If You Find Ethnic Cleansing Horrific You Are A..... Moral Retard

[ChrisChillin]

That's a good list of books there, FF. I have a copy of Show Them No Mercy but none of the others, unfortunately. But I've had my eye on Craigie's book for some time now, especially since I really enjoyed Ugarit and the Old Testament. I've also read part of Lyons' dissertation and will continue to do so

I took the time to read through this thread a couple of days ago and I find it unfortunate that it seems most people have spent their time simply talking past each other and repeating the same statements over and over again. Doesn't seem like it's been too productive. Meanwhile, I've taken to my books as well as some online materials to mull over the topic some more.

My thoughts? Well, first of all let me say that I find both sides to be right in a sense. FormerFundy is correct in pointing out that nowhere does the text itself identify the practice of herem as having a humanitarian purpose. Its clearly-stated justification is judgment against the Canaanites for idolatry and wickedness (Deuteronomy 7:4, 20:18). The purpose of such warfare is ideological (demonstrating superiority as YHWH as covenant-enacting god) and religio-cultural (preservation of the Israelite society and cultus as separate and distinct from pagan practices).

However, as even FF and others concede, if Israel does not have the resources to absorb dependents into its population, then the extermination of women and children is the better alternative to unsupported existence and slow death. Glenn Miller and those who support his position have to argue from the historical context of the ancient world to present the herem as playing a humanitarian role, but the point is valid as long as it is not belabored. If indeed Israel was a seminomadic invading force when it adopted "YHWH war" against the Canaanites, then such an act of sparing some lives could jeopardize all lives. But such humanitarianism is more of a side-effect than direct consequence of the stated need to eliminate the presence of Canaanite culture and civilization in the land. But other likely reasons for extending the ban to women and children are pragmatic, such as ensuring against possible future internal dissension.

The situation is different in Deut. 20:12-15, which assumes Israel at some point being a settled nation with enough prosperity to wage wars at a distance. In fact, in all of biblical literature the ban is only enacted against three groups - the Canaanites of the land, the Amalekites who launched a pre-emptive attack against Israel, and the Hebrews themselves. The text offers repeated warnings to Israel that falling into the sins of the Canaanites would result in the same fate, and roughly that is the case with the exile - an invading force wages war against the Hebrew people, destroying their cities and dispossessing them from the land.

So although the herem fits an ANE context for warfare, its application is more limited for Israel than for others and its interpretation is quite distinct. Unlike in the Mesha Stela, the ban is never applied to external enemies. Also, unlike that Moabite citation, the ban is never applied without a stated external justification. For King Mesha, Nebo is devoted to Ashtar-Chemosh for destruction because, well, just because. But as is the case with so much in the Hebrew Bible, an ANE characteristic is utilized but given a moral flavoring: the Canaanites are devoted to destruction as a divine judgment, and it is specifically stated that it is not because the Israelites are inherently righteous people. Thirdly, there is no indication in the Moabite texts or elsewhere that they offered some self-deprecation and wrote in the possibility of being placed under herem themselves.

Also, it is unlikely that herem was applied according to uniform standards. For example, in the capture of Jericho in Joshua 6 it extends to the livestock while in the capture of Hazor in Joshua 11 the livestock are taken in plunder, yet the text says Josh "left nothing undone of all that the LORD commanded Moses."

Nor is it the case in the text that all Canaanites/Amorites are exterminated. Numbers 21:32 says the Amorites of Jazer are driven out, not killed, after their settlements are captured. Joshua, despite its typically Near Eastern hyperbolic summations of victory, depicts pockets of Canaanite settlements left intact. And, as Glenn Miller has pointed out, there are numerous texts that describe the military process as that of expulsion or dispossession as well as destruction. Taken as a whole, the various texts suggest a more complicated situation than unadulterated genocide.

Referring to the title of the thread then, let me say that this is in no way "ethnic cleansing." As Jeffrey Tigay puts it in the JPS Torah Commentary:

Tigay, Deuteronomy

The aim of these policies is defensive, and no action is prescribed against idolatry or idolaters outside Israelite territory. These policies are not based on ethnicity; Deuteronomy prescribes the same treatment for Israelite cities that lapse into idolatry.

