedient in this commandment).
Whatever the reason, Saul had received a command from the Lord and he knew it.
Eric correctly suggests that we do not always understand the Lord's ways. If we all understood everything, there would be no need for faith.
I find the disconnect between religiousity and morality in this instance to be stunning.
Murdering babies is not ok. I see that argument in the abortion thread that is currently active in this forum.
So if you believe God has told you to murder innocents, that makes it ok and you should obey him?
Any God who orders the murder of helpless men, women, and children isn't worthy of worship. Period.
God gave us the commandments. He is uniquely qualified to give us the rare exception to those commandments too. Yes, such is my faith in God.
If God gives me a unique command, and the Holy Ghost confirms the validity of it to me, yes I will strive to obey.
Edited to add:
You suggest that there is a "disconnect between religiousity and morality" in this example. In doing so you seek to impose upon God your limited understanding of morality and religion. God's ways are not always going to be your ways. His understanding is infinitely superior to your own. To assume that you can dictate to God what His ways must be is arrogant to the extreme.
Well then, if GOD commanded you to kill men, women and children - would you do it?
Would you do it if the people to be killed were your neighbors?
Would you do it knowing full well that when you are done, you will be subject to "man's laws" and will spend the rest of your life in prison?
More importantly - how would you know it was GOD giving you the order, and not a mental defect, drugs, etc.???
At one time God desired that His people kill foreign babies and stone prostitutes to death.
Are you saying God still desires His people to carry out these clear demands written in the OT?
Or did the (often brutal) specifics of what God desires from us change with the life, death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ?
Of course you know I'm writing as the Devil's Advocate, but still worth discussing.
Would you obey such an order to obliterate every man and woman, infant and suckling and even the animals of a foreign society just based on the word of someone ELSE?
BTW... Col. Tibbets did.
I suspect the OT was written before God quit drinking.
Would this forum be more aptly named “RELIGION CARPING?”
Whether the revelation comes from the Lord directly or through His chosen servant, it is the same.
I might ask you if you think God was wrong for sending the flood in the days of Noah? Surely there must have been little children present at the time. Do you also condemn God for destroying Soddom and Gomorrah?
What about what the Lord did in Egypt when the, "LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle." Do you insist that the Lord was wrong then, too?
It boils down to you trying to tell the Lord what is right and what isn't. Incredibly arrogant.
God created all life and all life belongs to Him and Him alone. The Book of Job explains that well and also has bearing on the question I originally asked as well.
No - it boils down to asking why God ordered others to kill babies? Or did He?
That's a matter of your faith. You've very clearly outlined the limits of your faith in scripture and prophets. You've also outlined the limits you wish to place on God.
By the way, if God is the only one who can take a life, why are there very specific commandments in the law given to Moses about death penalties for abominations? Why was Phinehas greatly blessed by the Lord for killing Zimri and the Midianitish woman? Do you recall the great blessings God gave Phinehas for killing them? The_Macallan, please tell us what the Lord says in Numbers 25 about how the Lord felt regarding Phinehas' actions.
Do you reject these words because the Lord spoke them to Moses? Do you reject Moses too?
Posing questions is now trying to place limits on God?
What kind of God is it that gives us an inquisitive mind then demands that we never use it?
Tell me, up until the point in the OT where God tells Samuel to order Saul to destroy the Amelakites, where did Samuel get the "authority" to call himself a prophet except through personal private revelation that no one else heard?
I'd say the same to any prophet who orders others to massacre infants simply because "God told him to".
An extraordinary demand requires an extraordinary request of assurance. Especially in a post-Abrahamic period.
God is a murderer as much as any man. After all we are created in his image according to the Bible. The Bible makes no secret of his human emotions.
Nice rephrasing, I like it.
There is nothing wrong with and inquisitive mind. The problem is the fact that throughout this topic you have set yourself in direct defiance of God and His servants because you aren't able to understand the commandments given. There is no inquisitiveness in your mind, only a neck of iron sinew and a brow of brass. You do not ask questions in order to understand, but only to make a point that was already decided in your mind before you posted.
However, you have asked for further examples, and I'll humor you.
Since you mention Abraham, I'll start there.
