Freethought & Rationalism Archive

lpetrich · 10-04-2007, 12:48 PM

I find it curious that some defenders of the Bible are willing to defend Biblical genocide, like the writer of Termites and Canaanites, who argued that those Canaanites were so evil that they deserve to be exterminated like termites.

I have even proposed a Formal Debate challenge on that subject, Biblical Genocide?

Somehow, I was reminded of termite-squasher A.S.A. Jones of ex-atheist.com, who claimed that she did it because she saw little difference between humanity and termites.

Clouseau · 10-04-2007, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

I find it curious that some defenders of the Bible are willing to defend Biblical genocide, like the writer of Termites and Canaanites, who argued that those Canaanites were so evil that they deserve to be exterminated like termites.

That seems a bit unfair on termites.

John Kesler · 10-04-2007, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

I find it curious that some defenders of the Bible are willing to defend Biblical genocide, like the writer of Termites and Canaanites, who argued that those Canaanites were so evil that they deserve to be exterminated like termites.

2 Kings 21 is appropos for this topic:

Quote:

8 I will not cause the feet of Israel to wander any more out of the land that I gave to their ancestors, if only they will be careful to do according to all that I have commanded them, and according to all the law that my servant Moses commanded them." 9 But they did not listen; Manasseh misled them to do more evil than the nations had done that Yahweh destroyed before the people of Israel.
10 Yahweh said by his servants the prophets, 11 "Because King Manasseh of Judah has committed these abominations, has done things more wicked than all that the Amorites did, who were before him, and has caused Judah also to sin with his idols; 12 therefore thus says Yahweh, the God of Israel, I am bringing upon Jerusalem and Judah such evil that the ears of everyone who hears of it will tingle. 13 I will stretch over Jerusalem the measuring line for Samaria, and the plummet for the house of Ahab; I will wipe Jerusalem as one wipes a dish, wiping it and turning it upside down. 14 I will cast off the remnant of my heritage, and give them into the hand of their enemies; they shall become a prey and a spoil to all their enemies, 15 because they have done what is evil in my sight and have provoked me to anger, since the day their ancestors came out of Egypt, even to this day."

Those who argue that the Canaanites' wickedness justified their extermination must explain what was accomplished by exterminating whole tribes of people, only to replace them with a people who were even more wicked.

Julian · 10-04-2007, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Dawkins

As it happens, the story of Joshua in Jericho is the subject of an interesting experiment in child morality, by the Israeli psychologist, George Tamarin. Tamarin presented to more than 1,000 Israeli schoolchildren aged between 8 and 14, the Book of Joshua's account of the Battle of Jericho. He then asked the children a simple moral question: Do you think Joshua and the Israelites acted rightly or not? They had to choose between A (total approval) B (partial approval) and C (total disapproval). The results were polarised: 66% gave total approval, and 26% total disapproval, with rather fewer, 8%, in the middle with partial approval.

Here are three typical answers from the Total Approval A group.

'I my opinion, Joshua and the sons of Israel acted well, and here are the reasons: God promised them this land, and gave them permission to conquer. If they would not have acted in this manner, or killed anyone, then there would be the danger that the Sons of Israel would have assimilated among the Goyen.'

'In my opinion Joshua was right when he did it, one reason being that God commanded him to exterminate the people so that the tribes of Israel will not be able to assimilate amongst them and learn their bad ways.'

'Joshua did good because the people who inhabited the land were of a different religion, and when Joshua killed them, he wiped their religion from the earth.'

The justification for the genocidal massacre by Joshua is religious in every case. Even those in Category C who gave total disapproval, did so in some cases for backhanded religious reasons. One girl for example, disapproved of Joshua's conquering Jericho because in order to do so he had to enter it.

