responding to common objections to bible part 4

[total relism]

Technical error, TR.

You ask whether or not the genocide occurred. The answer is yes. Your attempt to justify this genocide does not alter the genocide taking place, and has nothing to do with it.

Learn to correlate your answers to your opening question. Otherwise I see a wall of F's should you ever attend higher education...

beat me to it.
a yes/no question just got turned into a justification speech because the answer is yes.

....and we all know what wonderful people those who justify genocide are, right?

it truly does not take long, but if you guys could stop assuming what i have written, than actually read under spoiler, you will see the genocide did not happen.


so to you HT
Learn to read before criticizing and responding to my opening post. Otherwise I see a wall of F's should you ever attend higher education. Imagine your teacher gives you book to read, than you read cover and falsely assume what book is about. Than write a report on your false assumption, that should get a f.

[Ronin]

it truly does not take long, but if you guys could stop assuming what i have written, than actually read under spoiler, you will see the genocide did not happen.

You attempts to "massage" the supposed biblical events so that they fall somewhere outside the definition of genocide do not impress me.
it is a sure sign of a weak position when a man starts pulling out semantic tricks.

[HoreTore]

You attempts to "massage" the supposed biblical events so that they fall somewhere outside the definition of genocide do not impress me.
it is a sure sign of a weak position when a man starts pulling out semantic tricks.

And it gets extremely hilarious when the definition attempting to prove "not a genocide", ie. removing a religious group from a limited area, is in fact the textbook definition of genocide.

[total relism]

entire large sections of my op deal specifically with your guys claims, please read my op past the very first section sins of Canaanites.

You attempts to "massage" the supposed biblical events so that they fall somewhere outside the definition of genocide do not impress me.
it is a sure sign of a weak position when a man starts pulling out semantic tricks.

I can only take that as showing you cannot respond to the op. Unsupported claims as you have made above, is a sure sign of a weak [in this case non existent] argument.

Hold your sanctimonious tone, please. Here's what Sigurd wrote(my bolding):



To which you replied:



You back this up by apparently going off on a tangent(in your OP) about how evil the Caanites were, which is completely and utterly irrelevant to the claim you objected to. If you feel Sigurd misrepresented your intent with the way he phrased his statement, you would point that out instead of objecting to it. By objecting to just its conclusion, you assert that the way it is phrased is correct.

I, like almost everyone else on this board, already have my degree(some are still in the process of getting theirs). Unlike you. I'm no longer being graded - in fact I now grade the work of other students.

A side note on that - The last paper I graded before the summer break was "written" in the same style as your posts - it was the easiest 0 I have ever given in my life(but then again a 0 isn't a common thing). The assessment comment was also my quickest yet - a simple comment of "Breach of academic honesty policy".

You should not be grading papers imo, if you only read beginning of every paper, as you did my op [sins of Canaanites] you would come to a false conclusion apretley, if you falsely apply my post to be about that all alone. If you keep readingmy whole op on subject, you will find that your post that picked up on what Sigurd wrote, and the false assumptions that followed. Are giving you the wrong conclusions on my post and argument. Is it to much to ask to have people read my entire op on a subject before responding?.


so when i posted this
"9-according to bible and archaeology..no, i have to disagree."

to back up is not naming the sins of the Canaanites [that is important for op] but the whole op post i made, i encourage you and all others to read my op before responding and making false assumptions. Than we dont have to make post after post of talking on things no one said or posted.

And it gets extremely hilarious when the definition attempting to prove "not a genocide", ie. removing a religious group from a limited area, is in fact the textbook definition of genocide.

if i needed any more proof, this shows again they have not read past first section of my post on sins of Canaanites, nor read my second reference [if they did not want to read all that] a debate on subject.

[HoreTore]

Failing a paper due to a breach of academic honesty policy is done after glancing through a paper in under a minute. It's extremely quick to do.

Now, let's have a look at your OP, shall we? Let's start here:

The nations in cannan were given 4 options
1] leave- some left
2] war
3] join isreal
4]make peace treaty

Two of these, 2 and 3, are always genocidal, while whether 1 and 4 are genocidal depends on other factors. In this context, 1 is a definite genocide, while 4 would depend on the terms of said treaty.