What was Abraham's great test? Answer: He was willing to sacrifice his beloved son because God asked him to. Divine intervention prevented Isaac's death, but Abraham was fully intent on carrying out the command that to him must have been a sore internal trial.
"10 And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.
11 And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.
12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me."
Did Abraham reject the command of the Lord because it was so horrible to do? No, Abraham sought to obey despite the horror of it.
In Leviticus 20 we learn that a child may be put to death for cursing one's parents.
In Leviticus 24 we learn of an Israelitish woman’s son who was stoned for blasphemy.
From Deuteronomy 2 we read "33 And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people.
34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain"
Hmmm... delivered by the Lord for the complete destruction of the people....
And then there is what the Israelites did to the people of Bashan, as mentioned in Deutoronomy 3:
"1 THEN we turned, and went up the way to Bashan: and Og the king of Bashan came out against us, he and all his people, to battle at Edrei.
2 And the LORD said unto me, Fear him not: for I will deliver him, and all his people, and his land, into thy hand; and thou shalt do unto him as thou didst unto Sihon king of the Amorites, which dwelt at Heshbon.
3 So the LORD our God delivered into our hands Og also, the king of Bashan, and all his people: and we smote him until none was left to him remaining."
Now we'll move on from Moses to Joshua:
We read in Joshua Chapter 6:
"...Joshua said unto the people, Shout; for the LORD hath given you the city.
17 ¶ And the city shall be accursed, even it, and all that are therein, to the LORD: only Rahab the harlot shall live, she and all that are with her in the house, because she hid the messengers that we sent.
21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword."
Of course, let us not forget what happened to the family of Achan for Achan's disobedience:
"24 And Joshua, and all Israel with him, took Achan the son of Zerah, and the silver, and the garment, and the wedge of gold, and his sons, and his daughters, and his oxen, and his asses, and his sheep, and his tent, and all that he had: and they brought them unto the valley of Achor.
25 And Joshua said, Why hast thou troubled us? the LORD shall trouble thee this day. And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned them with stones.
26 And they raised over him a great heap of stones unto this day. So the LORD turned from the fierceness of his anger. Wherefore the name of that place was called, The valley of Achor, unto this day."
Then there were the inhabitants of Ai who were all slain, and the inhabitants of Makkedah, and Libnah, Lachish, Gezer, Eglon, etc, etc,... each of these were given to Israel by the Lord and all their inhabitants slain.
What did Elijah do with the priests of Baal? The_Macallan has suggested that only God can kill, yet Elijah had all the priests of Baal executed.
Are those enough examples? Do you need more? Would you reject Moses, Joshua, Elijah, and Abraham because they were willing to obey the Lord even when you yourself would reject God's commands?
You hoped that Samuel would be the only exception, that you could somehow discount him as a prophet because you personally don't agree with the command the Lord gave through Samuel.
You were ignorant that similar commands had been given many times by the Lord to great prophets. Were not Abraham, Elijah, Moses and Joshua great prophets? Of course they were. We would consider ourselves lucky to be anywhere near as righteous as they.
Your mistake is your pride. Instead of submitting your will to the Lord, you have sought to reshape Him to fit your personal opinions and standards.
If you cannot tell what is a true revelation from the Lord, it is time to ask yourself what changes you need to make in order to be more in tune with the Holy Spirit.
Then, by logical conclusion, you must reject Moses and Joshua as prophets of God, as well as Abraham. You might as well simply throw out about half of the OT.
You can't have it both ways. We can either accept that we don't understand all of God's reasons and ways, or we simply reject God because He commanded something we don't personally agree with.
As to your comment about worshipping "THAT God", yes, I absolutely worship Him. That Jehovah who spoke to Moses and Joshua is the same person who was born as Jesus of Nazareth.
If that makes me as bad as a terrorist in your eyes, I will be sad that you think of me that way but I can live with that. I cannot, however, condemn the Lord my God. I may not understand all of his ways or all of his reasons, but I will follow Him just the same.
Instead God showed mercy and blessed Abraham's descendants.
How does an infant commit blasphemy???
Yeah - that's what they DID - but where does it say God ordered them to do that?