© source where applicable

In summation: the interpretation of herem involves a complicated dialogue between numerous texts that must be held in tension with one another. In my opinion, it does not appear to be a simple, formulaic doctrine or plan in the Hebrew Bible, despite the apparently unambiguous language of Deuteronomy 20. The narratives clearly indicate a variety of applications, as well as distinctive limitations on herem, and a willingness to apply it to Israel itself, that sets it apart from similar practices in nearby cultures.

As for the question of the "rightness" of the herem, well, that is something to be debated for those who discuss more abstractly in the realm of ethics, and I do not feel I can contribute anything of worth there.

[FormerFundy]

Chris,

Thanks for an excellent post. What a breath of fresh air to read something of substance on this subject. I agree with virtually everything you say. My whole point in the discussion was to dispel the simplistic notion that the moral problem of the extermination of the Canaanites could be resolved by merely stating they would have starved to death otherwise. It is much more complicated than that and as you point out, there is no evidence that this supposed "humanitarianism" was the motivation behind the slaughters.

[shunyadragon]

Been there, done that. Try some literacy classes. Are those too far away for you?

'Literacy may be educated, drunkeness sobered, ignorance enlightened, wounds healed, but stupidity lasts forever.'

Paraphrased from 'The Emperor's Club', which was paraphrased from Socrates I think.

[jpholding]

I agree with virtually everything you say

Gosh, it's the same thing *I* and Miller said in a nutshell.

Looks like another fiasco for Gargamel...like the time I responded to him on textual criticism with a question, he made a smart remark, and then....Jaltus asked the same question.

[36grit]

Who dares to put God on trial? Those who believe search out the wisdom of his actions while those who do not blame him without fear. I say, we will all reap as we have sown and what reality exists inside? We are all standing on the scales of life and death and I stand before you and shout from the house tops that justice is not blind. God will do what God will do and whos will do you pray is accomplished? Satan will burn in hell for he attempted to exalt himself above God and what is it to blame him or put him on trial? Is God not worthy to judge his own creation? Do you really believe the things God does he does in vain? Both heaven and hell reside within his domain and for his own purpose has he created them and what creation was made to judge good from evil? Are we teaching or have we failed in our purpose? Will we blame him or join him? Will we magnify his commandments or bend our reality towards death? As a whole we will reap as we have sown and many believe in the idea of God but very few believe in the God of the bible! Think Christ will come back as like Santa Clause? I tell you there will be fire in the skies. Those who deceive themselves are in the grip of the enemy and who will save you?

[FormerFundy]

This is for CC or any other person interested in understanding the complex subject of [cherem] in the OT. Those who are content with a simplistic explanation can go back to their smurf reruns.

Susan Niditch in her book, War in the Hebrew Bible sees two purposes in cherem . One is as a sacrifice to God ("The Ban as God's portion) and second is as the judgment of God ("The Ban as God's Justice"). This second position is seen by virtually all who write on the subject as a main reason for the cherem . The Canaanites and Amalekites were corrupt and thus deserving of the judgment of God. However, her first reason is not often cited in the literature as one of the motivations behind cherem .

The Ban as God's Portion is the title of Chapter one of Niditch's book. On p. 29 she writes:

In a non-war context Lev. 27:28 states that anything a man devotes to God (cherem verb used) from among his possessions--human beings (i.e., slaves), animals or agricultural holdings--cannot be purchased or redeemed. 'Every devoted thing (cherem) is a holy of holies to God." In a similar vein, Lev. 27:21 juxtaposes 'holy to God' with cherem in reference to a person's pledge of land. That which is cherem in these contexts is not a destroyed item or person but a possession devoted and sacrificed, given up for the use of God or his priests (see also Ezek. 44:29). (p. 29)

Thus according to Niditch, in certain cases when the Israelites would go to war they would make a vow to YHWH to sacrifice all the booty to Him in exchange for His help in accomplishing a victory. She cites Num. 21:2-3 as an example.

And Israel vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said, If thou wilt indeed deliver this people into my hand, then I will utterly destroy (cherem) their cities. And the LORD hearkened to the voice of Israel, and delivered up the Canaanites; and they utterly destroyed them and their cities: and he called the name of the place Hormah.

