Someone on another forum at TWeb pointed me to this article by Glenn Miller, after I made a vague reference to Biblical genocides.
http://christianthinktank.com/qamorite.html
It is a topic that comes up in apologetics a lot, so let us see the page offers. It is specifically about God ordering the annihilation of the Canaanites, though it looks at other events to see what perspective they offer.
By the way, by genocide, I mean the indiscriminate killing of a very large group of people (and by indiscriminate I mean not differentiating between people within the group, rather than picking groups at random). I appreciate there are some very specific definitions of the word. I think this definition is sufficient to cover the moral aspects. Also it is worth noting that the historical evidence for at least some of these genocides is dubious to say the least, so it is worth acknowledging the possibility that they never actually happened.
Sodom and Gomorrah
So he starts by looking at Sodom and Gomorrah. His justifications here are by-and-large not unreasonable, the only issue I have is the killing of innocent children. That is a theme in all these, so I will come back to it.
The Flood
Then he looks at the Flood.
So he claims God saved the innocent. And yet we know he did not save any babies. Are babies not innocent? The implication here is that all the babies that died in the flood went to hell. Anyone happy to confirm that? Most Christians have the opinion that young children are not sinful.
He also seems to be making stuff up. Where does it say the people were violent, whether against God or against humanity? Where does he get "some of the evil was probably sexual violence or violation"? Let us look at the verses in question:
Genesis 6:1 When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. ...
5 The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.
It is not clear who the sons of God were; one possibility is that they are angels. That can hardly be any justification for the flood! The possibility I find more likely is they were the descendants of Seth, the man of God, while the daughters of man were the descendants of Cain. What was this great evil they did? They took women for their wives.
Now it is possible that the women were not willing, but good luck arguing God has any issue with that!
Look at this one: "God was willing to spare the innocent people--if any could be found;" I thought God was supposed to be all-knowing. How difficult was it for an all-knowing God to find someone exactly?
Or this: "children living in the households of their evil parents would have undoubtedly died swiftly". Is he saying wholesale slaughter is moral if it is a quick death? And what is his basis for claiming a swift death? The Bible says it took forty days for the waters to rise (Genesis 7:17). Just how quick is death by drowning? Can we assume that killing people is okay if done by a quick bullet to the head? i do not think so, so why does the author imply that "undoubtedly died swiftly" makes the killing more moral?
Amalekites
Next, the Amalekites.
The author says: "Before the attack on Amalek is initiated by Israel, the innocent are told to 'move away' from them" That is not quite right. The Kenites are told to move away. The author is assuming that there are no innocent Amaleks. The reasoning may well be because centuries earlier the Amalekites attacked the Hebrews, and God promised revenge on them. Thus, every Amalekite was guilty of the crime of being a part of a nation that had attacked the Jews centuries earlier.
Is that just? The Bible says no: Deuteronomy 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. Anyone here want to stand up and say it is morally acceptable to wipe out a nation for what the ancestors did centuries ago?
Anyone think it would be acceptable for Native Americans to wipe out the descendants of the original white setllers, given the land theft and murders perpetrated by those settlers?
A Pattern
From these three events, the author shows a pattern; God gives them a chance to change their behaviour, and the killing is a subsequent judgement on those who did not (he cites Ninevah as an example of when people did change).
He says:
Most of the rest of the article is arguing that the annihiliation of the Canaanites is just the same, or indeed was merely an expulsion of the people, not an annihilation. His focus is the Canaanites, but mine is not, so I will give him the expulsion, and concentrate on the others.
He ends with this rhetorical question:
The first bit is specific to Canaanite expulsion, not genocide. Thereafter he lists the seven points above (with a comment specific to the Canaanites). That is it. So that list is, it seems, his justification for the Biblical genocides. The last three, however, are just part of the pattern; they certainly do not offer any justification. As for the first four:
Well, sure, no one is saying they were done on a whim. The issue really is that God is making a judgement on a whole nation or a whole city or even the whole world. That is the mentality of the racist and the bigot.
And we have the Hebrews' word on that!
So the genocides are because God has failed. One might imagine an all-powerful entity would have more success.
If only the children were.
And that is it. It is a long article, but if it actually justifies the genocides, then I missed it. At the very start he asks the question:
Having read the article I have no more clue about than than I did before.
http://christianthinktank.com/qamorite.html
It is a topic that comes up in apologetics a lot, so let us see the page offers. It is specifically about God ordering the annihilation of the Canaanites, though it looks at other events to see what perspective they offer.
