Those heathen Canaanites sacrificed some children

[Zzyzx]

.
Those heathen Canaanites sacrificed some children so we 'children of God' invaded, slaughtered everyone, killed ALL their children, and enjoyed smashing babies against rocks.

We are the good guys because we're God's chosen people and he told us to kill those people – and besides, they lived on land that we wanted; and they worshiped Baal.

Everyone should worship our God because he is the God of love and righteousness.

References:

Numbers 21:3 And the LORD hearkened to the voice of Israel, and delivered up the Canaanites; and they utterly destroyed them and their cities: and he called the name of the place Hormah.

Deuteronomy 20:17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:

Deuteronomy 7:1-5 When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; 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: Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly. But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire.

Psalm 137:9 Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.


How can this be justified or excused -- let alone be made to sound noble or heroic?

[Zzyzx]

.

How does that change or excuse the happiness at killing children?

You’ve not demonstrated that the Hebrews gleefully washed their faces in people’s blood.

That's your Bible's tale, not mine. I do not seek to prove that any mythology / legend / folklore / religious tales are true. I would not attempt to defend atrocities – but then, I am not emotionally attached to any such stories whether they are true or not.

You’ve produced a Psalm

I did not produce a Psalm. That was done by Bible writers. I quoted exactly what they said. It is beginning to appear as though we can't trust Bible writers to tell a straight story.

that was written hundreds of years later calling for Karma on Babylon for their crimes against the Jewish people.

Perhaps the Jews should not have been surprised, then, if Karma came back on them in the Roman conquests and the Holocaust for genocide they committed against Canaanites and other cultures. Right?

Bait and switch – 'the Bible is true unless it is intended as metaphorical and Believers are entitled to say what is metaphorical'.

You are citing a poem written hundreds of years after the Hebrew invasion of Canaan to “prove� that those ancient Hebrews enjoyed the destroying the inhabitants of the land.

That's almost as bad as attempting to use a Bible from centuries after the claimed 'resurrection' to prove that long dead bodies come back to life.

Also, is a poem that describes glee upon dashing babies against rocks a good teaching device?

Whether or not it is a good lesson isn’t the question before us. That’s your red herring.

Pardon me for calling attention to the false claim that the Bible is a good source for learning about civil behavior or human / humane relationships.

Great poem.

If one accepts karma they should have no objection to considering Roman conquest of Judea as payback for Jews annihilating competing cultures. And the Holocaust to be further payback. Right?

One can accept whatever s/he wishes, but that’s your diversion. Do you dispute my interpretation of the Psalm you’ve cited?

You are certainly entitled to 'interpret' Bible verses to say whatever you want them to say. Others are entitled to 'interpret' it differently or to read what they say without attempting to guess the writer's intent.

The 'rejoicing' is not an assertion – it is a direct quote from the Bible.

Right – your direct quote written somewhere around 587/586 BC proves that the Hebrews enjoyed invading and slaughtering w/glee, which would have occurred centuries earlier.

A tale of Hebrews enjoying slaughtering babies earlier is STILL Hebrews enjoying slaughtering babies. Evidently it was all approved by a supposedly loving, benevolent, just 'God'.

I'll pass on worshiping a 'God' that EVER (supposedly) condones slaughter of babies (or drowns them himself).

[help3434]

[Replying to post 39 by Zzyzx]

The land of Canaan itself was generally recognized as extending from Lebanon in the north to Gaza in the south, encompassing modern-day Israel, Lebanon, Palestinian territories, and western Jordan. It included important trade routes and trading sites, making it valuable territory for all the surrounding great powers for the next millennia, including Egypt, Babylon, and Assyria.
http://atheism.about.com/od/biblepeople ... estament-H...

Thus, Babylonians are included in the peoples described in “blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones Against the rock.�

Correction, being a power interested in Canaan doesn't make the power Canaanites. That is like saying since Russia considers Lithuania valuable territory then Russians are Lithuanians.

[JLB32168]

That's your Bible's tale, not mine. I do not seek to prove that any mythology / legend / folklore / religious tales are true.

You made an assertion about the Bible. This isn’t an issue of the Bible’s truth. It’s an issue of whether or not you can demonstrate how your conclusion is a logical one – if the evidence proves it’s logic. Whether or not the Bible is true is a red herring because we could be debating a fairy tale (which you no doubt think it is) and still determine if conclusions about the tale are logical or not. You asserted that the Hebrews reveled in destroying the indigenous peoples of Canaan. As proof of that assertion, you cited a verse written hundreds of years later where the Jews are crying for Karma to visit the Babylonians for all the things they did to the Jews. Your conclusion is illogical.

