General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsEnglish "doctor" uses Bible to justify genocide.
It's ok to commit genocide, if one is a Jew, according to this "Christian."
http://pjsaunders.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/ten-things-we-can-learn-from-slaughter.html
left on green only
(1,484 posts)Deep13
(39,154 posts)Archae
(46,328 posts)A lot of it is just propaganda.
"Look how tuff us and OUR God is!"
And even if the Hebrew/Amarite fights actually did occur, it was tribal warfare.
Not some "mission from God."
Deep13
(39,154 posts)I sometimes wonder if all the scary shit Yahweh does in the OT is a kind of ancient version of the mutually assured destruction. In the 20th c., nuclear deterrence meant if they nuke us, we nuke them and everyone dies--no good outcomes. Perhaps a scary god was a way to deter an attack since God would avenge the victims. At a time when people took the existence of gods for granted, it may have had a big psychological effect.
Archae
(46,328 posts)"Our God is tuff, he killed all the first-born sons of the Egyptians!"
"There's no evidence of that happening."
"Godless commie!"
Two cities are built on trade routes.
Good way to prosper back then.
But they are EEEE-VIL, because they were a different religion than the (literally) dirt-poor Hebrews.
Earthquake hits that area, in fact that area is still prone to bad earthquakes.
What is left burns up, just look at the Tokyo 1923 earthquake/fire or the 1906 San Francisco earthquake/fire.
Hebrews hear stories about the disaster say "See? See? Our God destroyed them heathens!"
Deep13
(39,154 posts)It is a social construct that took centuries to evolve. I don't really subscribe to the Marxist view that the elites made up religion to cynically exploit everyone else. In the Middle Ages, for example, the nobility cared what God and His ecclesiastical representatives thought. They often sent first-born sons (not excess children) to the monasteries as an offering to God. In the 11th and 12th centuries, nobles were well aware that their violent and opulent lifestyles were incompatible with Christianity and routinely made gifts of land, cash, and even of themselves to get on God's good side before they died. By the 13th c century, the nobility had decided after several crusades that being a trained killer was consistent with Christianity after all.
Stories like misfortune for ones enemies, especially one's infidel enemies, or apparent answers to prayers were seen as evidence by all concerned of the reality of divine power. In an age when no one had the slightest idea of what was going on, such conclusions, however illogical, seemed like perfectly reasonable and natural explanations. We now know that earthquakes are caused by plate tectonics, disease by germs, and weather by uneven atmospheric heating. So we no longer have an excuse to rely on such explanations, but for those with no knowledge about anything, divine will made sense.
The Magistrate
(95,247 posts)Behind the Aegis
(53,959 posts)Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)The Amorites indulged in sexual immorality, child sacrifice and idolatry. These are serious sins and such a people could not be allowed to survive. The Amorites were called to account for their sins as eventually will every nation - and every person - on the face of the earth. Nations which indulge in sexual immorality (ie. sex outside marriage), kill their children (eg. through abortion) and practise idolatry (ie. greed see Colossians 3:5) today should learn from the fate of the Amorites.
http://pjsaunders.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/ten-things-we-can-learn-from-slaughter.html
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Interpretation of this document. But if you are to justify genocide it does not work.
Also this guy is a doctor...how exactly does science work for this loon?
Archae
(46,328 posts)Shows that the books of Exodus, etc, (Moses, Josua,) were fabrications.
Propaganda.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)And then happened to be the victor in wars with the other Canaanites.
Exodus is just dick-swinging at the local superpower.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Structure of the area is about the 7 century BCE. The book was commissioned by one of the latter kings as nation building. David, a chieftain, not a king, is quite possible the first person mentioned in the Bible, going back to the tenth century.
Why I find the history fascinating, exactly.
cali
(114,904 posts)Arcanetrance
(2,670 posts)one. Furthermore I would think the god of the jews you know the one in the old testament might be a bit pissed he tended to be pissed alot in that book.
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)It's as grounded in reality as The Grinch Who Stole Christmas.
It does not for the basis for our law. It's a book of fables, not unlike Grimms Fairy Tales.
Or as Patton Oswalt says "I'm glad you like a book, but"
muriel_volestrangler
(101,321 posts)http://www.biola.edu/about/
http://faculty.biola.edu/william_craig/
As bad as all of this is, none of it, as far as Im concerned, qualifies as the worst thing about William Lane Craig. Craig has become notorious as defender of (Biblical) genocide, who disturbingly engages in some rhetorical hair-splitting similar to that of defenders of things like the Armenian Genocide. He insists that no one ever really rejects Christianity for intellectual reasons, a delusion which I find incredibly creepy.
And while hes best-known for his arguments for the existence of God and the resurrection of Jesus, hes proven willing to traffic in just about any kind of fundamentalist pseudo-intellectual garbage when its convenient for him. That includes anti-evolutionism, just not young-earthism, which he says hes embarrassed by. It includes using pseudoscience to defend Todd Akins infamous comments about legitimate rape.
And it includes promoting anti-gay pseudoscience and other lies about gay people. That was the topic of my last post about Craig, and the thing that finally may have exhausted my patience for him. As I say in that post, Craig isnt just a bigot, hes a bigot who, when hes clearly losing the argument, instead of putting his energy into pretending his position isnt bigoted, doubles down on spreading lies about a minority that is just now gaining full legal equality.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2013/05/an-index-of-why-william-lane-craig-is-a-dishonest-genocide-defending-creepy-homophobe/
There is one important aspect of my answer that I would change, however. I have come to appreciate as a result of a closer reading of the biblical text that Gods command to Israel was not primarily to exterminate the Canaanites but to drive them out of the land. It was the land that was (and remains today!) paramount in the minds of these Ancient Near Eastern peoples. The Canaanite tribal kingdoms which occupied the land were to be destroyed as nation states, not as individuals. The judgment of God upon these tribal groups, which had become so incredibly debauched by that time, is that they were being divested of their land. Canaan was being given over to Israel, whom God had now brought out of Egypt. If the Canaanite tribes, seeing the armies of Israel, had simply chosen to flee, no one would have been killed at all. There was no command to pursue and hunt down the Canaanite peoples.
It is therefore completely misleading to characterize Gods command to Israel as a command to commit genocide. Rather it was first and foremost a command to drive the tribes out of the land and to occupy it. Only those who remained behind were to be utterly exterminated. There may have been no non-combatants killed at all. That makes sense of why there is no record of the killing of women and children, such as I had vividly imagined. Such scenes may have never taken place, since it was the soldiers who remained to fight. It is also why there were plenty of Canaanite people around after the conquest of the land, as the biblical record attests.
No one had to die in this whole affair. Of course, that fact doesnt affect the moral question concerning the command that God gave, as explained above. But I stand by my previous answer of how God could have commanded the killing of any Canaanites who attempted to remain behind in the land.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-slaughter-of-the-canaanites-re-visited
Craig supports ethnic cleansing and genocide, if God tells the perpetrators to do it. He teaches philosophy, presumably including ethics. Biola is happy for him to teach this.