By the way, by genocide, I mean the indiscriminate killing of a very large group of people (and by indiscriminate I mean not differentiating between people within the group, rather than picking groups at random). I appreciate there are some very specific definitions of the word. I think this definition is sufficient to cover the moral aspects. Also it is worth noting that the historical evidence for at least some of these genocides is dubious to say the least, so it is worth acknowledging the possibility that they never actually happened.
Sodom and Gomorrah
So he starts by looking at Sodom and Gomorrah. His justifications here are by-and-large not unreasonable, the only issue I have is the killing of innocent children. That is a theme in all these, so I will come back to it.
The Flood
Then he looks at the Flood.
The story is familiar: (1) God decides to 'spare the innocent' again and warns Noah to build a boat for him and his household (apparently NOT so innocent); (2) the evil/violence of the people were both against God and against humanity (Gen 6.12) and was VERY EXTENSIVE ("filled"); (3) some of the evil was probably sexual violence or violation (Gen 6.1-2); ...
He also seems to be making stuff up. Where does it say the people were violent, whether against God or against humanity? Where does he get "some of the evil was probably sexual violence or violation"? Let us look at the verses in question:
Genesis 6:1 When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. ...
5 The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.
It is not clear who the sons of God were; one possibility is that they are angels. That can hardly be any justification for the flood! The possibility I find more likely is they were the descendants of Seth, the man of God, while the daughters of man were the descendants of Cain. What was this great evil they did? They took women for their wives.
Now it is possible that the women were not willing, but good luck arguing God has any issue with that!
Look at this one: "God was willing to spare the innocent people--if any could be found;" I thought God was supposed to be all-knowing. How difficult was it for an all-knowing God to find someone exactly?
Or this: "children living in the households of their evil parents would have undoubtedly died swiftly". Is he saying wholesale slaughter is moral if it is a quick death? And what is his basis for claiming a swift death? The Bible says it took forty days for the waters to rise (Genesis 7:17). Just how quick is death by drowning? Can we assume that killing people is okay if done by a quick bullet to the head? i do not think so, so why does the author imply that "undoubtedly died swiftly" makes the killing more moral?
Amalekites
Next, the Amalekites.
The author says: "Before the attack on Amalek is initiated by Israel, the innocent are told to 'move away' from them" That is not quite right. The Kenites are told to move away. The author is assuming that there are no innocent Amaleks. The reasoning may well be because centuries earlier the Amalekites attacked the Hebrews, and God promised revenge on them. Thus, every Amalekite was guilty of the crime of being a part of a nation that had attacked the Jews centuries earlier.
Is that just? The Bible says no: Deuteronomy 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. Anyone here want to stand up and say it is morally acceptable to wipe out a nation for what the ancestors did centuries ago?
Anyone think it would be acceptable for Native Americans to wipe out the descendants of the original white setllers, given the land theft and murders perpetrated by those settlers?
A Pattern
From these three events, the author shows a pattern; God gives them a chance to change their behaviour, and the killing is a subsequent judgement on those who did not (he cites Ninevah as an example of when people did change).
He says:
There is an obvious pattern here:
The annihilations are judgments.
These judgments are for publicly-recognized (indeed, international and cross-cultural in scope!) cruelty and violence of an EXTREME and WIDESPREAD nature.
These judgments are preceded by LONG PERIODS of warning/exposure to truth (and therefore, opportunity to "change outcomes").
Innocent adults are given a 'way out'
Household members share in the fortunes of the parents (for good or ill).
Somebody ALWAYS escapes (Lot, Noah, Kenites)
These are exceptional cases--there are VERY, VERY few of these.
The annihilations are judgments.
These judgments are for publicly-recognized (indeed, international and cross-cultural in scope!) cruelty and violence of an EXTREME and WIDESPREAD nature.
These judgments are preceded by LONG PERIODS of warning/exposure to truth (and therefore, opportunity to "change outcomes").
Innocent adults are given a 'way out'
Household members share in the fortunes of the parents (for good or ill).
Somebody ALWAYS escapes (Lot, Noah, Kenites)
These are exceptional cases--there are VERY, VERY few of these.
He ends with this rhetorical question:
Doesn't wholesale slaughter of nations seem a little incompatible with a God of Love and Mercy?
The annihilations are judgments.
These judgments are for publicly-recognized (indeed, international and cross-cultural in scope!) cruelty and violence of an EXTREME and WIDESPREAD nature.
These judgments are preceded by LONG PERIODS of warning/exposure to truth (and therefore, opportunity to "change outcomes").
Innocent adults are given a 'way out'
And that is it. It is a long article, but if it actually justifies the genocides, then I missed it. At the very start he asks the question:
How could a God of Love order the massacre/annihilation of the Canaanites?
Comment