What is best in life... To crush your enemies. See the driven before you. And hear the lamentations of their women and children.

Ya see, even in the 20th Century there wasn't really a barbarian. All he did was kick their tails and run 'em off crying.

The Bronze Age had some barbarians. That's what happens when you can smelt tin and copper together, just go psycho on people.

But they had God. ...right? Why didn't he intervene, if he's loving of Israel? SC gave a solid answer from the Jewish perspective, but I didn't get one from the Christian one.

I am not teasing about Shakespeare!

Consider the difference between the authors of the Bible and the authors of Shakespeare. The Bibilical authors were, for the most part, simple people - desert wanderers, fishermen, tax collectors, a priest or prophet or shepherd-come-king thrown in here or there. They wrestled honestly with the big issues of life and humanity and existence and called the shots the way they saw them in simple, honest - sometimes brutally honest - terms.

The authors of Shakespeare? Well, no simple grammar-school graduate could have come up with all that stuff. The authors of Shakespeare were obviously men of letters, necessarily nobility, a cabal of anonymous elites with an agenda to spread through popular culture. Their goal is obvious enough - placate the masses with amusement while cultivating a doctrine of Anglo-Saxon racial superiority and British imperial policy. You think it was some coincidence that Henry V was written during Elizabethan times? Coincidence that Othello was a moor? That Shylock was a Jew?

No, my friends, the conclusion is clear. Shakespeare and Shakespeare lovers were responsible for the trans-Atlantic slave trade. And to this day Shakespeare apologists have never apologized for their complicity in the slave trade or the British imperial policy that led to the colonization of Africa, India, Australia, etc. When will the madness end???????

Wheeeee!!!! This game is getting more and more fun the more I play it!!!!!

I already gave an answer from the Christian perspective. The Old Testament God is slow to anger. It took 230 years of the Amalekites killing Hebrew women and children before he gave them the go ahead to make this attack. The Hebrews were not attacking women and children up until this point, as it was their main complaint about the Amalekites. As SC said, when God gets pissed of He gets royally pissed off. That covers the second part of the saying "God is slow to anger, but swift in judgement". The Amalekites wer judged at this point and the Hebrews were his intervention. The Christian perspective goes beyong this to "Okay, what can we learn from this" Sure it's a story that explains the downfall of Saul, but how many people need an explanation of Saul's downfall?

When I read it I see the Hebrew's main complaint about the Amalekites cowardly attacks on their women and children and see that it was an ongoing clash that lasted for 230 years. There is the element of the bully that repeated beats the tar our of a kid and does so with no remorse. God is a father saying "Keep to your principles" but finally has to say "Okay, that's enough, go get 'em". The very fact that this had been going on for 230 years speaks to the patience of the Hebrews and to God's patience with the Amalekites. They, after all, had freedom of choice too. If they had 230 years to change their ways and didn't; do you really mean to tell me that then next generation of Amalekites would be groovy guys that had a "live and let live" attitude?

How about could you really wipe out all of the men in a Bronze Age civilization without consigning the women and children to starvation?

I gave from my perspective not a Jewish perspective

Another important (to me) part of the Christian perspective is that with the hebrews God is working through/with a notoriously "rebellious and stiffnecked" people who had been saturated with Egyptian culture for 400+ years and were constantly drawn towards Canaanite paganism. God is giving as much law as the hebrews are willing and able to accept, and considering the cultural and historical context it's pretty progressive and pointing in the direction of the "more enlightened" teachings of Jesus. We go from unlimited retalliation with Lamech, "I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for injuring me. If Cain is avenged seven times, then Lamech seventy-seven times" (Genesis 4:23) to the Law reading "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot...." (Exodus 21:24) to Jesus saying "You have heard that it was said, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, But I tell you....Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." (Matthew 5:38, 44)

The question "why didn't God just tell them that in the first place" is legitimate, to be sure, and if you're ever passing through Iowa you could all drop by and we could sit on the front porch and drink a bottle of FlemGem's Irish Porter and hash it out. But personally I'd rather spend my time reflecting on whether or not I'm growing in the direction of Jesus' teachings. How good am I at loving my enemies? Do I spend my life living as a free man, or do I live in victimhood like a slave? Do I live as a man, or as a machine? It'll be a long evening on the porch.....

