Did God Command Genocide in the Bible?

Originally posted by divegeester
welcome back to the site fora

Thank you, old friend. BTW, I have enjoyed reading (and generally agree with) your recent posts on universal salvation, etc.

And I hope that all is well with you and yours

ASIDE: to Suzianne.

I write this after my very recent (and tentative) return to the Anglican/Episcopal fold. Our theologies—and Biblical hermeneutics—are, I am reasonably sure, vastly far apart. But I also know that you translate a much more “conservative/conventional” theology into a “social gospel” at least a “liberal” as my own. (Not unlike a former “Spiritual Director” of mine, by the way—he never questioned my theological integrity, though our theologies were poles apart.) Anyway, our mutual “residence” in the via media—the church whose three “pillars of faith” are (1) scripture, (2) tradition, and (3) reason (I was never given an “order” on those) allow me to reside therein.

Anyway, even as we might disagree, hello and I hope you are well.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b] But the paper puts forth actual argument to the basic effect that a literal interpretation of the text does indeed suggest that God sanctioned genocide and that attempts to morally justify this are not viable; ergo, the paper argues, the best holistic conclusion is that the text is not intended strictly literally and/or is not inerrant.

I remembe ...[text shortened]... my view) is a hermeneutical travesty when applied to the biblical texts generally.[/b]

Right, Conrau K has posted eloquently on this. I was trying to find some of those old threads, but so far I am having difficulty with the search.

Originally posted by vistesd
ASIDE: to Suzianne.

I write this after my very recent (and tentative) return to the Anglican/Episcopal fold. Our theologies—and Biblical hermeneutics—are, I am reasonably sure, vastly far apart. But I also know that you translate a much more “conservative/conventional” theology into a “social gospel” at least a “liberal” as my own. (Not unlike a former ...[text shortened]... llow me to reside therein.

Anyway, even as we might disagree, hello and I hope you are well.

While what you say about the church is mostly true, I'm sure you might agree with me that they *are* more liberal than some others. Since my theology is even more liberal than the church's, I find other churches simply insufferable to be a part of their more 'conservative'/'traditional' mindset.

Thank goodness reason can overcome the worst of tradition.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"God had a sufficient moral reason for issuing those commands,"

there is no justification for genocide

And yet apparently there IS justification for labeling the perceived crime in the worst possible light, even thought the jury is indeed out on whether it was a crime. Similar to a 'Jerry Springer moment', I guess this makes it even easier to point at your own life and say "See, at least I'm not that bad." The unarguable kicker here is that man cannot judge God.

What there is no justification for is shutting down your mind and labeling it according to your bias. But I guess if you have nothing to fall back on, bias seems comfortable. It also makes it seem like man is superior to God in some way. But why this is so important to people who claim not to even believe in Him, is beyond me.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Please, put down your knee-jerk reaction to someone who doesn't happen to believe as you do. You speaking for me is certainly disrespect that I cannot lay aside, as was my first intention.

You, too, don't seem to grasp the argument. I believe the 'State of Israel' (which didn't exist until 1947) is not the same as the Hebrews who Moses led to Canaan after being freed from enslavement in Egypt. God was with the Hebrews of that time. God spoke to their leaders. He may also be with the 'State of Israel', but we can't know that. The 'moral rights' of man must, of course, be held as being granted from God, the ultimate 'moral authority'. We have no reason to believe that God has granted the 'State of Israel' the same 'moral rights' as He granted to His people, the Hebrews.

The other side of the coin here is that the people the Hebrews fought and killed in the process of moving into the land which God gave them were worshipping false gods. They were an abomination unto God and therefore to His chosen people. (btw, I suppose you could call these collective people "Palestinians", but this would certainly be a stretch. There was no people called "Palestinians" at this time, Palestine was first mentioned as a district of Roman Syria, nearly 1000 years after Joshua and the Hebrews settled in Canaan.) The Hebrews could not take up residence in Canaan safely without removing this evil in the land. As it turns out, they did anyways, and were then exiled to Babylon nearly 1000 years later. If they had obeyed their God, they could have remained in "the land of milk and honey" on a more permanent basis.

Lastly, don't compare this episode in the history of God's chosen people with today's Israel. Today, an Israeli 'purge' of the area of all "Palestinians" would indeed be genocide, because it would not be "ordered by God", but would be a decision of man. Again, which side of this issue you stand on is more an issue of whose God you claim to believe in, rather than which tribe of men you ascribe higher "moral rights" to. One side of the argument is the unquestionable moral authority of God, and the other is the sinful greed of man. Only one of these groups is capable of 'genocide', and it is not God.

