What is it with you and the OLD TESTAMENT?
You seem especially hung up on Samuel as well, is he the ONLY one that meets the criteria you're looking for, namely, the "proof" that the "God" of the Bible is just as bloodthirsty as the ALLAH of the Koran?
I have answered this over and over in other forms, so you look to do it a new way, in a "GOTCHA" sort of questioning.
Samuel was speaking for God, only Samuel knows if he got the message right; If the God Samuel was speaking for really wanted ALL the Amalekites dead he could have save Saul the trouble without breaking a sweat.
The command was to test Saul's faith and Saul failed because he doubted God. Similar to God's test of Abraham, only on a bigger scale, and no angel stopped the killing.
God - Jesus - the Holy Spirit are all one, any question dealing with them as separate people is unanswerable;
The OT people acted as people of the era did, they owned slaves, kept Kosher, and they slaughtered their enemies, because they would be treated the same in turn. Even today clan revenge and Honor killings for law breaking are still issues in and around the Middle East, although generally in Islamic countries, there are similar problems in countries near Islamic countries, especially in the Balkans.
Are you a descendant of an Amalekite or something?
(from the Bible Dictionary:
Amalekite - a tribe that dwelt in Arabia Petraea, between the Dead Sea and the Red Sea.
They were not the descendants of Amalek, the son of Eliphaz, for they existed in the days of Abraham (Gen. 14:7). They were probably a tribe that migrated from the shores of the Persian Gulf and settled in Arabia. "They dwelt in the land of the south...from Havilah until thou comest to Shur" (Num. 13:29; 1 Sam. 15:7). They were a pastoral, and hence a nomadic race.
Their kings bore the hereditary name of Agag (Num. 24:7; 1 Sam. 15:8). They attempted to stop the Israelites when they marched through their territory (Deut. 25:18), attacking them at Rephidim (Ex. 17:8-13; comp. Deut. 25:17; 1 Sam. 15:2). They afterwards attacked the Israelites at Hormah (Num. 14:45).
We read of them subsequently as in league with the Moabites (Judg. 3:13) and the Midianites (Judg. 6:3). Saul finally desolated their territory and destroyed their power (1 Sam. 14:48; 15:3), and David recovered booty from them (1 Sam. 30:18-20).
In the Babylonian inscriptions they are called Sute, in those of Egypt Sittiu, and the Amarna tablets include them under the general name of Khabbati, or "plunderers.")
You seem absolutly obsessed with their fate.
You've been visiting the Secular Web (http://www.infidels.org/index.shtml) haven't you? That's where you got this moral equivalency thing, right?.
The bottom line is:
THESE EVENTS TOOK PLACE THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO;
Christians do not follow the laws of the Old Testament verbatim;
The OT is seen as a history, as a friend just told me:
The Old Testament is Christ CONCEALED,
The New Testament is Christ REVEALED.
Awaiting the next round of repetetive, circular arguments.
There is no circular argument here, as I am simply trying to get some kind of definition of what you believe.
So far, it looks like you assert:
1) God is the source of OT truth/prophetical teachings and,
2) God does not evolve or change.
So we have this situation where the God you say you worship has commanded 'bad' things that happened 2k years ago, yes, but since He is immutable, that passage of time is irrelevant because He is still the same.
Now obviously you have developed this rubrik of rationalizing how God has commanded something you apparently find abhorent, but given your positions in points 1 & 2 above, I dont see how your claim of 'its a new testament' has any relevance.
God commanded the genocide of the Amalekites, and God does not change. So apparently if the situation were here today, God would still command Samuel to slaughter the Amalekites, Saul would be stripped of his right to rule, and you would have Samuel arrested by the UN, I guess.
From my point of view it is simple: What God commands is by definition correct. Period. Whether He commands it today or 2k years ago. Whether He says to heal a million souls or slaughter them.
I feel great certitude He will not give such a command today, because I think the situation with Amalekites was a peculiar one that resulted in a rare edict by God. But I am not going to categorically assert that anyone willing to kill in the name of what they believe God commands is ipso facto evil. They could be simply confused or in error.
But God is God, and were I with Samuel, I hope I would have had the faith to help sharpen his sword for Agag.
But how do you resoplve points 1 & 2 above with your claim that, 'THESE EVENTS TOOK PLACE THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO'?
Whether we follow the law of the OT or not today is not relevant as far as I can see it. What God commanded Samuel to instruct Saul to do was a particular command for a specific time, and my questions are directed toward the nature of God, that He is an angry and jealous God and still is.
If it is true as yousay that time has changed these things and they are now evil, then God was once evil and the 2k years in between changes nada.
But dont get mad with me here.
I am not trying to entangle you in your own words, which seems simple enough, but to try and understand what it is you actually think about this apparent inconcistency/irrationality regarding Gods unchanging nature, His past commands, and the Care-bear version that seems to be so much more popular among modern clergy today.