responding to common objections to bible part 4

[total relism]

Who attacked who first is utterly irrelevant. I cannot stress this enough, but you can't seem to grasp it. It has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with the question of whether it was genocide or not.

You do not seem to see the difference between evicting a population and toppling its leadership either. I do not know how to explain this simple enough for you, sorry. When the US attacked German-occupied France(which wasn't annexed(owned) so even less relevant), there was no removal of civilian populations. A change in statehood is a change in statehood, and has little to do with genocide. Now, a piece of Germany(Alsace-Lorraine) was annexed by France after the war. If Germany today was to claim it as its own and annex it, this would be a breach of international law. If they forced the french living there away, it would be a genocide.

I have no problems in accepting arguments that the removal of German civilians from Prussia by the Soviet Union after the war constituted a genocide.

Israel was Abrahams land? Irrelevant. The Canaanites lived there now, it was their land. The Canaanite population cannot be forced to leave without it being a genocide. You could subjugate them, and it would merely be unlawful under other conventions, but not remove them. That will always be termed genocide.

There are absolutely no provisions under international law to retake previously owned land. Doing so is under all circumstances an illegal act.

ok a clear circle has been presented in our posts over and over. You give your definition of genocide, than give a modern example of when or how it could happen. I point out the scenario is different than the bibles conquest, you than post again and on and on we go. You yourself admit you dont know the biblical data on this, and show proof and dont deny not reading my op. But than freely assume despite me showing contrary based on the bible, that it fits your modern analogies. I have posted over and over enough times showing this to be true. In fact you are still claiming the population as a whole was forced to move, despite 2 post showing the contrary.


so here is were you are, claiming that isreal committed genocide by

retaking of land that was theirs,they went to return to and were first attacked and tried for peace they would not accept. You say this is genocide, please use un document or any genocide definition to support this, i have posted websters,un, and about 20 off of wiki, not one agrees with you.

found here
the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/genocide


wiki provides many definitions from 1945 on, i cant see any that fit what your saying or the biblical narrative
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_definitions
un
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html

so were do you get your definition of genocide from?.

The question was whether God ordered genocide or not. Deuteronomy clearly shows that the answer to that question is yes. Whether Israel carried it out or not is irrelevant.
Also... The God of Israel is no stranger to genocide. Two instances pre-Canaan: The Deluge and Sodom & Gomorrah.

could you please post the Deuteronomy passage? no question it says kill all inside, men woman child etc leave none alive correct? than please read my op and tell me how after, you can still claim the bible teaches genocide from those passages. S&G was a Canaanite cities, but true pre conquest, yet as bible says god would not kill any non guilty person.

25 Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?”

think of the sins of the sodom, it included the sins of the Canaanites [child sacrifice etc], plus abducting travelers for sexual pleasure [rape] just what they tried to do with the 3 visitors, that is why lot offered his daughters instead, they were after rape.

god judged because of the many victims
Then the Lord said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...33&version=NIV

even Richard Dawkins says about this.

#Later Lot’s own daughters get him drunk to have sex with him and so even Dawkins, in a surprising moment of moral clarity, writes, “If this dysfunctional family was the best Sodom had to offer by way of morals, some might begin to feel a certain sympathy with God and his judicial brimstone.”

Threads like this are depressing when I think of some of the good debates my and Philipvs had in the past. TR obviously is determined not to listen to anything anybody says to him, here we are again with walls of text for three separate topics all in the one OP. I confess I haven't read most of this thread. Ugh, I need to think of a good theological debate to have here...

most complain that i should not do 1 topic at a time, so i now do 3-5, cant please them all, if you notice first few, i did 1 at a time. You said i "obviously is determined not to listen to anything anybody says to him". Could you please give a example? if you mean defining genocide than yes i clearly disagree with ht, as does every definition of genocide i have seen or posted [around 20]. I think had you read my op [you admit to not having done so] or responses through this thread [we both know you have not] you would see its ht lack of reading my post or biblical conquest [he admitted to not having read] that Leeds to the confusion, as i have pointed out multiple times. But if you still believe i'm not listing to anyone, would you mind showing 1 example? be careful to read my responses, or you will be easily caught showing you, would not listen to the one you accuse of not listing.