This statement:

The goal of the conquest was to remove the Canaanites from the land not to kill them..

....is a textbook definition of a genocide. It simply does not get any closer to genocide than this.


Do I have to teach you how the Convention on Genocide works as well, or what?

[total relism]

Failing a paper due to a breach of academic honesty policy is done after glancing through a paper in under a minute. It's extremely quick to do.

Now, let's have a look at your OP, shall we? Let's start here:



Two of these, 2 and 3, are always genocidal, while whether 1 and 4 depends on factors. In this context, 1 is a definite genocide, while 4 would depend on the terms of said treaty.

This statement:



....is a textbook definition of a genocide. It simply does not get any closer to genocide than this.


Do I have to teach you how the Convention on Genocide works as well, or what?

number 3
so when a atheist tries to convince a christian of atheist, that is genocide? when a christian asks a atheist to become a christian that is genocide?


number 2
so when france went to war against germany after being attacked, and britian invaded germany, you count that as genocide?


statement "The goal of the conquest was to remove the Canaanites from the land not to kill them.."


you clearly leave out other statements made in my op, seems almost like academic dishonesty. As you have done the whole time, your being dishonest and cherry picking parts and ignoring all else to enable false info to come about.

a few of the many points you missed

Canaanites initiated the attacks on isreal first
The Canaanites initiated the attacks on Israel when Israel was defenseless killing children and woman elderly, ex 17 8-13 num 21.1 21-26 33-35 dut 2 26-37 3 1-22


so already we have self defense.



No were in ot does offensive military initiative with purpose of conversion or Territory expansion.

upon entering the land Israel simply asked for safe passage and were than attacked first by Canaanites numbers 21.1 21 21-24 21.33 20 14-17

isreal was than after attacked, asked for peace.


when Canaanites rejected [those that did some did make peace and kept land and no war] and continued attacks, isreal gave the 4 options

The nations in cannan were given 4 options
1] leave- some left
2] war
3] join isreal
4]make peace treaty



isreal was than ordered to drive them out of the land not kill them, for reasons given on op.
Drive out not kill
Isreal was to drive out Canaanites not annihilate num 21.32 33.52 dt 9.1 11.23 18.14 19.1 ex 23.28 lev 10.24 num 33.52 etc just as adam and eve were “driven out” of the garden of Eden gen 4.14



land originally Israel's and gods the promise land
they were not to just go fight anyone to take land,The land belongs to god and Israel,so they were taking there land back


5#Do not provoke them to war, for I will not give you any of their land, not even enough to put your foot on. I have given Esau the hill country of Seir as his own.
Deuteronomy 2.5 also 2.9 and 2.19 also Deuteronomy 2:2-23

Deuteronomy 20.16 limits “holy war” to the promise land. Only people who did not have right or title to land would be dispossessed,Unlike edom dut 2.4 23.7 and moab/ammon dut 2.9,19 gen 12-12 promises isreal the land gen 13 14-17.


Canaanite lived with and among isreal and next to isreal with peace treaties from beginning and for thousands of years after.


none of the OT wars were fought with the purpose of forcibly converting the pagans to the religion of Israel. God commanded these wars for the specific purpose of punishment and judgment

Canaanites destruction was not genocide or racism but because of moral behavior.



a group that practiced today what Canaanites did, even in liberal west would not be tolerated in society.


thir is much more in op you are ignoring.

[HoreTore]

Irrelevant ramblings are usually ignored. I'll take the supposed self-defense first:

Military action is banned in all forms except one: self-defense. However, the right to self defense is not a blanket check to do whatever the hell one wants: there are extremely precise conditions on it. The self defense has to be in proportion to the attack, and the self defense does not allow further action after the enemy is driven back. To put it simple: Self defense stops at your border. Crossing the border is an illegal act of war in all cases.

