1 edit
Originally posted by SuzianneIt 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.
This paper is ridiculous. He seems to be taking the easy road in saying "God didn't really say this". This is gutless and faithless in the extreme.
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 given by God."
Basically, both positions (God does no evil but the Bible is inerrant) are faith statements so adopting either one on this issue rejects the other. The obvious solution is to question our ability and authority to judge God's commands, and leave it at that.
Originally posted by SuzianneSerious question.
Of course it is EASY for atheists to sit back and claim this was "genocide" because they do not believe in ANY god, much less false gods. For this reason alone, their opinion that this was "genocide" can be tossed out as totally unauthorative.
What are false gods?
Originally posted by sonhouseBecause the Middle East is where His people, the Hebrews lived. He established His covenant with them.
Why does your god confine itself to just the middle east? If it was a god worth its salt, it could just as easily spoken to the entire human race in their various languages. If your god is THE true god, there would have been thousands of times more false gods outside Jerusalem and such. So why would your god have confined itself to just that region when the ...[text shortened]... ot to explain why there was no such movement in Australia or Siberia or Europe or the America's.
Whether or not He established covenant with any other peoples is not covered in the OT, the story of the Hebrews.
That goes a lot to explain why there was no such movement in Australia or Siberia or Europe or the America's.
The Hebrews didn't live in those places. If those peoples established a similar covenant with God, they could have written about it. None of them have so far.
-Removed-Because a web page written for minimalist cell phones looks horrible on a desktop computer. In fact, my computer wouldn't even recognize it as a link. Instead of just highlighting it and saying connect to that website, I had to copy/paste the link into my browser address line and edit the m. to www. before it would work.
And I imagine that most people posting here are using desktop computers to access this site, and so the ones posting links from their cell phones should edit the m. to www. themselves.
2 edits
Originally posted by SuzianneYou 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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by RBHILLAbraham'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"?
The people living there could have left without dying!
Abraham was an idol worshiper before God called him to come and follow him.
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.
Originally posted by SuzianneIf 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?
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. [...] Yes, in short, God had a sufficient moral reason for issuing those commands.
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhere did I ever claim this was "genocide"?
But if I understand your post correctly, you yourself claim it was genocide and are in fact in support of this particular genocide. Did I misunderstand something?
This was God clearing out evil people who were a danger to His people from the lands He had set aside for His people.