waked

Whenever any one discusses the genocide in the bible the favorite defense will be that you must read the Bible verses in historical context. I know it is a flawed defense but I need some tips to help me to solidify my rebuttal.
Any volunteers ?

spin

I agree with the defense. The historical context was different from today. (It would be wrong today for example to bomb Afghanistan into the stone age or kill a couple of hundred thousand Iraqis.)

However, admitting that the historical context was different and you should ignore the genocide opens another problem up. What relevance does the rest of the bible have today and who decides which bits are relevant and which aren't? The whole argument of the bible not being arbitrary, but being a book for all times, is undermined. If you should ignore that bit, why shouldn't you ignore other bits you don't like for ethical or other reasons?


spin

Roger Pearse

Under no circumstances address the issue of where you get the moral value that you are using as a standard here. That is the actual fallacy in the whole argument -- a silent appeal to something in which you probably don't, in fact, believe.

All we're actually doing with this sort of argument is appealing to the contemporary cultural value that "genocide is wrong". (Unless, of course, we have some absolute moral standard handy).

As such we're open to the objection that the attack is not what it appears to be -- an allegation that the bible is immoral as judged by absolute moral standards applicable then and now -- but merely a complaint that the bible doesn't conform to current shibboleths.

These, of course change over time. There have been regimes in the last 100 years that didn't consider there was any such thing as absolute morality, and that considered that genocide was acceptable.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Hex

On a whimsical note, I -want- to say that by reading in context you get to see that -those- genocides were done under God's orders (Just like all those Nazis).


But I do like Spin's take. The modern universality of views of genocide, especially informed or intentional genocide, precludes that context really makes a difference.

Why, perchance didn't they just 'enslave' all these folks, rather than wiping them out and dashing their baby's heads against the stones? Economically, that would make more sense for a growing nation.

Basically, what we see in Biblical genocides is removal of biological/geneological competition. Though, I do wonder how that's any better in context ...

Amaleq13

It is simply absurd to claim that an "absolute moral standard" is necessary to conclude that attempting to wipe out an entire group of people simply for being members of that group is wrong. You certainly don't have to believe in a magical, superpowered rule-giver to reach this conclusion.

TomboyMom

One part of the historical context that they usually want to refer to is their unsubstantiated assertion that the Hittites, Midianites, Perrizites, Amalekites, Jebusites, Moabites, and all the other --ites in the surrounding neighborhood were very, very evil and deserved to be exterminated down to their tiny babies because they practiced idol worship, homosexuality and child sacrifice. The thing is, they never have a single historical cite to back any of this up, and then they always want you to read this completely biased apologist named Glenn Miller, who is absolutely ponderous. I can't sludge through it. anyway, the obvious counter argument is, oh yeah, got a source for the evil practices of the Jebusites? Not to mention that infanticide as a way to prevent child sacrifice is just a tad illogical.

Clivedurdle

I cannot see how stating killing infants three thousand years ago is in some way not as wrong as it is today is in any way a logical argument.

Why is history or time relevant, and why is there this assumption of an absolute moral code about these matters?

Do we state maths is an absolute code because we state one plus one equals two?

Why should we not come to a similar conclusion about past events - we can't do anything about them, so isn't it only a logical - not a moral - conclusion?

3DJay

The same people using that defense, also say that God is unchanging...God is perfect, and it's impossible to become more perfect...meaning their version of God will always think genocide is okay, no matter what time period we're in. Historical context is meanignless.


Peace

John Kesler

Try this for a "moral value" to use as a "standard": "In everything do to others as you would have them do to you..." (Matthew 7:12).

To their credit, the editors of The New American Bible condemn the herem/ban practiced by the ancient Israelites, and affix this annotation regarding 1 Samuel 15:


TomboyMom: You may be interested in the series of articles beginning here, which "sludges through" Glenn Miller's article.

John Kesler

A typical defense is that economically, the Israelites were in no position to feed and clothe any captives from other nations--not even the women and children. However, this argument is undermined by Deuteronomy 20, which allows for the assimilation of captive people and their belongings, as long as they were not Canaanites. This directive betrays the fact that the real reason for "the ban" was not economics.