rickP

What I have noticed is that the theists who try to defend the OT massacres in general are using this approach: Who are you to call God evil?

The problem is that the argument is based on their a priori acceptance in the existence of god. They are chastising non-theists for criticizing the actions of God. They are missing the point.

Non-Theist...no Gods. We are not criticizing God...we don't believe in its existence. I think the point is to show that the extreme barbarity and absurdity of the stories corroborates the idea that these were just theo-political writings to justify the past actions of the Israelites...assuming they occured at all (Ref: The Bible Unearthed).

The approach of God did it, so it must have been Good is circular reasoning because it assumes the existence of the protagonist in the first place.

MadMez

The worship and obedience to a god and his commandments thousands of years ago by people who can have known no other rational save that taught by the best minds in their tribe and from their elders is, in my mind, understandable.

The most horrific punishment doled out then in the name of any deity cannot be judged absurd by us nowadays, as we have no idea what other influences played on the minds of the tribe’s people then. Laying one tribe’s myths and morals against another’s cannot be very enlightening because we don’t know all the reasons for them.

What ranks as insane for me is the worship of a deity used then for guidance, morals. etc by us now, despite the wealth of knowledge we now have. Comparing the need for an ancient Israeli tribe to gain land to survive by wiping out another in the name of its god, to a modern civilization’s struggle with terrorism as a way to claim this “god� was not cruel is asinine in the extreme. Please try to get out more.

Mr. Bird

BoroNut:

I remember seeing that same documentary!

Mageth

But the picture portrayed in the OT has the Israelites as the "growing wave of terrorism" invading the territories of the civilizations they allegedly wiped out (personally, I think these tales of Israel's conquests are greatly exaggerated).

The Bible is the source from which you come to the conclusion that the "other cultures had far worse morals." In actuality, they appear to have been about as moral as the Israelites, if not more so (their main "moral crime" was not worshipping the Israelite war God, instead worshipping their Gods such as Baal). And you're comparing their morals as alleged in the OT to the "morals" of the Hebrew culture as laid out in the OT. IOW, you're saying "those cultures didn't share the moral system and laws of the Israelites." Not a very strong argument for justifying the Israelites invading them and massacreing men, women, and children.

CX

But that isn't how it is presented. Rather the proto-israelites are depicted as the invading force. It isn't self-preservation, it's conquest. And the method of conquest cannot be described by any other word than "genocide". They wipe out everyone. Not just the fighting force, everyone. I don't see how any thinking person can help but be disgusted by the brutality of it. Secondly you claim that, "The other cultures had far worse morals than did Israel." According to what standard? The hebrews? That's circular reasoning. And based on what evidence? The Bible? You're hardly likely to get an objective assessment from the very document that's justifying the conquest to begin with. Do you trust radical Muslim sources for fair assessment of the morality of the U.S.?

gregor

My reference to Marcionites and gnostics was mostly in reference to Magus' implication that we cannot understand the mind of the 1st Century community. Obviously, people of the 1st century were no less humane than we, hence the creation of these schisms.

I made no reference to the balance of Thugpreacha's argument, because the argument is so fallacious that it collapses from its own weight. It bears absolutely no relationship to the OT, as many posters mentioned.

And btw - but for the coincidences of history, and gnosticism would be the norm, and gospelists would be the marginalized heretics.

Sarpedon

And yes, there were more humane methods of executing people in ye olde times. For example Socrates. They executed him by having him drink hemlock. He died peacefully, and in his own words, painlessly, with his friends with him, whom he was allowed to say farewell to. This, I think, is a very dignified way to go about the nasty business of judicial killing. Now the Greeks were certainly more civilized and advanced than the hebrews of a milennium or so earlier, but its not as if hemlock or other toxic plants were not available to the hebrews. Instead, the hebrews chose a prolonged, inefficient, violent, and extraordinarly painful way to off people. Just think about how many rocks it would take being slung at you before one of them hit you hard enough, and in the right place, to kill you. Even stabbing, or hanging would have been more humane, and don't tell me the hebrews weren't technologically advanced enough to do that. This was a calculated act of cruelty designed to terrify people, don't try to pretend it was otherwise.

GakuseiDon

He died, in his own words, painlessly? I think I know what you mean (he told people as he was dying that he was suffering no pain, right?), I just thought it sounded funny.

brighid

I would also comment about the nature of God and the alleged punishments He has dolled out. If this God is all powerful and the Creator of everything in the Universe why does he need the aide of the Israelites to utterly destroy populations of people? Is he not capable of simply and magically taking them out of existence? Why does he need the Israelites to rip the unborn from the wombs of their mothers, or rape the virgins of the war booty, and dash infants upon stones, or send a bear to maul children who called one of his favorites "baldy"?

This God could have chosen differently, and if He is the loving, merciful, compassionate, absolutely and perfectly good God, incapable of any evil it would seem to me he could NOT order the Israelites to commit acts of genocide, murder, rape, abortion, etc.

Brighid