BadBadBad

Excuse me Lee? God killed by hailstone. God commanded Joshua kill all that breathe. Joshua took the entire land just as God commanded. There's no contradiction there. God fought with and for the Israelites. God delivered some for Joshua to kill. God killed some and delivered the land as promised. Those that Joshua killed he killed by the edge of the sword just as God commanded. That's what the story says, and there's no denying it.

11:20 For it was of the LORD to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that he might destroy them utterly, and that they might have no favour, but that he might destroy them, as the LORD commanded Moses.

Same story different chapter. Thanks for the quote. It helps my case. God destroyed all that breathe through Moses and Joshua. He hardened their hearts so that they would go against the Israelites and their God. So that he could then claim justice in showing no mercy. Then he commanded Moses and Joshua to do just that by the edge of the sword.


I don't need to insist that God commanded Joshua to kill all that breathe by the edge of the sword. It's a main theme of three chapters of the Bible. Whether it was all instances or some or one instance, it's a major theme of this epic story. The story said God commanded Joshua to kill all that breathe by the edge of the sword. How can you honestly deny that?

Just when I'm thinking that this argument can't get any more assinine, it does. For days you've been denying God commanded Joshua to kill by the edge of the sword. I just wasted my time arguing that point with you. Now you're admitting it. God commanded Joshua to kill all that breathe by the edge of the sword. Which is it? Are you admitting it or denying it? Now you've done both.

You'd carry out a just command, and you believe God's command to Joshua to kill all that breathe, men women and children by the edge of the sword was just. This is another point I've been arguing with you about, and now you're admitting both that the command was just, and that you would kill the baby. Why have you wasted my time so, Lee. Why didn't you just simply answer yes you would kill the baby in a heartbeat, praise God Halelujah from the very beginning? Why have you wasted my time so?

So look, I think we may be nearly done here. You've admitted that God commanded Joshua to kill all that breathe by the edge of the sword. You've admitted that this command was just. You've admitted that you would carry out a just command from God. So, here is the sword. Take it. It's a little slimy and slippery with all that blood so take it with a firm grip.

We're really just down to a couple of questions.

1. Given all your equivocations reaking of cognitive dissonance, will you actually go through with killing this baby?

2. What is the name of your loved one I'm about to kill?

3. How much brutality and cruelty will you decide is necessary to satisfy God's vengeance.

4. Where will you hack or stab the child first? Given it's your first kill and you still have your stamina, will you just go for a clean decapitation? Will you stab your sword into his chest and look to the mother as he screams? Will you just hack off an arm and take your time relishing in his abject horror of a drawn out lengthy and tortuous slaughter?

You see, once you get beyond the reliability of the command's devine origin and its objective morality and justice, you actually have to do it. You actually have to decide on the details of slaughtering a child. Whether that causes you any difficulties or not, you have to do that being perfectly aware of the consequences of carrying out this act in contradiction to human morality. You have to carry out God's command as I slaughter your loved one. It's OK. Just think of Matthew 10 and demonstrating your love for Christ more than your mother. I'm sure that will get you some extra points from God.

Have a nice day in Joshua's slaughterfield.

John A. Broussard

Thank you, lee. You've now clearly demonstrated that your god could not in any way have prevented that suffering.

Your god then is not an all-powerful god. That's what I wanted to find out.

Again, thank you for your frankness.

andrewcriddle

It is reasonably clear from archaeological evidence that there was no full blown genocide during the period of Israelite origins.

It is possible but IMO unlikely that the whole idea of the sacred ban has no historical basis at all and that the whole tradition is a parable about religious committal invented in much later times.

(The reason I don't think this likely is that the sacred ban is found in a number of different OT narratives eg 1 Kings 15 that are prima facie more historical than Joshua.)

However, the moral problem IMO only really arises if there was some historical basis to the violent events in Joshua.
IMO it involves acts of bravery committal dedication and brutality carried out in order to to do God's will as understood at that time.