'I think it is bad since the Arabs are impure and if one enters an impure land, one will also become impure and share their curse'

Tamarin ran a fascinating control group in his experiment. A different group of 168 Israeli children were given the same text from the Book of Joshua, but with Joshua's own name replaced by General Lin and Israel replaced by a Chinese kingdom 3,000 years ago. Now the experiment gave opposite results. Only 7% approved of General Lin's behaviour and 75% disapproved. In other words, when their loyalty to Judaism was removed from the calculation, the majority of the children agreed with the moral judgments that most modern humans would share. Joshua's action was a deed of barbaric genocide. But it all looks different from a religious point of view, and the difference starts early in life. It was religion that made the difference between children condemning genocide and condoning it.

from here: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundb...06/1794986.htm

It boggles the mind.

Julian

Amedeo · 10-04-2007, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

I find it curious that some defenders of the Bible are willing to defend Biblical genocide, like the writer of Termites and Canaanites, who argued that those Canaanites were so evil that they deserve to be exterminated like termites.

I have even proposed a Formal Debate challenge on that subject, Biblical Genocide?

Somehow, I was reminded of termite-squasher A.S.A. Jones of ex-atheist.com, who claimed that she did it because she saw little difference between humanity and termites.

Why are you surprised? Because it was [advocated as a ] genocide (extermination), or because the deed against enemies and obstacles to progress was not plunder/swindling [as of the Egyptians] or massacre (as God said to a psalmist about the Philistines: kill every man, woman, and child)?

thoughtpaperjesus · 10-04-2007, 02:54 PM

The only ones who have a different opinion are the theists who believe God did it, and the burden of explanation rests on them.

Theists who attribute this to human error are of the same opinion as atheists. And that is, genocide is not moral in any human sense of morality.

Let me introduce a weak argument I think the theists who believe God did this must always resort to.

"God Said So Argument" If you believe God actually said to do something, and he is the all-powerful, all-knowing being, then he is right -- regardless of any human perspective of morality.

There's no way to argue that because it's not based on anything in this world -- only God's rightness and trueness.

The whole issue is religious in the highest respect -- belief in the "morality" of it is not the question because God in his "transcendent wisdom" is above our perception, above our morality. It's a question of your belief in God, whether he did cause that to happen (uh, but doesn't He cause all things to happen), and whether or not that then aligns with human morality.

If you cannot align this "God morality" with our "human morality" then you revert to the "God said so" belief that God is somehow above human morality, or different than, better than, and we just don't know it.

If that is the case, you can only defend "God's position" from the position of ignorance and helplessly murmur "faith in God" when stacked up against all the sane, and oh-so-human reasons we can give to back up this social invention called morality, and how that doesn't include such horrific actions.

The burden of proof rests on the theists to convince us that God's decision was the right and moral one -- if this challenge cannot be met, "God said so" or "God knows best, I just can't..." is not sufficient. In the end, it's impossible to convince a theist that argument is not valid, because the belief in God holds many insufficient beliefs as truths -- this is where it gets its power. Doesn't seem like there is much left to argue in that scenario -- just a bunch of reaffirmations of weak beliefs with a supremely radical support -- the foundation: God.

Clouseau · 10-04-2007, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

I find it curious that some defenders of the Bible are willing to defend Biblical genocide, like the writer of Termites and Canaanites, who argued that those Canaanites were so evil that they deserve to be exterminated like termites.

Surely one needs to step back and take a wider perspective, and accept the Bible's premises before making judgments. If one is to close one's mind to the possibility that the Bible deity is the creator of everything and has a higher moral standard than we tend to have, one may come to different conclusions compared to those one would get if treating the deity as on the same level as oneself. We should not presume that we have a right to life. Surely what the deity gives, the deity can take away. If we abuse the right to life, and we do, why should we have life and breath?

Perhaps it is true that none of us deserves to live, even the best of us being harmful to others and to ourselves- greedy, lazy, arrogant, mendacious, impure and hateful- worse than a waste of space. Maybe if the deity gets rid of some of the worst influences in the world, the world becomes a better place. Maybe the deity should have a clean-out more often. And maybe a quick sword in the belly is nothing compared to an ineluctable eternity of shameful self-hatred.

thoughtpaperjesus · 10-04-2007, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

We should not presume that we have a right to life. Surely what the deity gives, the deity can take away. If we abuse the right to life, and we do, why should we have life and breath?