She further cites Judges 11:30-31 as a parallel passage. (p.33)

She argues that since human beings are the most valuable of all the booty, to offer them up to YHWH was an especially strong vow. The Israelites thought that by doing so, they would ensure YHWH's help in securing a victory.

[ChrisChillin]

Thank you for the added material, FF, and thank you for your kind words - again. I still appreciate your interaction with me on the subject of Zoroastrianism over a year and a half ago. It's good to know we can come from different perspectives but still find agreement in some areas as well as respect for each other when we differ.

No disagreement with the purpose of herem as the fulfillment of a vow to YHWH - the text makes that clear enough without need to have scholars remind us (although they certainly help!). Of course, there's no need to prop up an artificial distinction between the Ban as either God's portion or God's justice, when in the text it seems to be a case of both/and.

On another note, let me say that I understand how these threads are conducive to heated rhetoric, but I would urge some caution about using a dismissive tone. Glenn Miller, the "computer geek", may be dead wrong in what he is saying. But he isn't just "another internet apologist." He does hold degrees in biblical studies, has held memberships in such groups as SBL, and does read widely, as his citations should indicate. Sure, his essays should not be the only place people look, so that they could find the answers they want, but I believe they carry enough weight to at least be dealt with seriously. Sure, he may be promoting an interpretation that no scholar has suggested before, but it would be fallacious to automatically conclude he's wrong. It just means the burden of proof is on his new idea. I know you understand this. Consider it another friendly reminder.

(Actually, thinking about it a bit more, and looking back at Miller's articles - the "humanitarianism" argument is actually only a small portion of his presentation on the Canaanites, and instead he focuses quite heavily on the theme of judgment. The humanitarian idea comes up mainly in the article on the Amalekites.)

Meanwhile, a part of me likes to think deep down inside that you and J.P. could have a civil discussion one day. Odd though it may seem for someone on TWeb to say this, but I respect you both. I wouldn't be where I am today intellectually without the Tekton web site prompting me to study and learn as much as I can. But I wouldn't be posting here either if it weren't for friendly encounters with people on "the other side of the fence" such as yourself.

[shunyadragon]

Who dares to put God on trial? Those who believe search out the wisdom of his actions while those who do not blame him without fear. I say, we will all reap as we have sown and what reality exists inside? We are all standing on the scales of life and death and I stand before you and shout from the house tops that justice is not blind. God will do what God will do and whos will do you pray is accomplished? Satan will burn in hell for he attempted to exalt himself above God and what is it to blame him or put him on trial? Is God not worthy to judge his own creation? Do you really believe the things God does he does in vain? Both heaven and hell reside within his domain and for his own purpose has he created them and what creation was made to judge good from evil? Are we teaching or have we failed in our purpose? Will we blame him or join him? Will we magnify his commandments or bend our reality towards death? As a whole we will reap as we have sown and many believe in the idea of God but very few believe in the God of the bible! Think Christ will come back as like Santa Clause? I tell you there will be fire in the skies. Those who deceive themselves are in the grip of the enemy and who will save you?

No problem! The vindictive, vain, jealous, arbitrary, self-centered mythical God does need to put on trial. Unfortunately this God does not exist beyond the minds and writings of the ancient people.

The true God is not the God defined by the fears, and vanities of an ancient people with a limited horizon of knowledge.

[shunyadragon]

That's a good list of books there, FF. I have a copy of Show Them No Mercy but none of the others, unfortunately. But I've had my eye on Craigie's book for some time now, especially since I really enjoyed Ugarit and the Old Testament. I've also read part of Lyons' dissertation and will continue to do so

I took the time to read through this thread a couple of days ago and I find it unfortunate that it seems most people have spent their time simply talking past each other and repeating the same statements over and over again. Doesn't seem like it's been too productive. Meanwhile, I've taken to my books as well as some online materials to mull over the topic some more.