Oh, sorry SC. Please excuse the error; your answer sounded reasonable enough that I assumed it was *the* answer. ;)

@CA: That didn't answer my question at all. For those 230 years the all-powerful, all-loving God allowed the Amalekites to carry out genocide against his chosen people. Why?

@FlemGem: Spending time reflecting on whether you're growing in the direction of Jesus' teachings is fair enough, but clearly it's only valuable if you value Jesus' teachings as a place toward which one can grow. As an atheist, this strikes me as a bit puzzling, akin to growing toward Aristotle's or Nietzsche's philosophy - while certainly I would incorporate some of Jesus' teachings into my own moral outlook, I wouldn't completely devote myself to the following of any one person's teachings. In fact to do so I'd think you would have to conclude that he has all the answers, which would essentially require belief that he's God. Obviously, as a Christian, you have this; but that's what I'm curious about. You essentially have your answer to my question - you'd have to have this answer to be Christian - but simultaneously you're preferring to reflect on his teachings than provide me the answer?

Iowa, and a real front porch?? I knew I liked you. -)

Flem writes, <<No, my friends, the conclusion is clear. Shakespeare and Shakespeare lovers were responsible for the trans-Atlantic slave trade. And to this day Shakespeare apologists have never apologized for their complicity in the slave trade or the British imperial policy that led to the colonization of Africa, India, Australia, etc. When will the madness end???????>>

Plus One and thanks for the chuckle. :-)

@CA: That didn't answer my question at all. For those 230 years the all-powerful, all-loving God allowed the Amalekites to carry out genocide against his chosen people. Why?


Perhaps it answered something because you're not asking the same question? The Hebrews were fighting against the Amalekites the whole time. The two nations were at war. The Amalekites fought dirty and could see that the Hebrews weren't doing the same. God didn't tell the Hebrews to passively accept the crimes of the Amalekites. THey fouhgt one another and the Hebrews were defending themselves. After 230 years of trying everything short of total war, the Hebrews were finally unleashed. But they were unleashed with the important difference in this case that God forbade them from gaining profit from it. They were not going to be totally like the Amalekites and turn this into an institution in which they could plunder hapless fugitives. To me, and it's just what I get out of the story, it was a statement about what you could expect if you try these types of tactics.

@ PE

sorry forgot to properly address that one.

So again, this all-powerful God that supposedly loves his chosen people the Hebrews... allows them to suffer 230 years of genocide at the hands of the Amalekites... so he can then allow the Hebrews to commit genocide in response... to teach that genocide is wrong?

This logic is just backwards. For one, committing an action as a punishment to show that committing that action is wrong doesn't make sense. For another, the collective punishment involved is just so twisted and wrong I don't even understand how anyone can sanction it. Literally what you're saying is "This tribe has perpetrated some horrible things, so we have to eradicate *every last one of them* because the ones who *haven't* actually done anything wrong *might* do something wrong later."

I can appreciate that Bronze Age morality is disgusting and that it's consistent for a God characteristic of the Bronze Age: barbaric, vengeful and thoroughly unconcerned with moral behavior. But then y'all try to act like the morals of the same guy are relevant to the present day just because he had a change of heart and *stopped* being borderline sociopathic - in some ways, even, not all of them - thousands of years down the line.

The Guinea/Slave Coast was colonized by Europeans long before the 'Scramble for Africa'. And yes this was all done by devout Christians. The only interest Europeans took in Africa before the scramble was to exploit it for slaves.

"It took 230 years of the Amalekites killing Hebrew women and children before he gave them the go ahead to make this attack."

This oft repeated line hasn't been substantiated in the slightest the 12 times it has been mentioned now.

"The Germans and Central-East Europeans are slow to anger, they put up with 1200 years of Jewish exploitation before they attacked".

Except that isn't what I'm saying at all. There is of course the attempt at reducing my statement to the absurd, however, your statement doesn't follow from what I said.