What it says is that the Lord "delivered him [their enemies] before us"... it doesn't say the Lord commanded them to kill all their enemy's infants - that was their OWN idea to do that.
Is Joshua God?
Who ordered the slaughter? Where did Joshua say that "the Lord" ordered the slaughter????
The only thing the Lord told Joshua was to circle the city of Jerico and blow the horns and the walls of the city would fall. Period. It doesn't say ANYTHING about the Lord ordering Joshua to then go and kill all the men, women and babies in the city - that was JOSHUA'S order.
Show me in that story where it says the Lord ordered Joshua to massacre babies.
Well it doesn't.
That order came from Joshua's mouth and was NOT words spoken from the Lord to Joshua like the case of Samuel to Saul.
Those were all descriptions of what Israel DID, not quotes from what the Lord ORDERED Israel to do.
That's why Samuel saying "Thus saith the LORD of hosts... Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling... is different than what Joshua and others did.
Samuel said that God DIRECTLY and SPECFICALLY ORDERED the murder of infants.
No other prophet or example you gave says that.
Do you see the distinction?
So you're saying that Joshua really didn't act as a prophet and Samuel wasn't one either?
By the way, you're splitting hairs. Just a little while ago you were insisting that only God can kill.
"Not the same because in The Flood and with Soddom and Gomorrah and with Egypt - it was GOD doing the destruction.
God created all life and all life belongs to Him and Him alone. The Book of Job explains that well and also has bearing on the question I originally asked as well."
Now, since that argument was shot to pieces you've backed into the "infants, it's all about infants" corner.
So let me ask you. Were Joshua and Samuel acting as prophets of God or not?
As for Abraham, you're still splitting hairs. Abraham would have killed Isaac if he wasn't stopped by divine intervention, because God asked him to.
If Joshua was guilty of murder, wouldn't the Lord have removed him as prophet?
Edited to add:
Let me make this simple. Are you suggesting that Moses, Joshua, and Samuel were fallen prophets? Or perhaps not prophets at all?
Why wasn't Moses allowed into the Promised Land?
Answer: As great as Moses and David were - the Lord allowed them to do things that were wrong and then punished them for it.
God delivered many enemies to Israel but never once ordered Israel to wipe them out like the Amelakites. It's not splitting hairs - it's just a simple question: Why did God order the slaughter of babies?
Do you have an answer for that?
Ahh....now I see where you're getting. So you do think Joshua, Moses and Samuel were fallen prophets. Interesting. I don't see where the Lord ever criticized them for these things, but you can infer whatever your heart desires, I guess.
Why did the Lord want babies killed? I don't personally know for sure. Someday I hope to have enough wisdom and righteousness that the Lord may grant me such understanding.
When I read these posts I'm always reminded of Toy Story when all the little green aliens in the machine talk in amazement of The Claw.
I guess it's just another case of do as I say and not as I do with a caveat that it's ok if I tell you to do it.
Whether the "We" you speak of believes in Allah, matters not to the comparison. The Old Testament, the Torah and the Kuran are amazingly similar documents. Allah is not a different God it is just the arabic word for God and Yahweh is the Hebrew word for god.
Do you understand?
The Muslims are still pissed off about the first Crusade on Jerusalem when the Pope's armies slaughtered every living person in the city that couldn't escape or hide from the slaughter. This is a story that is still very poplular in Muslim Cultures and during the 200 Years War there was only one time in which the capture of Jerusalem did not result in a massacre of it's inhabitants in which the Muslim Leader Saladin showed un-prescidented restraint allowing the Christians and Jews to leave the city.
It's a shame that all three of these Cults that are base on roughly the same ancient writings can't embrace their similarities instead of their differences.
One can only assume that if there is a God, it intended for us to continuously slaughter each other. Otherwise he would have at least tried to get everyone on the same page.
Well maybe we need to ask the alleged prophets what arguments their god uses when it tells them to kill the innocent. Yeah, I know Joshua, Moses, and Samuel, if they ever existed, aren’t talking, but perhaps the Mormon prophets can give us some insight. I believe the current Prophet, Seer and Revelator of the Mormon Church told Larry King he gets ‘impressions’. That sounds a bit weak to me.