My thoughts? Well, first of all let me say that I find both sides to be right in a sense. FormerFundy is correct in pointing out that nowhere does the text itself identify the practice of herem as having a humanitarian purpose. Its clearly-stated justification is judgment against the Canaanites for idolatry and wickedness (Deuteronomy 7:4, 20:18). The purpose of such warfare is ideological (demonstrating superiority as YHWH as covenant-enacting god) and religio-cultural (preservation of the Israelite society and cultus as separate and distinct from pagan practices).

However, as even FF and others concede, if Israel does not have the resources to absorb dependents into its population, then the extermination of women and children is the better alternative to unsupported existence and slow death. Glenn Miller and those who support his position have to argue from the historical context of the ancient world to present the herem as playing a humanitarian role, but the point is valid as long as it is not belabored. If indeed Israel was a seminomadic invading force when it adopted "YHWH war" against the Canaanites, then such an act of sparing some lives could jeopardize all lives. But such humanitarianism is more of a side-effect than direct consequence of the stated need to eliminate the presence of Canaanite culture and civilization in the land. But other likely reasons for extending the ban to women and children are pragmatic, such as ensuring against possible future internal dissension.

The situation is different in Deut. 20:12-15, which assumes Israel at some point being a settled nation with enough prosperity to wage wars at a distance. In fact, in all of biblical literature the ban is only enacted against three groups - the Canaanites of the land, the Amalekites who launched a pre-emptive attack against Israel, and the Hebrews themselves. The text offers repeated warnings to Israel that falling into the sins of the Canaanites would result in the same fate, and roughly that is the case with the exile - an invading force wages war against the Hebrew people, destroying their cities and dispossessing them from the land.

So although the herem fits an ANE context for warfare, its application is more limited for Israel than for others and its interpretation is quite distinct. Unlike in the Mesha Stela, the ban is never applied to external enemies. Also, unlike that Moabite citation, the ban is never applied without a stated external justification. For King Mesha, Nebo is devoted to Ashtar-Chemosh for destruction because, well, just because. But as is the case with so much in the Hebrew Bible, an ANE characteristic is utilized but given a moral flavoring: the Canaanites are devoted to destruction as a divine judgment, and it is specifically stated that it is not because the Israelites are inherently righteous people. Thirdly, there is no indication in the Moabite texts or elsewhere that they offered some self-deprecation and wrote in the possibility of being placed under herem themselves.

Also, it is unlikely that herem was applied according to uniform standards. For example, in the capture of Jericho in Joshua 6 it extends to the livestock while in the capture of Hazor in Joshua 11 the livestock are taken in plunder, yet the text says Josh "left nothing undone of all that the LORD commanded Moses."

Nor is it the case in the text that all Canaanites/Amorites are exterminated. Numbers 21:32 says the Amorites of Jazer are driven out, not killed, after their settlements are captured. Joshua, despite its typically Near Eastern hyperbolic summations of victory, depicts pockets of Canaanite settlements left intact. And, as Glenn Miller has pointed out, there are numerous texts that describe the military process as that of expulsion or dispossession as well as destruction. Taken as a whole, the various texts suggest a more complicated situation than unadulterated genocide.

Referring to the title of the thread then, let me say that this is in no way "ethnic cleansing." As Jeffrey Tigay puts it in the JPS Torah Commentary:

Tigay, Deuteronomy

The aim of these policies is defensive, and no action is prescribed against idolatry or idolaters outside Israelite territory. These policies are not based on ethnicity; Deuteronomy prescribes the same treatment for Israelite cities that lapse into idolatry.

© source where applicable

In summation: the interpretation of herem involves a complicated dialogue between numerous texts that must be held in tension with one another. In my opinion, it does not appear to be a simple, formulaic doctrine or plan in the Hebrew Bible, despite the apparently unambiguous language of Deuteronomy 20. The narratives clearly indicate a variety of applications, as well as distinctive limitations on herem, and a willingness to apply it to Israel itself, that sets it apart from similar practices in nearby cultures.

As for the question of the "rightness" of the herem, well, that is something to be debated for those who discuss more abstractly in the realm of ethics, and I do not feel I can contribute anything of worth there.

Excellent post, and it gets you some pearls, but I disagree with some of your conclusions, and comparisons.