So if I bring my daughter into the world, I now have a right to her life? I mean, if this ungrateful child doesn't appreciate the gift of life that only came about because of my intervention, I should kill her right? There is no other reason she could be feeling that way. Perhaps being a condescending dad made her that way -- perhaps because I ignored her and never gave guidance she became that way -- but NAH, instead of taking responsibility, because I brought her into the world I can now kill her for not appreciating me or life relentlessly like "a good girl ought to"!!!!!!

Ah I am starting to see the whole God appeal! =\

Really though, that is nonsense. God has a right to our life because he gave it to us? Then how can God blame or punish us for his creation? If he did give us life he also gave us the condition we grew up in, and is responsible, directly, for the choices we make -- if we happen to choose "evil" he should kill us to save ourselves? Yeah that seems like a radical solution in ANY sense -- if my daughter were suffering I would not kill her to ease it -- there seem to be a bajillion other viable, human, moral solutions -- that compared to the one God offers? He's evil.

figuer · 10-04-2007, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

Maybe if the deity gets rid of some of the worst influences in the world, the world becomes a better place. Maybe the deity should have a clean-out more often. And maybe a quick sword in the belly is nothing compared to an ineluctable eternity of shameful self-hatred.

Your deity is very similar to Stalin and Hitler.

How would you like someone saying that Christians such as yourself deserve a quick sword in the belly, as it would make the world a better place??

Closeau, how is this perception of divinely justified slaying any diferent from that of Muslim terrorists?

thoughtpaperjesus · 10-04-2007, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by figuer

How would you like someone saying that Christians such as yourself deserve a quick sword in the belly, as it would make the world a better place??

I think he'd probably agree -- all of humans have no right to live! haha I guess God made a monumental mistake then. Not so omnipotent now, eh? Humans would be proof!

10-04-2007, 12:48 PM	#1
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Defending Biblical Genocide? I find it curious that some defenders of the Bible are willing to defend Biblical genocide, like the writer of Termites and Canaanites, who argued that those Canaanites were so evil that they deserve to be exterminated like termites. I have even proposed a Formal Debate challenge on that subject, Biblical Genocide? Somehow, I was reminded of termite-squasher A.S.A. Jones of ex-atheist.com, who claimed that she did it because she saw little difference between humanity and termites.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-04-2007, 02:54 PM	#6
thoughtpaperjesus Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 113	The only ones who have a different opinion are the theists who believe God did it, and the burden of explanation rests on them. Theists who attribute this to human error are of the same opinion as atheists. And that is, genocide is not moral in any human sense of morality. Let me introduce a weak argument I think the theists who believe God did this must always resort to. "God Said So Argument" If you believe God actually said to do something, and he is the all-powerful, all-knowing being, then he is right -- regardless of any human perspective of morality. There's no way to argue that because it's not based on anything in this world -- only God's rightness and trueness. The whole issue is religious in the highest respect -- belief in the "morality" of it is not the question because God in his "transcendent wisdom" is above our perception, above our morality. It's a question of your belief in God, whether he did cause that to happen (uh, but doesn't He cause all things to happen), and whether or not that then aligns with human morality. If you cannot align this "God morality" with our "human morality" then you revert to the "God said so" belief that God is somehow above human morality, or different than, better than, and we just don't know it. If that is the case, you can only defend "God's position" from the position of ignorance and helplessly murmur "faith in God" when stacked up against all the sane, and oh-so-human reasons we can give to back up this social invention called morality, and how that doesn't include such horrific actions. The burden of proof rests on the theists to convince us that God's decision was the right and moral one -- if this challenge cannot be met, "God said so" or "God knows best, I just can't..." is not sufficient. In the end, it's impossible to convince a theist that argument is not valid, because the belief in God holds many insufficient beliefs as truths -- this is where it gets its power. Doesn't seem like there is much left to argue in that scenario -- just a bunch of reaffirmations of weak beliefs with a supremely radical support -- the foundation: God.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.