Joshua and General Lin

Originally posted by rwingett
This only underscores my point. You are bending over backwards to justify biblical genocide. You can't bring yourself to say that genocide is wrong in every case.

Well, speaking for myself, there pretty much isn't anything that I can bring myself to say is wrong in every case.

Maybe that's because I have legal training. Maybe it's because I regard absolutism to be dangerous regardless of whether it's dressed up in theism or atheism. Maybe it's because I don't claim to be the personal fount of all wisdom.

Dietrich Bonhoffer was a leading German theologian who became involved in a plot to assassinate Hitler. I'm sure there are Christians out there who would blithely tell you that plotting to kill someone is wrong, and some of them would then get themselves tied into knots trying to decide whether that specific case was acceptable.

So, yes, when you push me to consider it, I have to say: maybe there are some extreme circumstances where 'genocide' is the preferable option. Perhaps it's an extreme example of 'kill or be killed'. I don't know for sure, I wasn't there in ancient Canaan.

In some ways I admire your sense of ethical/moral certainty, and I'm mildly intrigued by the fact that you, the atheist, are able to play the role of the black-and-white 'fundamentalist' and I, the theist, am left facing shades of grey. But so be it. I refuse to pretend that I understand everything in the Bible and can neatly fit it into my thoroughly 21st Century mindset.

The only significant difference between you and me here is that I want to try to understand it, and you want to dismiss it.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Their excuse is they LIKE to kill.

Well, the chimp will out.

Originally posted by orfeo
The only significant difference between you and me here is that I want to try to understand it, and you want to dismiss it.

I have an understanding of ancient genocide that hangs together well enough. It involves the function of monotheism in a conquering desert people. Do you see things along similar lines?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I have an understanding of ancient genocide that hangs together well enough. It involves the function of monotheism in a conquering desert people. Do you see things along similar lines?

Certainly the monotheism is important, yes. Think it was in rwingett's other thread that I mentioned a passage in Deuteronomy where the Israelites are instructed to kill everyone in certain cities, and the reason given is very much along the lines of 'if you don't, then you'll start worshiping other gods'.

And the OT quite clearly says that YHWH is a jealous God.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Well, the chimp will out.

Just remember, we are only one gene away from chimpanzee's.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Just remember, we are only one gene away from chimpanzee's.

Huh? I'd like to read about this. Do you have a link?

Originally posted by rwingett
In 1966 George Tamarin conducted the following study. He presented more than a thousand Israeli schoolchildren, aged between eight and fourteen, with the account of the battle of Jericho from the Book of Joshua:

Joshua 6:16 through 6:24
Joshua said to the people, "Shout; for the LORD has given you the city. And the city and all that is within it shall ...[text shortened]... they will bend over backwards to try to justify all the genocide in the bible.

If there were no God Israel would be guilty of genocide, and your argument would carry some weight. But since there is a God, and Israel is his nation, your assertions are meaningless.

This just steams you doesn't it?

And until you know God any discussion about God will be fruitless.

Originally posted by josephw
If there were no God Israel would be guilty of genocide, and your argument would carry some weight. But since there is a God, and Israel is his nation, your assertions are meaningless.

This just steams you doesn't it?

And until you know God any discussion about God will be fruitless.

By that rationale, anyone who commits genocide can get themselves off the charge by claiming that some deity or other commanded it of them.
Isn't that reminiscent of the old Nuremberg defence?
Hardly acceptable then, and I don't think it is here either.

Originally posted by amannion
By that rationale, anyone who commits genocide can get themselves off the charge by claiming that some deity or other commanded it of them.
Isn't that reminiscent of the old Nuremberg defence?
Hardly acceptable then, and I don't think it is here either.

Some do make that claim and commit all sorts of atrocities. The thing is, though, Israel is a creation of God. But God isn't working in the world today through a national entity. And Israel paid the price for her disobedience to God as well.

No one today excepts the defence that God told them to kill.

The problem with this whole debate is contingent on the existence of the God of the bible. And until that issue is settled, any discussion concerning an act of God, in my opinion, is a waste of time.

And I contend that the existence of God can be rationally "proved", but only where a discussion is pursued objectively by people who can think critically, and without guile. And just maybe not with me! 😉

Originally posted by amannion
By that rationale, anyone who commits genocide can get themselves off the charge by claiming that some deity or other commanded it of them.
Isn't that reminiscent of the old Nuremberg defence?
Hardly acceptable then, and I don't think it is here either.