Your absolute statement that the actions could not be considered ethnic cleansing is dependent on some assumptions. It may be considered ethnic cleansing if we change the assumptions, and the aims and policies would not be considered wholly always defensive.

First, it is pretty common to consider other cultures pagan, wicked and ungodly as part of the motivation for ethnic cleansing throughout history, as in recent times of Yugoslavia.

Second, Deuteronomy may be understood to apply to cities or communities of Hebrews to, but other invading forces and the displacement of the Hebrews should not be interpreted in the same light. I do not believe that you can cite any examples where Hebrews themselves practiced this cleansing and displacement against other Hebrews.

Third, putting this in a human context this is par and partial for the barbaric behavior of ancient peoples and sometimes still practiced today, because these same ethnocentric beliefs still persist today in the more ancient religions. The Hebrews, Canaanites, and Amorites were different ethnic peoples with different religious beliefs in close proximity, and in the case of ancient ethnic peoples this leads to a territorial turf war. Not defensive, but offensive/defensive. This is not that much different as what took place in ancient China and America.

Fourth, it is assumed Biblically by those that believe that God ordered these attrocities against other peoples, and in some way the punishment of the Hebrews for their waywardness. It is more realistic to assume that these ancient people justified their actions in the name of God, and not God ordering such actions against other people.

The bottom line is it is best to view these events in terms of real human historical terms and leave God out of it as far as ordering such actions.

[FormerFundy]

Thank you for the added material, FF, and thank you for your kind words - again. I still appreciate your interaction with me on the subject of Zoroastrianism over a year and a half ago. It's good to know we can come from different perspectives but still find agreement in some areas as well as respect for each other when we differ.

Chris,

Thanks. It is always a delight to dialogue with you.

No disagreement with the purpose of herem as the fulfillment of a vow to YHWH - the text makes that clear enough without need to have scholars remind us (although they certainly help!). Of course, there's no need to prop up an artificial distinction between the Ban as either God's portion or God's justice, when in the text it seems to be a case of both/and.

Yes you are right. The text is pretty clear on the idea of cherem as a vow to YHWH. In Niditch's case, she sees something of an evolution in Israel's thinking on cherem , at first it was seen both as a vow and as a judgment. Later, the idea of a vow or sacrifice to YHWH was dropped according to her.

Sure, he may be promoting an interpretation that no scholar has suggested before,

This is what really bothers me about his position, and the fact that some would cite his article as if that is all that needs to be said on the subject. I find that overly simplistic.

Meanwhile, a part of me likes to think deep down inside that you and J.P. could have a civil discussion one day.

I honestly would like to. I usually start the discussions with that in mind and before long I find myself drawn into his style. Oh well, maybe one day.

[ChrisChillin]

shunyadragon:

but I disagree with some of your conclusions, and comparisons.

But of course. Let's get crackin'...

First, it is pretty common to consider other cultures pagan, wicked and ungodly as part of the motivation for ethnic cleansing throughout history, as in recent times of Yugoslavia.

However, is it common to turn that verdict on its head and for a culture to present itself with an indictment for that very same wickedness and ungodliness? Have Serbian extremists ever stated that their people could behave in such a way as to deserve the treatment they have given to Croats, Bosnian Muslims, and Kosovars? Again, as I stated, the difference here in the writings of ancient Israel from surrounding cultures is that herem warfare is given a moral-judgmental justification that is based in the actions of the peoples of the land and not in their bloodlines or geneaology per se. Thus, the proscription can be turned against, and in the texts is in fact turned against, Israel itself for committing the very same sins.

Meanwhile, there are various indications that individuals having an ethnic identity belonging to one of the listed groups for condemnation can find a place in ancient Israelite society. Thus we find Rahab and her family spared in the attack on Jericho, despite the application of the Ban, and we find Uriah the Hittite in David's army, and an Amalekite serving in Saul's army (and these are all texts belonging to the critically-defined "Deuteronomic History"). So these lend further support to the idea that the judgment of Deuteronomy is against a particular cultural system, and not against everyone of a particular physical descent without qualification. The texts suggest opportunities to, in effect, switch systems.

I do not believe that you can cite any examples where Hebrews themselves practiced this cleansing and displacement against other Hebrews.