You're forgetting the reality of the time. The men were the economic engine of their community. In a Bronze Age agricultural society the women and children would have perished anyway (and in a slower and much more agonizing way) if every Amalekite was killed. The choice was let them continue marauding and killing non-combatants fighting as they had for the 230 years, or put an end to it. Genocide is your term not mine and you have yet to offer any evidence that this is what happened. There were Amalekites in the Bible well after this incident. Massacre, yeah, genocide not quite. Take a look at what the supposedly much more civilized Iron Age Romans did to the Carthaginians, and it only took them 113 years to get around to that. That was much more aptly considered genocide, although it falls short too. If it can be done in one battle by armies that are pretty much evenly matched, it probably can't be considered genocide. Like I said that's obi's perjoritive term for this event. It just doesn't apply in any real sense. It was not a systematic attempt to wipe out an entire people.

Basically you're offering is a damned of you do and damned if you don't tautology. God was a bully for letting the Hebrews kill those poor Amalekites. THEN God was a sociopath for letting the Amalekites kill those poor Hebrews. Why didn't He wave a magic wand and make all of these people directly dependent upon His intervention to know when they were doing right and wrong? Why didn't He make them perfect to begin with? etc. etc. The logic in what I'm saying isn't backward at all. God apparently desires people to follow the rules of their own accord. Tautologies don't prove anything they merely show an interminable string of objections and anyone can do that. Just ask your average heckler.

So, God was being patient with the Amalekites (He didn't endorse the attack on this particular tribe, NOT all semitic people by the way just this tribe, until they had had ample time to change their ways). He did not tie the Hebrews hands they were fighting these Amalekites the whole time, but they were holding on to their own principles that you don't attack women and children (a good principle since we all seem to agree with it now). For whatever reason things come to a head when King Saul appears (The Hebrews actually having a king now might have had something to do with it) and a show down with the Amalekites is imminent. At this point God says "You've tried to be reasonable with these people and they just refuse to play by the rules I've established for you. Give them a taste of their own medicine" With the full knowledge that killing all of the men would be to kill all of the women and children anyway exposing them to starvation, bandits, etc. An emerging kingdom sets aside their normal way of doing things and goes after these people. Now with that being said, within the context of the time, the Hebrews (with their God leading them along) have a much greater claim to modren morality than the Amalekites. The Hebrews had no more to hang their heads about than any other nation with their backs against the wall fighting for their existence against a foe utterly committed to exerminating them. Fail to realize the reality of Bronze Age existence all you want, but there simply was no way to punish the adult male Amalekite population without directly affecting the women and children directly dependent upon them. With all of that said, God still forbids that Hebrews from profiting and taking the spoils of this victory.

Why does God, who supposedly unleashed Holy revenge upon these people, forbid te Hebrews from taking the stuff of the Amalekites. Isn't that pretty much genocide 101? Kill 'em and take their stuff? Perhaps He was signaling "Hey guys, don't crow about this". This isn't going to be the new world order. God, who is perfectly aware of morality, is requiring it of His people even in that barbaric time. He's leading them away from this type of massacre. It may have been necessary, but not something to be proud of. Not something to reap rewards for. That is why keeping the Amalekite king and the mules alive was a big deal. Saul wanted the Amalekite king alive as a trophy of his victory over the Amalekites. The donkey's were wealth in the nomadic agrarian society in which they lived. It would have been absolutely natural for the Hebrews to keep these things as spoils of war, but God denies them here.

Yes, God was leading the Hebrews away from Bronze Age barbarism and toward the appearance of Christ. Not by waving a wand, but by allowing them the experiences upon which they could base their morality. Not just laws in His books, but the history of their own actions. The only way to read the Amalekites and see an endorsement of slaughter is to ignore the context of the times in favor of a 12st Century fantasy.

@PresidentEden - sorry, didn't entirely intend to dodge your question. I forgot it was you that asked the question and was thinking more of Obi. And I was dodging not because I don't think the answers are out there, but because I'm beginning to feel like I'm banging my head against a wall explaining what I believe to someone who really isn't interested in understanding. I was beginning to resort to satire, which was fun but always makes me feel a bit uncomfortable because it borders on mockery.

Anyway, yes, to "grow towards" Jesus' teachings you have to value them in the first place. And yes, to fully value Jesus' teachings you probably also have to accept his messianic/divine claims. And if you didn't accept his claims I can see how it would be very puzzling indeed.

