Originally posted by Suzianne
Abraham's descendants were God's people because of God's covenant with Abraham. Take it up with God. Are you calling what God did in this case "genocide"? Were the Canaanites "innocent"?

And do you really think someone coming in and telling everyone living there that God would like them to move somewhere else would work? If so, maybe the Israelites should try that with the Palestinians.

As I said, your god has an amazing lack of imagination for an omnipotent being.

Originally posted by RBHILL
That could give us a hint to the end times?

How so? There is absolutely zero to connect this with end times.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Abraham's descendants were God's people because of God's covenant with Abraham. Take it up with God. Are you calling what God did in this case "genocide"? Were the Canaanites "innocent"?

I think what is happening here is that people are pointing out to you [and other people with the same sort of moral compass as you have] that the thing you believe your God figure was justified in doing [and you also believe was justified] is in fact what is known as genocide and that we can all assume that many if not most ~ and possibly all ~ of the men, women and children who were murdered did not deserve to be murdered.

Originally posted by JS357
It seeks to preserve faith in God's perfect goodness in light of the apparently irredeemable immorality of the command. However, it depends on the judgement that it is irredeemably immoral, being correct.

Either position is too easy. This could have been stated as a conditional "If our moral judgement of the command is correct, then it could not have been ...[text shortened]... solution is to question our ability and authority to judge God's commands, and leave it at that.

You'll get no real argument from me on that.

Originally posted by Suzianne
This was God clearing out evil people who were a danger to His people from the lands He had set aside for His people.

If there were "evil" criminals among them who deserved to be tried and executed, why weren't they rooted out and dealt with? To just kill everybody is the moral atrocity known as genocide.

Originally posted by divegeester
That's an interesting video but how do you account for scriptures such as this:

1 Samuel 15:3
[b]Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'"

Edit: I suppose the definition of 'genocide' is key.[/b]

Of course it is. The Amaleks also worshipped false gods. They were evil.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Where did I ever claim this was "genocide"?

This was God clearing out evil people who were a danger to His people from the lands He had set aside for His people.

You didn't. But you spoke about the destruction of a group of people based on the fact that someone believed that they worshipped false gods.

That is genocide as we use the term today.

How many genocides have been justified by variations on your last sentence, by changing your God to another God or to a human leader?

I really don't see any difference in your justification of this act to any Muslim fundamentalist flying a plane into a building.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Of course it is. The Amaleks also worshipped false gods. They were evil.

Don't/didn't they have the same right to their religious beliefs as you do?

Originally posted by FMF
If you believed that God spoke to you ~ in a vision or perhaps as a result of you praying ~ and He told you that, say, Hindus presented the same threat as you believe the Canaanites did on account of them worshipping what people of your religion consider to be "false gods", could you imagine yourself supporting or participating in a genocide against Hindus?

No, the rules have changed since the appearance of His Son in Nazareth, and His sacrifice at Calgary. Your "scenario" simply would not happen.

Originally posted by Suzianne
No, the rules have changed since the appearance of His Son in Nazareth, and His sacrifice at Calgary. Your "scenario" simply would not happen.

How could the slaughter of the children of people with different religious beliefs ever have been justified?

Originally posted by Suzianne
No, the rules have changed since the appearance of His Son in Nazareth, and His sacrifice at Calgary. Your "scenario" simply would not happen.

Did Jesus say at some point that people can worship "false gods" then, is that what you mean?

Originally posted by Rank outsider
As I said, your god has an amazing lack of imagination for an omnipotent being.

In many cases, in order to retain man's free will, God is limited to using the physical laws already in place in this universe. The unbelievers always have to have an "out".

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Serious question.
What are false gods?

You must have no faith and no imagination to ask this. Grow up and you might be able to discern this for yourself.

Originally posted by FMF
I think what is happening here is that people are pointing out to you [and other people with the same sort of moral compass as you have] that the thing you believe your God figure was justified in doing [and you also believe was justified] is in fact what is known as genocide and that we can all assume that many if not most ~ and possibly all ~ of the men, women and children who were murdered did not deserve to be murdered.

They are allowed to have their own opinion, even if it is wrong.

Originally posted by Suzianne
They are allowed to have their own opinion, even if it is wrong.

It is you who has to lay out a credible moral underpinning for the genocide being discussed, even if it is only your own opinion.