No, but certain Hebrew writers ascribed this practice to God as the covenantal sovereign of the nation (see Leviticus 18:24-29, 20:22; Deuteronomy 28:30-33; Jeremiah 21:8. 38:2 & 17-18) - just as they ascribed the command for herem against the Canaanites as coming from YHWH.

The Hebrews, Canaanites, and Amorites were different ethnic peoples with different religious beliefs in close proximity, and in the case of ancient ethnic peoples this leads to a territorial turf war.

However, I don't think the general principle of "territorial turf war for ethnic peoples in close proximity" is a sufficient and necessary explanation for the application of herem on the part of Israel. Remember that in the text the Ban is always limited to the Canaanites of the land and to the Amalekites. Why is it not extended to, say, the Ammonites, Moabites, and Edomites, who are in "close proximity" to Israel and engage in conflict with her frequently throughout her history? Mesha of Moab extends herem to an Israelite settlement, but nowhere are there any indications in the narratives that the "honor" is reciprocated.

It is more realistic to assume that these ancient people justified their actions in the name of God, and not God ordering such actions against other people.

That indeed is a possibility, but I think that it is too easy to readily jump to the conclusion without first engaging the biblical writings in all their complexity.

Thank you for the interaction, the compliment, and the pearls! I appreciate the balanced discussion.

FormerFundy:

In Niditch's case, she sees something of an evolution in Israel's thinking on cherem , at first it was seen both as a vow and as a judgment. Later, the idea of a vow or sacrifice to YHWH was dropped according to her.

Interesting. I'll have to look into that some more.

[InChristAlways]

This person gave an interesting commentary on the genocidal incidents in the OT. It appears Israel was the "lucky one" designated by God to put every man woman and child to the sword in the OT.

But could that have been turned back on them in the future?

For example look at zeph 1 and notice Judah and Jerusalem are mentioned. It appears that they brought back on their own heads what the rendered to their enemies in the OT. I just thought this was interesting. Blessings.

Zeph 1:2 " I will utterly consume everything From the face of the land," Says the LORD; 3 "I will consume man and beast; I will consume the birds of the heavens, The fish of the sea, And the stumbling blocks along with the wicked. I will cut off man from the face of the land," Says the LORD. 4 "I will stretch out My hand against Judah, And against all the inhabitants of Jerusalem. I will cut off every trace of Baal from this place, The names of the idolatrous priests with the [pagan] priests --

http://www.awitness.org/contrabib/history/genress.html
The victims of genocide in the Bible do not remain in their graves, instead of rising repeatedly from the ashes, to deliver testimony to the actual political and ideological conflicts found on the pages of the Bible. The Bible is composed of multiple sources, and these sources represent different political and ideological viewpoints. An interesting example of what I mean can be found when we consider the ‘multiple massacres' of the Bible. As I indicated in the section on the book of Joshua, nations wiped out by Joshua make a miraculous resurrection from the dead in the book of Judges. They rise zombie like from the ashes to fight Israel again, and apparently nothing short of a silver bullet would suffice to put them down once and for all.

Christ was not the messiah that Jews of the first century were expecting. They were expecting the appearance of a Joshua type character, a powerful military figure who would lead Israel in holy warfare resulting in swift world domination. Both Joshua of the Jewish Testament and the Messiah of the Church Testament were named ‘Joshua', but the ‘Joshua' of the first century disavowed temporal power and certainly was not the conquering military "Joshua" character described by Jewish eschatology of the day. It was said that for these reasons the Jewish people ‘missed the time of their visitation'. Now it would appear that by selecting Joshua, the genocidal war hero, and making the necessary nullifications of prophets and the first century Joshua (not to mention nullifying ordinary principles of common morality) many churches have repeated the same mistake.

[dbaeder]

The point you argue assumes that there are (or were) some innocent or some good and that for some reason God owed them something. Who are you oh man to judge the innocense or goodness of someone else? By whose standards do you judge them to be good or innocent? Woe to you who call evil good and good evil! Only those blind to their own wickedness would deify man and vilify God.

I wonder if blasphemy in the name of theology is a good thing!?

So genocide is good?