But to get around to the question "Why didn't God tell them all that in the first place".
Simple answer is this: I think God did. Genesis chapters two and three lay out the main conflict in the story. God creates man and woman living in harmony with one another and with God, with one teensy little request: please don't eat this fruit, it will kill you. Man and woman say "screw you God, we'll do what we want." The rest of the book is about God trying to bring humanity back into harmony. It's a long, rough road for everybody. Do we get the answer to all the "why" questions? Nope. We do get invited into the story, though. We can't interview Adam and Eve and ask "Why did you throw away paradise?" but we do get invited to ask ourselves, "Why did YOU throw away paradise?"

Like I said, that's a short and simple answer, but it's a start.

**Oops important typo** 21st Century fantasy, lol.

If you are interested, the Amalekites show up the first time in Exodus. They're the guys the Hebrews are fighting when Moses has to stand with his arms extended outward. The massacre that we're discussing happens in the regin of King Saul 230 years later. The Amalekites show up in Scripture 30 times specifically and seem to have been a veritable thorn in the Hebrews' sides within that specific time frame. After this They are still seen all the way up into the Book of Esther.

There is also the important verse where the Kenites are spared (1st Samuel 15:6). Saul calls out and says "Hey You Kenites, You were nice to us when we left Egypt 200-300 years ago. So you guys go on, now." Really? The Kenites were living closely enough to the Amalekites that Saul was worried about wiping them out as well. Are you really suggesting that Amalekite non-combatants couldn't have left alongside them if they'd wanted?

AND even after this supposed genocide: There were Amalekites around to attack in David's time and then again in Hezekiah's time. How would they be able to do that if they hadn't escapes when given the opportunity to escape?

Not all Jews were killed by 1945, and not all Armenians were killed by 1919. I guess those aren't genocides either.

The lengths you will go to defend this crime, even defending the command to slaughter all women & children (midrashed as to being out of mercy because they'd supposedly starve), just demonstrates the rot religion creates in people's brains. Making seemingly normal, moral people make sociopathic statements.

The idea of a timeless god being 'slow' to do anything is kind of ludicrous isn't it? How many times have he heard that god has no concept of time, now supposedly this made-up 230 year period of alleged Amalekite raids is evidence of god's patience & mercy. More bs.

I also enjoy this notion that god ever commanded the Jews to be reasonable with other nations, or abide by certain restraints regarding warfare. Where is the evidence for this nonsense? I swear theists just make stuff up as they go along to rationalize the evil in their scriptures.

"You're forgetting the reality of the time. The men were the economic engine of their community. In a Bronze Age agricultural society the women and children would have perished anyway (and in a slower and much more agonizing way) if every Amalekite was killed."

That's horrible, horrible, *horrible* moral reasoning. "You're going to die anyway so we might as well kill you now so you can at least cut your losses and die quickly?" Why don't we put a bullet in everyone's heads right now, given the inevitability of physical death, so as to spare everyone the possibly worse death of starving or disease? Freaking listen to yourself - this is *disgusting.*

"The choice was let them continue marauding and killing non-combatants fighting as they had for the 230 years, or put an end to it."

Nah, sorry, when you've got an almighty God that can literally do anything, there's no such thing as a dichotomy. There's always some other option. I posited one already - why didn't God convince them not to commit genocide? An all-knowing being definitionally knows what would convince a person not to do X action, and an all-powerful being necessarily can act and convince that person not to do X action. This does not compromise free will. I don't see any problem with this solution, in fact. It certainly strikes me as being better than the senseless wholesale slaughter of innocent people just because "that's how it was back then."

"Genocide is your term not mine and you have yet to offer any evidence that this is what happened. There were Amalekites in the Bible well after this incident. Massacre, yeah, genocide not quite. Take a look at what the supposedly much more civilized Iron Age Romans did to the Carthaginians, and it only took them 113 years to get around to that. That was much more aptly considered genocide, although it falls short too. If it can be done in one battle by armies that are pretty much evenly matched, it probably can't be considered genocide. Like I said that's obi's perjoritive term for this event. It just doesn't apply in any real sense. It was not a systematic attempt to wipe out an entire people."

Yes, it was. You said yourself the explicit aim of the endeavor was to destroy the Amalekites so as to prevent them from harming Israel again. That is a systematic attempt to wipe out an entire people. And the fact that it didn't completely succeed doesn't make it not a genocide! That would make the Holocaust not a genocide, for goodness' sake. It may be obi's term and not yours, but he's right - this is genocide.

