John A. Broussard

I think I finally understand you. You believe that god is evil, that he actually enjoys watching human suffering. Like Jonathan Edwards, who believed that sinners were in the hands of an angry god. You differ in that you think everyone is in the hands of an angry god.

It makes me wonder.

andrewcriddle

How far Joshua, considered as a historical character was or was not entitled in his circumstances to regard war of annihilation as in accord with God's will, is probably different from what I am entitled in my circumstances to regard as the will of God
There are passages in both OT and NT warning against excessive credulity in alleged miracles. See for example Deuteronomy 13 1-5 and Mark 13:22

I'm not sure what moral position you're arguing from here.
Unless you're advocating some form of pacifism then brutal actions are sometimes acceptable in time of war. Some of the acts described in the narrative of Moses and Joshua IMO could not be justified under any circumstances whatever, but some acts contrary to the modern Geneva convention might in a very different society be inevitable in time of war.

As to the issue of brutality and cruelty. In some ancient records such as the Assyrians there are explicit descriptions of death by torture of captives in war. We don't have anything like this here. The narrative regards the killingas as carried out without gratuitous suffering.

(IMO the argument that if the narrative is taken as accurate history then, given the crude weapons in Bronze Age times, death would be very painful, may or may not be true, but involves an unhelpful crude literalism. As the narrative stands the killings appear to occur efficiently and quickly.)
This seems to be a side issue. More about the question: Would you do what you believed to be your duty even if it would cost the life of your loved one ?, than about what is or is not one's duty.

Eg it seems similar to the question: Would you give the order to drop the atom bomb on the capital (which you believe necessary to end the war) if the other side are holding your family hostage ?
The commands are clearly problematic in that they involve setting aside the default position as to behaviour, ie do not kill, in response to special circumstances.

There is therefore at least a very real risk that a claim that God commands setting aside the default position as to behaviour is a delusion and not truly God's will at all.


I've tried to answer you point by point but for any further useful discussion I think you should clarify whether your position is that say something like the Geneva convention is morally obligatory in all possible societies under all possible circumstances or whether you're arguing that the specific circumstances in say the time of Joshua fall far short of justifying the brutal measures described in the narrative.

Andrew Criddle

BadBadBad

What an equivocation! You're in complete denial Lee. God didn't always command Joshua to kill by the edge of the sword? That's your defense? So, are you admitting that God commanded Joshua to kill at least once by the edge of the sword?

Joshua 10:40 So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded.

He even held the "sun" still so that Joshua could keep on killing.

10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

Now why would he do that if he hadn't commanded Joshua? Joshua killed all that breath by the edge of the sword over and over and over “as the Lord God of Israel commanded.� What part of this verse do you not understand? It’s an explicit reference that God commanded Joshua to kill by the edge of the sword ... multiple times. That’s what the story says across Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Joshua. Those that occupied the promised lands were judged by God to be wicked and utterly worthy of destruction. God’s judgment, wrath, and vengeance was carried out by Joshua by the edge of the sword. You are simply in denial.

This is like a Monty Python dead parrot skit. the pet shop skit

That's what you'd like to do, but there is just no way these stories can be seen as anything but brutally violent "as the LORD God of Israel commanded."

How is killing not brutally violent? Are you trying to say God intended people to just line up willingly to have Joshua end their lives painlessly and peacefully?

Fine it's God's prerogative, for the sake of argument, to command Joshua kill all that breathe by the edge of the sword. If you think that's pertinent and it helps you make a decision, fine. Now answer the question. Would you butcher the child?

You won't sin for God. Uh, you've got a slight problem here Lee. If God commands you to do anything it's not a sin to respond to his command. By definition, it's a sin to not obey God's command. How is it a sin against God to obey him?

If God says it's just and moral to butcher the baby and he commands you to be the executioner, would you do it? Why would you not be eager to carry out God's justice? Why would you not be proud to obey the Lord God?

Fine. Tell me it's just to kill babies at God's command. Be careful though, I think I just started to slit your loved one's throat.

God's delight in seeing babies butchered or his utter sadness is totally irrellevant to his justice, vengeance, and wrath as clearly described in DT 32:41

And the story of Joshua gives you such a motive. God's motive is absolute justice, vengeance, and his promise to Abraham. Is that sufficient to confirm God's command to butcher the baby? He is a sinner right?

DT 7:2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:

God's command through Joshua is for you to hack this baby to death with this sword. Even though God may have granted some exceptions and some mercy, this baby isn't one of them. You are to show no mercy. The only leeway you have is in just how much brutality and cruelty is required to satisfy God's vengeance. This is the script as told in your Bible. I'm not writing it.

The Bible doesn't assign a cruel and brutal motive to God in commanding slaughter at the edge of the sword. God's motive is justice, vengeance, and his promise to Abraham. All must die.

A sinner worthy of utter destruction. Here is the sword. Kill him now.

And he's shared that knowledge with you in this case. This child is to be hacked to death in the name of the Lord.