Killing innocent children is good?

Explain the particulars of your morality to me, because I just don't quite get it.

Human beings know right from wrong because they are born with a moral sense, an innate knowledge of right and wrong which allows them live in civilized societies. None of us can avoid our nature, and we can hardly avoid applying our moral sense to any other entity, including mythical invisible beings like Gods and spirits.

I couldn't keep from judging God any more than I could help judging you if you were to commit genocide. It is in my nature to call you out, declare you evil, and do what I can to bring justice to bear. Sure it's a pointless excercise to attempt to bring justice to a invisible impotent mythical being described in some ancient text.. but even myths and legends can stir the moral sentiment.

Even Christians agree on this point. I would like to hear you answer the questions above in the affirmative.. after all why "can't" god commit genocide and still be Good? If God defines good, there should be no problem with Christians just accepting this. But they can't. Most Christians can't bring themselves to admit their God commits murder and genocide by conscious choice when he could do otherwise. They explain these acts by imagining extenuating circumstances which require God to commit these egregious acts in order to bring about some greater good. The only problem is that God is not constrained to do so. He can save the innocent children and destroy the sinners. He can simply transport the occupants of palestine to some other part of the world instead of exterminating them, or even raise some other land from the sea for the israelites where they don't need to ravage, rape and pillage amongst their neighbors.

[Rationalist]

The point you argue assumes that there are (or were) some innocent or some good and that for some reason God owed them something. Who are you oh man to judge the innocense or goodness of someone else? By whose standards do you judge them to be good or innocent? Woe to you who call evil good and good evil! Only those blind to their own wickedness would deify man and vilify God.

I wonder if blasphemy in the name of theology is a good thing!?

What kind of barking nonsense is this?

I am a MAN. I live, I have a right I claim for myself and for all others like me to not be arbitrarily tortured, killed, maimed, murdered, or abused. If you deny this, you deny any basis for any sort of real morality whatsoever.

I reject any claim outright that any person, NO MATTER HOW POWERFUL, automatically has the right to torture, maim, or kill any man, woman, or child without a just cause, and that does not include a blanket assumption of belenvolence for such acts. Any being who commits such acts while refusing to provide a reasonable defense for those acts is commiting evil, NO MATTER HOW POWERFUL HE IS.

If you believe that your God instilled in you the ability to know right from wrong, you must reject the God written in the Bible as evil. If you do believe that God is all good, then you must necessarily believe that the God you worship and the God of the Bible are two different beings. In fact, you must assume that the Bible is in error, and that the true benevolent God would never have commited these acts.

[dbaeder]

What kind of barking nonsense is this?

I am a MAN. I live, I have a right I claim for myself and for all others like me to not be arbitrarily tortured, killed, maimed, murdered, or abused. If you deny this, you deny any basis for any sort of real morality whatsoever.

I reject any claim outright that any person, NO MATTER HOW POWERFUL, automatically has the right to torture, maim, or kill any man, woman, or child without a just cause, and that does not include a blanket assumption of belenvolence for such acts. Any being who commits such acts while refusing to provide a reasonable defense for those acts is commiting evil, NO MATTER HOW POWERFUL HE IS.

If you believe that your God instilled in you the ability to know right from wrong, you must reject the God written in the Bible as evil. If you do believe that God is all good, then you must necessarily believe that the God you worship and the God of the Bible are two different beings. In fact, you must assume that the Bible is in error, and that the true benevolent God would never have commited these acts.

Your assumption that God would "torture, maim, or kill any man, woman, or child without a just cause" is the weakness of your case. You have grossly overestimated the goodness of man. God acts in judgement because man is evil. There is no one who is good. What God did to the Canaanites is what we all deserve. It is only by his grace that we live even one day. The cause of God is just.

The ability to know right from wrong is not something that God instilled in us. It is something that God revealed to us. While God placed within us a conscience, the conscience is not a reliable indicator of right and wrong.

The God of the Bible is a God who is all good. It is only our own wickedness that prevents us from seeing this. When God acts in judgement it is good. One day, God will destroy the earth and everything in it. In doing so he will be completely just.

Only a fool asks God for justice. Seek mercy.