Ron Lafferty, on the other hand, seems to have had a stronger form of revelation when his god told him to cut the throats of Brenda Lafferty and her fifteen month-old daughter, Erica in 1984. Now some folks have said the former Kingdom of Deseret is still a theocracy, but a jury in that jurisdiction nevertheless saw fit to convict Ron Lafferty on two counts of first degree murder and sentence him to death. Of course that conviction may really be an indication that the state of Utah is still a theocracy.
At the time of his original trial, Lafferty’s attorney tried to get him to negotiate a plea bargain on the basis of insanity, however Lafferty refused insisting he was as sane as any of Deseret’s previous prophets who proclaimed and practiced the doctrine of blood atonement and that the source of his revelation was the same as theirs. In 1991, however, the Tenth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, reversed the conviction claiming that the Utah courts applied a faulty standard in determining Lafferty’s fitness to stand trial. The Tenth Circuit was troubled by Lafferty’s belief that because he answered to the laws of God, he need not answer to the laws of man. To them this was a pretty clear indication that he was not in his right mind. Peggy Stack of the Salt Lake Tribune wrote, “Saying that anyone who talks to God is crazy has enormous implications for the whole world of religion. It imposes a secular view of sanity and means that all religions are insane.” In a competency hearing in 1992 the Fourth District Court in Provo, Utah ruled that Lafferty was not competent to stand trial. This resulted in Lafferty’s transfer from death row to Utah State Hospital where Lafferty received sixteen months of psychotherapy as well as antidepressants and antipsychotic medications before another competency hearing in 1994 ruled Lafferty fit to stand trial again for the murders of Brenda and Erica Lafferty.
In 1996 Lafferty was retried. This time he allowed his attorneys to present expert testimony for an insanity defense though he himself continued to claim he was sane. The outcome was the same and Lafferty was again sentenced to death. In his book, Under The Banner of Heaven, Jon Krakauer includes the following passage from Feet of Clay[/] by Anthony Store, “Critical examination of the lives and beliefs of gurus demonstrates that our psychiatric labels and our conceptions of what is or is not mental illness are woefully inadequate. How, for example, does one distinguish an unorthodox or bizarre faith from delusion?...”
“Gurus are isolated people, dependent upon their disciples, with no possibility of being disciplined by a Church or criticized by contemporaries. They are above the law. The guru usurps the place of God. Whether gurus have suffered from manic-depressive illness, schizophrenia, or any other form of recognized, diagnosable mental illness is interesting but ultimately unimportant. What distinguishes gurus from more orthodox teachers is not their manic-depressive mood swings, not their thought disorders, not their delusional beliefs, not their hallucinatory visions, not their mystical states of ecstasy; it is their narcissism.”
Such are prophets in my opinion. Were the ancient prophets of the Bible to have been tried before a war crimes tribunal I suspect they would have been hanged. Some folks today choose to follow these prophets. I guess there no accounting for taste when it come to delusions.
This thread has some posters that remind me an awful lot of the individuals that post on Muslim extremist websites.
@EricTheHun et. al:
The point is that many of you use the fact that Muhammad ordered the destruction of Christians and Jews, as well as his opinions on slavery and marrying children as reasons why he is a false prophet. Why apply a double standard by not applying the same guidelines to other prophets of God? After all, the only reason we "know" that Samuel, Elijah, and company are prophets is do to what they said happened to them, and as self-evident by the results of what Samuel has said, you only have two options:
1) Samuel was a false prophet. This means that the Bible is not completely inerrant and that you should question the other prophets of the Bible.
2) Samuel was told by God to order the killing of infants. This means that... quite simply, God is a sociopath and does not deserve mine or anybody else's worship.
There is also a clear difference between God/Allah/Yahweh taking the first born of the Egyptians into paradise by his own hand(an event that I bet you was painless), and him ordering his followers to MURDER the children and infants of their enemies.
In the end, you guys make me sick.
You must also take into account that this is the same God who flooded the world to rid it of wicked men. In that flood were children and infants who drowned right alongside their wicked parents. Why? Well, what would the children have grown up to be if humanity hadn't been almost totally wiped out?