God has assured Joshua that his judgement against this sinner is just. His sentence is a brutal death by sword. He has assured Joshua that it is morally justifiable to carry out that sentence. Thou shalt not murder. I'm told that's not a problem in that killing for justice is not murder. Now, do you believe all that? Will you hack and butcher a child for God?

When will we get a firm answer?

BadBadBad

Bare with me Andrew. I'm going to have a lot to say in response to this. I hope you'll take the time to hear me out.

I buy that. Joshua had direct revelation from God, and he needed to act on faith in God. You have revelation of God through Moses and Joshua. You must act on faith in them and in the corrupt history that brings their story to you. Only in this hypothetical, you too get to experience the miracles of the OT performed by Moses. You get to see Moses actually part the Red Sea. You get to actually see Moses come down from the mountain with the Ten Commandments carved into stone by God himself. You have faith these stories are true, and in the hypothetical you get to experience them right along with the slaughter of the seven children before your very eyes by Joshua. Here is the sword. Show no mercy even though this child is begging he’ll never be an Amorite again. Decide how much brutality and cruelty you will muster to quench God’s vengeance, and kill him now.

Oh, and what is the name of your loved one I hold my sword to? Is it your child?

That’s interesting. I’ll give you that one. I agree that’s important. So, tell me about the miracles in these stories of the plagues, the killing of the first born of Egypt, the parting of the Red Sea, the burning bush, the ground opening up and swallowing 250 men. Tell me about the miracle of the supernatural’s direct revelation to Moses and Joshua that all must die at the edge of the sword. Would you assign those miracles to God or perhaps to Satan?

Let’s see. First, in DT 13:1-5, it says don’t follow a prophet who leads you to worship a God you don’t know. Only these miracles are shown to you by God such that you will know him. These miracles are the ones that allow you to know him. These miracles are the ones that released you from slavery in Egypt and sustained you in the desert. Now that you know God, he wants something simple in return. Butcher this baby for the God you know and love. Either that or declare Joshua and Moses false prophets and kill them according to DT 13:1-5. Deny that you know God and kill his prophets.

In Mark 13:22, it says:

“13:24 But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,

I think we have this business of Joshua being a false prophet of God licked with support from the NT.

Joshua 10:12 Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. (10:12-13)
In a divine type of daylight savings time, God makes the sun stand still so that Joshua can get all his killing done before dark. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

So here, we have the miracle of the sun not being darkened. Therefore, Mark 13 certainly wouldn’t give credence to Joshua being a false prophet, especially in that Mark 13 is talking about the return of Christ not thousands of years before Christ was born.

Yes, I agree entirely that you consider whether Joshua and Moses are false prophets. I agree you should consider killing Joshua just as it says in DT 13:1-5. I agree that you should consider that these miracles you’ve seen including the debauchery of slaughtering men women and children by the edge of the sword are not true miracles of God. I agree you should consider that something so horrible could only be the work of someone like Satan.

Here. Perhaps you didn’t read this before. I’ll post it again.

Why don't we ask someone who has experienced this kind of thing first hand. Meet Gitera Rwamuhuzi. He is a real baby killer, and he can tell you all about the spiritual aspects of butchering babies. Compare and contrast his account as to the Bible. Ask yourselves which account is more spiritually reasonable.

From here

"In 1994 in the village of Nyarubuye, Rwanda, the Hutu majority went on a killing spree in the local church, slaughtering neighbours and friends.
Gitera Rwamuhuzi is one of those who took part in the genocide. This is his story.

<snip>

On the morning of 15 April 1994, each one of us woke up knowing what to do and where to go because we had made a plan the previous night. In the morning we woke up and started walking towards the church.

After selecting the people who could use guns and grenades, they armed them and said we should surround the church.

They said one group would go south and another group would go to the north. There were so many of us we were treading on each others' heels.

People who had grenades detonated them. The Tutsis started screaming for help.

As they were screaming, those who had guns started to shoot inside.

They screamed saying that we are dying, help us, but the soldiers continued shooting.

I entered and when I met a man I hit him with a club and he died.

You would say why not two, three or four but I couldn't kill two or three because those that entered outnumbered those inside.

Some people did not even find someone to kill because there were more killers than victims.

When we moved in, it was as if we were competing over the killing. We entered and each one of us began killing their own.

Each person who we cut looked like they had been hit by the grenades. They looked traumatised. They looked like their hearts had been taken away.

No one was asking for forgiveness. They looked like they had been killed already.

Those you cut were just not saying anything. They were scared that no one said anything. They must have been traumatized.

Apart from breathing you could see that they had no life in them. They looked like their hearts had been taken away.

These people were my neighbours - the picture of their deaths may never leave me

I saw people whose hands had been amputated, those with no legs, and others with no heads. I saw everything.

Especially seeing people rolling around and screaming in agony, with no arms, no legs. People died in very bad conditions.

It was as if we were taken over by Satan. We were taken over by Satan. When Satan is using you, you lose your mind. We were not ourselves. Beginning with me, I don't think I was normal.