If morality is merely the human reaction to circumstances presented by God, then all of our good and our evil comes from the same place, and that places the source--God--above good or evil in a way that your or I can comprehend. I think a serious theologian would find this discussion a bit trite.

This is not accurate biblical theology at all. So does not apply to bible, if your interested could you reword what your asking, i will gladly respond.

I thought about looking for the fun of logistics of suddenly feeding a movable city of 600.000 (they will be a blight pillaging the surrounding area), but you haven't red those quotes right? None refers to women and children. Also:

Deuteronomy 2 (NIV):

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

24 “Set out now and cross the Arnon Gorge. See, I have given into your hand Sihon the Amorite, king of Heshbon, and his country. Begin to take possession of it and engage him in battle. 25 This very day I will begin to put the terror and fear of you on all the nations under heaven. They will hear reports of you and will tremble and be in anguish because of you.”

26 From the Desert of Kedemoth I sent messengers to Sihon king of Heshbon offering peace and saying, 27 “Let us pass through your country. We will stay on the main road; we will not turn aside to the right or to the left. 28 Sell us food to eat and water to drink for their price in silver. Only let us pass through on foot— 29 as the descendants of Esau, who live in Seir, and the Moabites, who live in Ar, did for us—until we cross the Jordan into the land the Lord our God is giving us.” 30 But Sihon king of Heshbon refused to let us pass through. For the Lord your God had made his spirit stubborn and his heart obstinate in order to give him into your hands, as he has now done.

31 The Lord said to me, “See, I have begun to deliver Sihon and his country over to you. Now begin to conquer and possess his land.”

32 When Sihon and all his army came out to meet us in battle at Jahaz, 33 the Lord our God delivered him over to us and we struck him down, together with his sons and his whole army. 34 At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed[c] them—men, women and children. We left no survivors. 35 But the livestock and the plunder from the towns we had captured we carried off for ourselves. 36 From Aroer on the rim of the Arnon Gorge, and from the town in the gorge, even as far as Gilead, not one town was too strong for us. The Lord our God gave us all of them. 37 But in accordance with the command of the Lord our God, you did not encroach on any of the land of the Ammonites, neither the land along the course of the Jabbok nor that around the towns in the hills.

Numbers 33:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

50 On the plains of Moab by the Jordan across from Jericho the Lord said to Moses, 51 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘When you cross the Jordan into Canaan, 52 drive out all the inhabitants of the land before you. Destroy all their carved images and their cast idols, and demolish all their high places. 53 Take possession of the land and settle in it, for I have given you the land to possess. 54 Distribute the land by lot, according to your clans. To a larger group give a larger inheritance, and to a smaller group a smaller one. Whatever falls to them by lot will be theirs. Distribute it according to your ancestral tribes.

55 “‘But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land, those you allow to remain will become barbs in your eyes and thorns in your sides. They will give you trouble in the land where you will live. 56 And then I will do to you what I plan to do to them.’”

Next, you'll suggest that Ghenghis Khan was going for self defense right?

Me thinks your asking how all those people were fed while moving through the land? bible says this is when god was teaching them to trust on him, he supplied manna from haven, in fact bible says they got sick of eating same thing and wanted to go back to egypt lol, pretty well know part of bible.


as for your quotes from Deuteronomy 2 and numbers 33, had you read my op it would answer it for you. These indeed come after war had started,exodus happened before conquest, when they were attacked first. I mean read your own passages posted, Deuteronomy 26-29 tells how isreal was not going on offensive against nations, unless they would not allow passage through land to their land and attacked isreal first as they did before, and would continue to do had they not fought against them, killing woman children. Please read my op, it gives everything in order of what happened, when what deals/peace offering were made, when war happened etc. Even when your attacked and defending, that does not mean you never attack [jericho ai etc].

in the S&G story God apparently thinks that a man that gives his 2 daughters over to the crowd to be raped is a good moral man.
I have a tiny itchy-bitsy little problem with this.

he was good man, now bible never says he was good for this reason or that this was good, in fact the angels stop this from happening by leaving than. Besides, the bible teaches even good men do bad things, have you met a person who only does good?. Also if your atheist, why is rape bad? they are just trying to pass on his seed for survival, survival of the fittest no?.