The Amalekites were perpetual enemies of Israel who hated them and persecuted them regularly. They were a constant threat and the continuance of their society ensured a danger for Israel in the future. One can only speculate on God's reasons for ordering such a thing, but the history of the Israelites and the Amalekites sheds some light on why the order might have come. The flood was an act of MERCY by God. The flood saved humanity from complete and utter destruction. The same sort of thing may have been at work with the slaughter of the Amalekites.
Saul didn't obey God, but not because he had a moral problem with killing children. Saul disobeyed because he kept the king alive and kept some of the livestock. He only acted to preserve what he could benefit from. The king was a trophy and the livestock a free way to enhance his stature with the people.
His disobedience wasn't about saving children.
It was about personal gain.
Some people have misguidedly limited themselves with two erroneous choices: Either reject Samuel, Joshua, Moses, etc. as prophets, or reject God for giving such a command.
The correct choice is to have faith in God's superior wisdom, accept the prophets as faithful servants of the Lord, and accept that we simply don't understand all the Lord's ways.
It's hard for me to believe that people can even discuss this with straight faces.
If God told your next door neighbor to kill people, we'd lock him up in a rubber room.
The Old Testament pattern of war is not one that is the rule for Christianity.
There IS a difference between Old Testament and New, as Christ came along and changed some things.
I know of a people who were commanded by the Lord to leave the civilization they knew and go out into the wilderness and settle an almost uninhabitable piece of land. Hundreds and hundreds died en route from exposure to the elements, starvation, etc., but they went anyway.
They took that desolate land and, with little more than faith to go on, made it blossom.
Someday you'll understand the power of faith in the Lord. If choices were always easy, where would be the faith?
Suppose that God told The_Macallan to kill YOUR family. How strong would your faith be? Would you attempt to interfere with the Lord's will?
You seem stuck on this idea. Please explain why God would tell The_Macallan to kill my family?
Would I attempt to interfere with the Lord's will? No. However, that doesn't stop me from interfering with The_Macallan's will. For one thing, The_Macallan isn't the Lord's prophet for the world.
You seem stuck on second guessing what the Lord is going to do next. Is something bothering you?
Those days are long over, Rodent.
No one can claim to kill 'in the Name of God' any longer and thought to be inspired by His People.
Other religions may claim such, but not Our Faith.
I don't know, maybe the same reasons He ordered all those others killed. It's not proper for us to question His wisdom. He works in mysterious ways, ways that passeth all understanding. I was just posing a hypothetical situation.
Yes, killing in the name of gods irritates me.
Very understandable. Thus the importance of getting an answer from the Holy Spirit.
Maybe I'm simple in my faith, but I just don't see God sending me to kill anyone, nor do I see God sending anyone to kill me. If necessary, however, I am fully capable of asking God to help me defend my family and those dear to me.
Saul saved the best livestock for a sacrificial offering for God, not for his own personal gain. He sacrificed them at the altar for the Lord.
And as far as the Flood - I already addressed that in that all life belongs to God and HE can give or take life as HE sees fit. But my question was why God ordered others to specifically kill infants. I'm reminded of that scene in Star Trek where Kirk asks "God" why he needs to take Kirk's starship... "What does God need with a starship?"
Why did God need US to kill each other???
MRW - thoughtful answer as always and I agree with the core of your reply: Faith begins where reason ends. Nevertheless I'm troubled by God ordering OTHERS to slaughter even the most innocent of children. If it were truly to protect Israel from a plague or genetic defects or whatever, why doesn't God himself eradicate them like he did to so many of Israel's other enemies?
The example of Samuel saying that the Lord specifically ordered Israel to massacre children is unique AFAIK in the OT.
Actually, the "sacrifice" thing was Saul's excuse for disobedience. Samuel calls him on it. J_W777 is still right.
As for God asking us to kill eachother, when was that last time God asked you to kill anyone? When was the last time God commanded that a civilization be destroyed? It's been at least several thousand years. Considering that, I don't understand why you seem so worried.
Japanese emperor, 1930's, China and Korea? The Jihad against the western world right now?