Andrew Criddle

John A. Broussard

But the lack of any historical basis for a document that is widely circulated as being historically accurate may have equally disastrous consequences. Take the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as an example.

There are theists today who fully accept the rapine, pillage and wholesale massacres described in the OT as both historically accurate and morally justified. They may also accept the Protocols in the same way, for all I know.

andrewcriddle

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion were intended in their present form to promote anti-Semitism.

I don't regard the book of Joshua in its present form as intended to promote genocide.

Andrew Criddle

Biff the unclean

Gee, it's a good thing then that nobody thinks the Holy Bible is a moral guide

John A. Broussard

Take a look at what I said.

I was not speaking about the intentions of either Joshua or the Protocols. I was speaking of the consequences of those writings.

My feeling is that the genocidal mania in Joshua was probably every bit as damaging (and certainly much longer lasting) than the racism inspired by the Protocols.

I'm willing to look at any evidence you have about the consequences of these writings. Intentions are often meaningless. I doubt that the Newsweek writers intended to cause death and destruction in the Moslem world.

andrewcriddle

I'm think it sadly plausible that Joshua has been used to justify deplorable acts.

However, I'm not sure of good examples where it was explicitly used in this way.

Spanish actions in Mexico and South America might be an example but that was more the use of the Bible to justify the destruction of a culture than justifying the massacre of people.

Andrew Criddle

Biff the unclean

God, not Joshua, God is used to justify deplorable acts. Joshua was only doing what God ordered him to do, so was Moses, so was Abraham. The fictional God in these stories orderes the characters to do terrible things. Believers in this God then claim the terrible and the moral are one in the same because they are the actions/commands of God.

That's the point of this whole thing. But you know that already.

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

Because she didn't know God, just as the person I proposed from around the world didn't know your friend.

Yes, I'm mentioning possibilities, not proclaiming I know actual details here.

Then someone training for the Olympics is a masochist? Their coach is a sadist?

It's more than that, though!

Hebrews 11:35 And others were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection.

Yes, that pain is inappropriate to the reward. There are, however, pains appropriate to rewards, such as studying diligently for a degree!

And an Olympic medal to everyone? That would mean the medal was rather empty, though, like the diploma mills that issue PhDs for a song.

We also read that some Canaanites remained in the land, and yet we read next of conquest "As God had commanded," yet this former statement reflects possible variance from completely carrying out God's command.

Judges 1:27-28 But Manasseh did not drive out the people of Beth Shan or Taanach or Dor or Ibleam or Megiddo and their surrounding settlements, for the Canaanites were determined to live in that land. When Israel became strong, they pressed the Canaanites into forced labor but never drove them out completely.

Yes, I agree, all these events were inherently supernatural, not natural actions done by the strength of Joshua and the Israelites, who were well outnumbered, as far as I can tell. God did this, primarily, and then we need to ask next if God has this prerogative.

2 Kings 5:7 As soon as the king of Israel read the letter, he tore his robes and said, "Am I God? Can I kill and bring back to life?"

Well, I'm not saying the procedure was necessarily just or unjust, I am saying the decree that this was their time of death was just.

I have not said what you said, but I have said I would carry out a sentence that was just, that was from God, even involving a person's death, from the beginning.

Well, I still do not say that the sword was commanded to be used, especially since God sent hailstones (Josh. 10:11), and other supernatural events in carrying out this decree:

Joshua 24:12 I sent the hornet ahead of you, which drove them out before you-- also the two Amorite kings. You did not do it with your own sword and bow.

Again, you are writing a script here, historical fiction is not therefore history, nor is it a requirement in the future.

Deuteronomy 7:19 You saw with your own eyes the great trials, the miraculous signs and wonders, the mighty hand and outstretched arm, with which the Lord your God brought you out. The Lord your God will do the same to all the peoples you now fear.

Unless suffering can have a result that brings good. That is real power! Bringing good from unremitting good circumstances is quite easy. Bringing good out of a cross, is not.

1 Corinthians 1:23-24 But we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

Regards,
Lee