"Basically you're offering is a damned of you do and damned if you don't tautology. God was a bully for letting the Hebrews kill those poor Amalekites. THEN God was a sociopath for letting the Amalekites kill those poor Hebrews. Why didn't He wave a magic wand and make all of these people directly dependent upon His intervention to know when they were doing right and wrong?"

Frankly, that solution, as absurd as it's made to sound, would be preferable to status quo, where people like me, who earnestly and honestly follow what we believe to be right, and, though imperfect, don't do any serious harm to anyone, end up burning in the fires of hell for eternity because a God we honestly couldn't convince ourselves to believe exists, who doesn't conclusively make it clear that he exists, actually did and does exist. Hell yeah I'd rather have him whispering in my ear or showing up in a flash in the sky every time I'm going to do something wrong. Don't you think that would be FAR superior to two tribes committing acts of massacre and genocide against one another?

"Why didn't He make them perfect to begin with? etc. etc."

Why not? I don't think you'd deny that there is at least room to doubt that God exists, that it's not some ironclad demonstrable thing like gravity. When one's eternal life is quite literally on the line, why would a loving God leave ANY room for doubt?

"The logic in what I'm saying isn't backward at all. God apparently desires people to follow the rules of their own accord."

...but he doesn't punish on an individual basis. The women and children that were slaughtered didn't carry out any acts of genocide or massacre on the Israelite population. This is group punishment to its absolute extreme. When one person doesn't follow the rules of his own accord, someone *else* who *wasn't* hurting people gets killed too? That should be absolutely intolerable for a perfect being.

"With the full knowledge that killing all of the men would be to kill all of the women and children anyway exposing them to starvation, bandits, etc."

Holy shit you don't get to decide that. This is so twisted and disgusting. Why do you or the Israelites get to decide unilaterally that these innocent people would probably die from X or Y cause and that killing them would be less painful, thus it's okay to kill them? Maybe some of them wouldn't die. Maybe they'd make it to a neighboring tribe and be welcomed in. Might not be especially likely, but why do you get to decide this? And yes, this even applies to God. Aggression, even if it would result in a less painful termination of one's life than an alternative, is wrong. This is HORRIBLE. How do you guys seriously defend this?

"Why does God, who supposedly unleashed Holy revenge upon these people, forbid te Hebrews from taking the stuff of the Amalekites. Isn't that pretty much genocide 101? Kill 'em and take their stuff?"

You defined it yourself earlier, and your definition of genocide didn't include plunder. Plunder might accompany genocide (and usually does, as there's no one else to whom the possessions would be left), but the principal aspect of genocide is the killing, not the resultant plunder. Think of the Holocaust - sure, the Nazis took the Jews' possessions, but they weren't exterminating the Jews to take the Jews' stuff, they were exterminating the Jews to exterminate the Jews. So no, their genocide doesn't suddenly become less bad because they didn't take property.

"God, who is perfectly aware of morality, is requiring it of His people even in that barbaric time."

So he's requiring morality of his people... by allowing them to commit genocide, but preventing them from also plundering. All that demonstrates for the "new world order" is that genocide coupled with plunder is unacceptable. But when your "new world order" is brought about with genocide, you can't genuinely claim that the new world order doesn't condone genocide in some way or another.

"Yes, God was leading the Hebrews away from Bronze Age barbarism and toward the appearance of Christ. Not by waving a wand, but by allowing them the experiences upon which they could base their morality."

Yeah, and fuck all the people that got butchered for them to be "allowed those experiences," huh? Are they not people too?

"The only way to read the Amalekites and see an endorsement of slaughter is to ignore the context of the times in favor of a 21st [sic] Century fantasy."

But here's the big problem. Like I said in response to SC's point, I do understand the context of the times. The Bronze Age was barbaric in its conduct of warfare - a slightly repetitive statement since war is barbaric anyway, but relative to modern standards it is on another level of barbarism. I get that. I can accept that the Old Testament God is as vengeful and barbaric as the people of the OT.