"The unarguable kicker here is that man cannot judge God."
--Suzianne

So if you were to hear a voice that you believed was God's urging you to
kill your (already born) baby--hypothetically--would you blindly obey God?

This is nonsensical in the extreme and I am appalled that you would even ask this question. That you do demonstrates your lack of understanding with the issue. God would never "urge" me to kill a baby, therefore the voice I heard would be a product of my own supposed "hypothetical" mental illness or perhaps a trick of evil. God can NOT do evil.

I'm just asking you not to 'knee-jerk' at some imagined slight against YOUR 'chosen' people (even though the Canaanites were not "Palestinians" by any stretch of the imagination). I'm not just some 'wild-eyed', crazy fundamentalist who will shout down anyone who attacks Israel (unlike some here on the "Palestinian" side), so don't suggest that I am. Don't put words in my mouth. Just... don't.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Nor do others, including Palestinians, have the 'moral right' to commit genocide or violence upon the people of the State of Israel. 😏

Originally posted by Suzianne
And yet apparently there IS justification for labeling the perceived crime in the worst possible light, even thought the jury is indeed out on whether it was a crime. Similar to a 'Jerry Springer moment', I guess this makes it even easier to point at your own life and say "See, at least I'm not that bad." The unarguable kicker here is that m ...[text shortened]... way. But why this is so important to people who claim not to even believe in Him, is beyond me.

canaanites where an independent nation, confederation of city states, whatever.

a nomadic horde came, invaded their country, conquered it then proceeded to slaughter every human there, man, woman and child.


i have all the information i need to label this story a genocide.

and genocide is evil, just like the flood genocide was.

Originally posted by Suzianne
And yet apparently there IS justification for labeling the perceived crime in the worst possible light, even thought the jury is indeed out on whether it was a crime. Similar to a 'Jerry Springer moment', I guess this makes it even easier to point at your own life and say "See, at least I'm not that bad." The unarguable kicker here is that m ...[text shortened]... way. But why this is so important to people who claim not to even believe in Him, is beyond me.

"The unarguable kicker here is that man cannot judge God."
what are you talking about. i can totally judge god. he gave me free will.

i can totally say that if god commanded all those people killed in canaan, especially when considering alternatives, he is evil.

"What there is no justification for is shutting down your mind and labeling it according to your bias"
it was genocide. by every definition there is. therefore evil. where is the bias?

"It also makes it seem like man is superior to God in some way."
no it doesn't. has nothing to do with what we are talking about. you are now just rambling.

" But why this is so important to people who claim not to even believe in Him, is beyond me"
first of all i do believe in god. i believe in jesus. i believe that the god described by jesus couldn't ordered the killing of the canaanites, or the entire world in the flood, and since the flood is proven to be an impossibility and, considering the contradictions in philosophy between the OT and NT, it is quite reasonably to assume the conquest of canaan didn't happened as advertised.

secondly, this is not directed at god. as i stated above, i don't believe god did it.
this is directed at all the psychos out there that believe murder, genocide even is justified if god commands it.

it is not. not now, not ever, past or future.

i direct this at the insane zealots who are told of a genocide, of children killed so as not to "taint" god's chosen people, and think "oh well, if god did it, it must have been righteous"

Originally posted by Suzianne
Please, put down your knee-jerk reaction to someone who doesn't happen to believe as you do. You speaking for me is certainly disrespect that I cannot lay aside, as was my first intention.

You, too, don't seem to grasp the argument. I believe the 'State of Israel' (which didn't exist until 1947) is not the same as the Hebrews who Moses led to Canaan ...[text shortened]... e "Palestinian" side), so don't suggest that I am. Don't put words in my mouth. Just... don't.

"were worshipping false gods. They were an abomination unto God and therefore to His chosen people."
yet god didn't command the jews to kill ALL the people in the world who were worshiping false gods. who happened to live on the land god supposedly told them to get.


"The Hebrews could not take up residence in Canaan safely without removing this evil in the land."
including the children?

not even ghenghis khan completely obliterated nations he conquered.
in fact, every empire in the history of humanity tried to assimilate the conquered people. some empires where more evil than others and also purged undesirables, but none did it completely.

israelites, god's chosen people, as portrayed in the bible, are as far as i know, the only people that brag about the utter annihilation of a conquered nation.

zealots like you are also the only kinds of people that praise this evil act of genocide as righteous.

Originally posted by Suzianne
No.

yes.