The most common example to illustrate how the law works is the first gulf war, the Iraq-Iran war. When Saddam crossed his army into Iran, he committed an act of war violating international law. The Iranian military had the right of self-defense, and their military action against the invading Iraqi army was legal. After a while, the fronts stopped and reverted to around the Iraq/Iran border. Iran launched attacks which crossed the border. This action is not supported by the right to self-defense, and is an illegal act of war. The Iraqi military reaction(within the Iraqi border) to these invasion raids were legal acts of self-defense.

So in conclusion: the israelites could legally take military action to defend against attacks. They could not, however, cross the attackers border and attack them back. That's a breach of international law.

As for WW2:

If the French and/or British had invaded with the intent of clearing Germany of all Germans in order to resettle the land with French or Brits, then yes, that would definitely be genocide. Invading with the intent of proposing measures intended to destroy, whole or in part, German culture would also be considered genocide, even if they did not kill anyone(murder is only one of the five conditions of genocide). Examples of this would be things like enforcing English as the only language to be spoken in Germany, or forced conversion to another religion. That Germany attacked first with similar aims is completely irrelevant to defining it as genocide.

As for religious conversion:

Asking another to convert breaks no law. Demanding a conversion and threatening negative consequences for those who do not, as you claim the Israelites did, does break the law. When we're talking about individuals, it's a violation of religious freedom. If we're talking about whole groups of people, it's a genocide.


Genocide does not necessitate killing anyone at all, and only one of the five conditions for genocide is murder. Genocide also occurs when a national, ethnical, racial or religious group is destroyed in part, you do not have to intend to destroy the entire group. For example, it is still genocide if you try to destroy(and again, destroy does not mean "kill") all hindus in a given country, even if you do not advocate destroying all hindus in India. It is enough to enforce measures against smaller parts of a larger group living in a limited area(typically within the borders of the country in question, like no jews in nazi germany) intended to remove and/or end that groups presence in said area.

The forced conversion of Jews to Christianity in Spain was genocide. The deportation of Jews from Nazi Germany was genocide, sending them to the oven later made it "double-genocide". The actions of the Israelites intending to remove Caanite culture/religion from the land of Israel was genocide.


Stop talking about stuff you are utterly clueless about, TR. Make the claim that God didn't order a massacre instead. The claim that he did not order a genocide is definitely false based on your description of the events in question*.




*Which to be honest I do not trust to be an accurate account of the events, so until someone intelligent like PVC weighs in, I am only speaking about your version of the events, and make no claims of the actual account presented in the Bible and other sources.

[Ironside]

Canaanites initiated the attacks on isreal first
The Canaanites initiated the attacks on Israel when Israel was defenseless killing children and woman elderly, ex 17 8-13 num 21.1 21-26 33-35 dut 2 26-37 3 1-22

so already we have self defense.

No were in ot does offensive military initiative with purpose of conversion or Territory expansion.

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?

[HoreTore]

it truly does not take long, but if you guys could stop assuming what i have written, than actually read under spoiler, you will see the genocide did not happen.


so to you HT
Learn to read before criticizing and responding to my opening post. Otherwise I see a wall of F's should you ever attend higher education. Imagine your teacher gives you book to read, than you read cover and falsely assume what book is about. Than write a report on your false assumption, that should get a f.

Hold your sanctimonious tone, please. Here's what Sigurd wrote(my bolding):

To.9. God ordered genocide on the Canaanites? According to the Bible ... Yes.

To which you replied:

9-according to bible and archaeology..no, i have to disagree.

You back this up by apparently going off on a tangent(in your OP) about how evil the Caanites were, which is completely and utterly irrelevant to the claim you objected to. If you feel Sigurd misrepresented your intent with the way he phrased his statement, you would point that out instead of objecting to it. By objecting to just its conclusion, you assert that the way it is phrased is correct.

I, like almost everyone else on this board, already have my degree(some are still in the process of getting theirs). Unlike you. I'm no longer being graded - in fact I now grade the work of other students.

A side note on that - The last paper I graded before the summer break was "written" in the same style as your posts - it was the easiest 0 I have ever given in my life(but then again a 0 isn't a common thing). The assessment comment was also my quickest yet - a simple comment of "Breach of academic honesty policy".