What I don't understand is how I can't apply a 21st century moral outlook to that God, though. After all, Christianity asserts that God has always been good. Good by what standard? It has to be the most rigorous standard at any point in time. Now, evaluating which standard at any point in time is the 'most rigorous' is hard to do, I admit - but what logically follows is that in evaluating God one should prefer a more rigorous standard to a less rigorous standard. In our case, a 21st century standard over a Bronze Age standard. The God that commands a genocidal campaign against Amalek undeniably fails the 21st century standard. Thus, that God cannot be considered "good." That's what I've come to conclude - but, as I'll explain in response to FlemGem below, I would like to see if there's an explanation for this that doesn't lead to what I have to consider a contradiction.

"And I was dodging not because I don't think the answers are out there, but because I'm beginning to feel like I'm banging my head against a wall explaining what I believe to someone who really isn't interested in understanding."

On the contrary! I see good people here defending what is undeniably massacre of innocents and I think pretty clearly genocide. I'm extremely interested in understanding how this is reconciled! I may argue with the explanation if I think I see a contradiction, sure, but that doesn't mean I'm uninterested in the explanation, just unconvinced.

"Simple answer is this: I think God did. Genesis chapters two and three lay out the main conflict in the story. God creates man and woman living in harmony with one another and with God, with one teensy little request: please don't eat this fruit, it will kill you. Man and woman say "screw you God, we'll do what we want." The rest of the book is about God trying to bring humanity back into harmony. It's a long, rough road for everybody. Do we get the answer to all the "why" questions? Nope. We do get invited into the story, though. We can't interview Adam and Eve and ask "Why did you throw away paradise?" but we do get invited to ask ourselves, "Why did YOU throw away paradise?""

But... that's the thing. I'm trying as hard as I can to do what is right based on what I'm able to perceive. The short answer is that I *did not choose* to throw away paradise. Any divergence from God's idea of what is right is due to my limitations in being able to understand his existence and his idea of morality.

Nor, do I think, did the Amalekites who didn't participate in slaughtering the Israelites choose to throw away paradise either. To argue that you would have to say that in the face of incontrovertible proof of God's existence these Amalekites chose to deny him. The Bible doesn't say that this is so. I don't even know how many women and children there were, let alone who they were, let ALONE their reasons for not believing in the OT God or not following his commands or what have you. Nor, I would imagine, do you. And if you don't know this, you can't pass the judgment that they chose to reject Him.

"Are you really suggesting that Amalekite non-combatants couldn't have left alongside them if they'd wanted?"

So what you're now saying, unless I misunderstand, is that the Israelites gave the Amalekite noncombatants the choice to die or to leave. Never mind that this is in direct contradiction to the earlier notion that the Israelites chose to kill the Amalekites outright so they wouldn't die of worse causes later, in some perverse notion of mercy - are you really saying the noncombatants elected to die? Because that's the logical conclusion of the implied statement behind your question that the Amalekite noncombatantss had the choice to leave. And I'd like a little more evidence of this... as I find it quite the difficult explanation to believe.

Putin - this may surprise you, but theists don't really understand atheists either. For example, I really "enjoy the notion" that an impersonal universe managed to belch forth personal beings who believe there is meaning and purpose in life when there is, in fact, only absurdity. And even though nihilism, determinism, and survival of the fittest rule the day, the philosophers who most staunchly advocate these positions simultaneously tell us that they are the most rational people in the room and that they may lecture the rest of us on morality and the meaning of human existence. Doubtless I have much to learn, but perhaps you could begin by explaining why genocide is "wrong". If nature is all there is, and it is in the nature of humanity to destroy one another, how can this be "wrong"? How can there be anything other than what is?

I await enlightenment.

"I'm really confused about this genocide/counter-genocide argument. God is all-powerful and all-loving, and Israel is his people. Why didn't he just save his people from genocide without resorting to counter-genocide? He's supposed to be, well, God. Why not just use his divine power to convince the Amalekites - not *force* them to accept, as that would be a violation of free will, but convince the Amalekites to quit being genocidal freaks? Actually, why didn't he just do that for everyone?"

Though I can't answer in the name of Judaism I can answer according to what I know and understand as an orthodox Jew. Also, I must apologize for potential grammar mistakes. English is not my first and not even second language..

