Originally posted by Suzianne
I swear, if one more person posts a mobile link... arrrgh...
Anyways, I just KNEW this had to be about Joshua and the Canaanites. The fact is that the Canaanites worshipped FALSE GODS. God knew He couldn't have His people settling in among people worshipping false gods and not have His people tainted by these people. As it was, the Hebrews paid the ...[text shortened]... reason alone, their opinion that this was "genocide" can be tossed out as totally unauthorative.
You seem to accept that the act contains the necessary elements to meet the definition of genocide. Which I agree it does. Your argument that is does not amount to a crime seems to be based on the fact that the act was nonetheless justified.
This is where your thinking seriously falls down logically. Your argument seems to be based on the idea that the act was justified
because the Canaanites were worshipping false gods. However, the definition of genocide requires the extermination of a group of people on some basis such as their religion.
You cannot make the defence to an accusation of a crime something which is an inherent part of the crime.
That makes about as much sense as saying I did not commit theft because all I did was steal
other people's property.
If you have a better reasoning, you should present it rather than hide behind the 'you can never understand because you do not believe' argument.