You wouldn't be normal if you start butchering people for no reason. We had been attacked by the devil.

Even when I dream my body changes in a way I cannot explain. These people were my neighbours. The picture of their deaths may never leave me. Everything else I can get out of my head but that picture never leaves. "


Take a look at this genocide and compare that to Joshua's genocide in Numbers. See here if you dare Notice the picture of the slaughtered on God's altar in the third picture down on the left. How is this scene of genocide different than Joshua's genocide? If killers in this genocide felt they were possessed by the devil, I wonder how this differed from those involved in Joshua's genocide?

andrewcriddle

Full scale Armed conflict inevitably involves immense human suffering.

Sometimes this suffering is justified/excusable sometimes it isn't.

Some of the brutal acts allegedly performed by Moses and Joshua are IMO potentially justifiable/excusable in the circumstances of the time, others are unjustifiable/inexcusable.

It is IMO unhelpful to concentrate on Numbers 31 in this context, it is both particularly horrible and as P tradition particularly unrelated to anything like real history.

FWIW I don't regard Gitera Rwamuhuzi's account of his feelings as remotely reliable. As an admitted Tutsi killer living in a now Tutsi dominated Rwanda his claims about being possessed by the Devil are very convenient for him.

Andrew Criddle

Biff the unclean

The humans who conduct these conflicts feel that they have no alternative to them.
The Joshua genocide was ordered by God. How is it that God, all mighty, all knowing God, has no alternative? It’s not like He’s being forced to commit genocide

Their actions were all directed by God. Which of God’s actions do you consider inexcusable?

None of this is real history. Moses, Joshua, Jesus, God ... none of these guys existed. Are you saying now that you no longer believe in your religion? Because if this God stuff isn't your faith then all these above questions aren't addressed to you.
Or are you just picking the parts you enjoy and pretending the parts you don't aren't as much a part of the faith as they are?

BadBadBad

I thought you just said this business of killing by the edge of the sword was quick and efficient?

You and Lee have bounced all over both sides of the issue. Maybe it would be just, maybe it wouldn't. You know the story. Let's get down to the brass tacks. Are you going to butcher this child in the way the Bible says God commanded for the reasons the Bible said God commanded?

Hop, hop, hop. You would do it, cause God commandede and it's justified, quick and efficient. You wouldn't do it cause you're not sure God commanded it and it's brutal cruel and immoral. For Christ's sake which is it?

Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, what difference does it make? Joshua's army killed men, women, children, and babies for God. Would you personally do it?

Now tell me about your personal feelings about God and we'll compare and contrast the reliability. Either that or we'll compare and contrast the convenient claims the author of Joshua made about God's responsibility in those genocides. No story of God carries any reliability. Not yours, not Joshua's, not Muhamed's. They're all in one big pot of religious stories we have to look at together with equal incredulity.

Still, Gitera's story was corroborated by many other Rwandan killers with similar spiritual experiences. In fact it was a common theme amongst the killers. This theme of satonic influence seems to coincide with the Christian story that explains why Christians would suddenly turn on their neighbors and kill 800,000 of them. As a Christian, how can you dispel the idea that Satan drove them to kill their neighbors? How can you dispel the concept that they felt the direct influence of Satan as they did his debauchery?

andrewcriddle

Leaving aside Jesus and God both of whom I certainly believe exist, most (by no means all) scholars distinguish between different sources of Genesis to Joshua some of which are older than others and are more likely to have some sort of historical basis.

Accounts of Mose and (probably)Joshua are part of the earlier J and E tradition. Some of this early material is rather brutal but the later D and P sources emphasise the scale and brutality of slaughter in ways that are not present to the same extent in the earlier traditions.

(Some scholars would argue that none of this is historical at all and the accounts are basically parables about the need for pious Jews to avoid fraternising with Pagans. Your claim that none of this is real history suggests you might be sympathetic to such an approach, but if the accounts aren't really about real armed combat but are ways of encouraging Jewish religious purity then I'm not sure why you find them so objectionable.)

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

IMO mass slaughter involves immense human suffering even if the deaths are relatively quick and physically painless.
I have tried at some length to explain why I find it difficult to give a simple yes or no here.

I may be wrong to be uncertain here but you haven't really responded to the points I've tried to raise.

Unless you give some indication of what limits you would put on violence in time of war and why you would draw the limits there, I doubt if I'll reply to any more of your posts on this issue.

Gitera's excuse is obviously useful for many more of those involved. It may possibly be true but the witnesses are very unreliable.

Andrew Criddle

Gamut

Sorry to butt in here, but I've been watching this entire discussion daily and feel the need to ask a question.

How could you ever, possibly be unsure as to whether you would hack a baby to pieces?

How you could you ever, under any circumstance not know if it's OK to hack a baby?

Same question to lee.....what the hell man?

You guys have someone asking you OVER AND OVER if you would take a SWORD and HACK A BABY TO DEATH.

You don't know the answer to this question? How could your answer EVER be ANYTHING but "absolutely not!"