When we search for a logical explanation as for the relation of God and human suffering we should first try and understand who are we and where do we and our perception of reality stand in relation to His omnipotence. Rambam (Maimonides) wrote in Sefer Hamada-book of knowledge, the basic elements of faith. I'm taking the freedom of translating their meaning (not word by word) from Hebrew:
1. The base of all bases is to know that there is an original element to the world's existance. He created everything and everyone and there is nothing which exists besides Him.
2. And if He will not exist - nothing else will exist either.
3. Any knowledge, power or life come directly from Him constantly.
Rambam explains that God is the source of all existance not only because he created the world but because he re-creates him all the time. The first phrase every Jew says when he wakes up is "Mode ani Lefaneiha..." Which means "I thank you, living and existing King, for returning my soul to me with grace and trust" Furthermore, God is endless and we all are small fractions of him as he is all the reality we can comprehand and far beyond.
According to Jewish traditions the Torah (Old Testament) and the Non-Written Torah was not written by men but was given by God as a whole on mount Sinai in front of around 3 million witnesses. The Torahs dictate both the canonical history of the Israelites and the Jewish set of rules. It's important to understand that as God is omnipotent he doesn't need anyone to follow him, making sacrifices, keep Shabbat, eat Kosher and practice religious life. And yet we have this set of laws that we can practice for our own sake. In the Book of Zohar it was written that the Torah was in fact written by Him even before the world was created and it was created only so that the Torah could be practiced.
So, why do we practice Judaism? In the Zohar we are being told that the only reason that our souls reach this world of matter is to practice a correct way of life - the one that was presented to us by the Creator itself. And that choice of following this or another way of life is the basic element of us as humans. In Genesis it is written: "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness". What is "our image"? If God is everything and endless how can he have a form or a strucutre? The answer to that is that we are the only creations who can make choices between good and evil, right or wrong. This ability is common to both us and Him.
What happenes if we live our life in a bad or an incorrect way? We return to this world once again and get another chance (reincarnation).
By understanding this one can realize that death is nothing but another step in one's existance. I know that when my time will come it would simply mean that I finished to do what I needed to do around here and my soul will simply move on, be it to Heaven or to another body.
When we understand it we can suddenly see that the Holocaust was simply another step in getting closer to the end of days and the coming of the Messiah. It was a turning point in the history for Jews all over the world and one of its results is a foundation of the State of Israel, a thing which would seem unbeleivable some 80 years ago.

This passage I wrote is rather short though it's probably way too large for a forum discussion. Please excuse me for shortening it and dropping out dozens of explanations and sub-topics. The theme is very complex and hundreds of books were written on this issue.

Genocide is wrong because our collective morality as human beings has determined that it is wrong based on our past experiences. This is a recent development, only happening in the past century. Prior to that genocide wasn't considered wrong, and didn't even exist as a concept. But in the 20th century, morality became globalized. There are now international standards of behavior. These are not only norms but have binding legal force, through mechanisms like the genocide convention. Just because morality is a social construct, this does not mean it is weak or non-existent. It's a stronger form of morality based on reason rather than a morality based on the tautology that morality rests upon the personal whims and dictatorial authority of a god, who may or may not overthrow his entire complicated system of morality just because.

I don't know why theists find it so hard to believe that complex processes derive from simple ones, and that complex beings derive from simple ones. Everything around us points to this fairly basic idea, that we move from the simple to the complex, as opposed to having the most complex and powerful of beings co-exist with an substance-less void before finally deciding he wants to magick inorganic and organic substances into existence, or who knows what because theists never actually detail the material or process by which their god magicks beings to life.

Theists want us to believe, after centuries of getting everything about the physical universe wrong, even the most basic things, that they are still right about the most complicated of subjects that are still beyond the reach of human knowledge. And that they've always been right, so why bother trying any more. We are as intelligent and advanced as we need to be because we have these bronze age books interpolated and copied over tens of centuries ago by a bunch of anonymous people.

And can people get one thing straight about the so-called 'survival of the fittest'. This does not refer to intra-species struggle, but inter-species struggle. So using this trope to attack Darwinism is based on a complete misreading of Darwinism, as usual.

only ok when the communists do it. Oh yeah then you just deny deny deny.

Fascist

Deny because the only information alleging these crimes is from Nazis. Oh but you liberals supposedly hate Nazis while libeling their enemies. Right.