People make all sorts of claims in criminal cases all the time. It's someone's job - either a judge or jury - to ASSESS the claim and decide if it's valid.

I mean, just because someone claims to have killed in self-defence, it doesn't automatically mean the jury has to believe them. Shooting an unarmed man in the back and claiming self-defence is less likely to be successful than shooting a man wielding an assault rifle who was running straight towards you.

i think you're also confusing earthly courts with a judgment about someone's spiritual/moral rightness. I actually doubt that a man-made court would set a great deal of store by a claim that a deity commanded an act of genocide. At most, an earthly court may give a person a lesser sentence if persuaded that the person committing the act genuinely believed they were obeying a divine command - or then again they might have them committed to an institution for believing such a thing.

But I don't see what's so problematic about the idea that in 'moral' terms - which in the context of this discussion really has to mean 'rightness in spiritual terms / in the eyes of God', because the discussion only makes sense if we assume God exists - a person who carries out genocide at God's command would be regarded as 'morally' right. It's a totally different question whether an earthly court would send them to jail.

Originally posted by orfeo
People make all sorts of claims in criminal cases all the time. It's someone's job - either a judge or jury - to ASSESS the claim and decide if it's valid.

I mean, just because someone claims to have killed in self-defence, it doesn't automatically mean the jury has to [b]believe them. Shooting an unarmed man in the back and claiming self-defence is l s a totally different question whether an earthly court would send them to jail.[/b]

No, even if God exists, a person who carries out genocide at his command thereby acts wrongly. Either that, or you mean by "moral" something radically different than secular folk. But, if that is the case, then why on Earth should any of us listen when you declaim on what you call "morality"?

Originally posted by josephw
Some do make that claim and commit all sorts of atrocities. The thing is, though, Israel is a creation of God. But God isn't working in the world today through a national entity. And Israel paid the price for her disobedience to God as well.

No one today excepts the defence that God told them to kill.

The problem with this whole debate is contingent on ...[text shortened]... tively by people who can think critically, and without guile. And just maybe not with me! 😉a

Yeah, I take your point, except with the notion that a God's existence can be rationally proved.

Sorry, I misinterpreted amannion's post.

Originally posted by bbarr
No, even if God exists, a person who carries out genocide at his command thereby acts wrongly. Either that, or you mean by "moral" something radically different than secular folk. But, if that is the case, then why on Earth should any of us listen when you declaim on what you call "morality"?

Well, it seems to me that when most people, including 'secular folk', start talking about morality, they leap straight over the concept of what morality is and dive into the content - which they generally seem to assume fits with their own morals.

To me, morals are best regarded as a form of internal/psychological law, and perhaps also societal law. The primary means of enforcement/punishment is psychological distress if one's actions don't fit with one's morals.

That conception of morality is neutral as to the content. As soon as you say carrying out genocide is a wrongful act, you are asserting that 'genocide is wrong' is necessarily one of the rules of morality. But how do you get to that point? Does everyone's moral compass include that rule? I put to you that the fact that acts of genocide have occurred and continue to occur is a fairly good indication that 'genocide is wrong' is NOT a universal rule in everyone's morality - especially given that it tends to take quite a few people's participation for an act of genocide to occur. It's a big job. The alternative proposition is that all these perpetrators are somehow managing to put up with a great deal of psychological distress as they breach the universal moral rule against genocide.

As soon as you want to evaluate the contents of someone's morals, you require a reference point. The reference point I use is at least partially external - it derives from the Bible and my interpretation/perception of the contents of God's morals. It appears to me that the majority of people's reference point is purely internal - that is, they judge the quality of another person's morality purely on the basis of whether it lines up with their own. An alternative theory is that people's reference point is the majority view - although in some cases a minority view may have enough currency to be considered a legitimate alternative moral rule.

I think it's worth noting that one of the consequences of having an external reference point is that it can lead to pressure to change my own morals. A person with a purely internal reference point will take the attitude that their existing moral position is true 'for them', and that's all that matters. And a person whose reference point is majority opinion will say that genocide is wrong because most people around them say genocide is wrong.

Discuss.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Huh? I'd like to read about this. Do you have a link?

I recommend Jared Diamond's The Rise of the Third Chimpanzee. We're not "one gene away" but we do have 99% of our DNA in common.