Perhaps the Jews should not have been surprised, then, if Karma . . .

And we have more red herring diversion designed to distract from the fact that you cannot sustain your assertion that the Hebrews enjoyed killing the inhabitants of Canaan. I haven’t even brought up the fact that indeed they didn’t kill all of the inhabitants when they invaded. Did they conclude that too much fun wasn’t as much fun??

That's almost as bad as attempting to use a Bible from centuries after the claimed 'resurrection' to prove that long dead bodies come back to life.

And now we’ve changed the argument from the truth of your assertion to the truth of the Bible. I’m not too surprised of course. That’s part and parcel on the Christian Apologetics board.

You are certainly entitled to 'interpret' Bible verses to say whatever you want them to say. Others are entitled to 'interpret' it differently or to read what they say without attempting to guess the writer's intent.

Okay – so I take it that you’re asserting that my interpretation of Psalm 137 is illogical – that it is unreasonable to conclude that the Jews were crying for karma on the Babylonians? No, I don’t really expect you to answer the question.

A tale of Hebrews enjoying slaughtering babies earlier is STILL Hebrews enjoying slaughtering babies.

Except that the one you’re citing doesn’t say that the Hebrews want to do the deed. It just hopes that someone else will do it.

You’re all over the place.

[Willum]

[Replying to JLB32168]

Hey JLB - first cast the mote out...
So here you are argueing that Zzyzx is using the same arguments on you that you use...
With one exception, his arguments have substance in reality and he believes what he perceives, while your argument is you believe what you believe.

True, he is just taking his argument one step further, believing what he perceives, but still the point remains.

Is what is good for the goose, good for the gander?

[polonius]

I'm not sure why there is some problem with the action which is named in the title of this thread.

Those heathen Canaanites sacrificed some children


Didn't God too command the killing of some children presumably to do God's will and get God's blessing for such an action?


1 Samuel 15:3 (New Revised Standard Version)


" Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’�

[Willum]

[Replying to post 54 by polonius.advice]

Hey so I have got a question.

So God see people on both sides of life and death, right?

So, what is the point of this God ordering peoples' deaths?
From his perspective, there is none, right?

Ah, well, just another paradox that exposes the falsehoods of the Bible.

So, who is God going to say to kill next?
Personally, I don't think I'll be satisfied until he is calling for the death of all Orcs and Hobbits, that way, at least he'll be calling for the murder of creatures in his purview.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 49 by bluethread]




[center]Cynicism as a good teaching method.
Part one. [/center]

. . . is a poem that describes glee upon dashing babies against rocks a good teaching device?

Yes, it is, when one is criticizing the dashing babies against rocks. It is called cynicism. You no doubt have heard of that.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by "cynicism" in this case, and how that would be a good teaching method?

Thanks.

[bluethread]

Yes, it is, when one is criticizing the dashing babies against rocks. It is called cynicism. You no doubt have heard of that.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by "cynicism" in this case, and how that would be a good teaching method?

Thanks.

Cynicism is pointing out the way things actually are as a means of making a point, with the implication that the way thing actually are is not a good thing. Being happy about the misfortunes of others is not a good thing. However, do to it's ironic nature, happiness about the misfortunes of cruel is to be expected.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 30 by JLB32168]

I would say that the deaths of the infants are a result of the parent’s crime. In their efforts to stop Hitler, many innocents were killed and this is unfortunate, but we don’t fault the allied soldiers with any moral failings, in spite of the fact that they had to have been aware that their actions would directly produce innocent casualties

These were not casualties of war, God commanded they be slaughtered. These were Executions commanded by God for God. You know the intentional killing of life to please a god, oh that's right a sacrifice, a child sacrifice.

[JLB32168]

With one exception, his arguments have substance in reality and he believes what he perceives, while your argument is you believe what you believe.

His argument – well, his first argument before he changed it – was that the Hebrews enjoyed killing the inhabitants of Canaan when they invaded and to prove this point he cited a Psalm composed centuries later by a completely different group of Jews.

It makes no sense whatsoever to assert that the Hebrews joyfully killed the inhabitants of Canaan and then cite their Jewish descendants’ poems (written four hundred or later no less) as proof of it. Anyone who can't see that simply doesn't know how to debate.

True, he is just taking his argument one step further, believing what he perceives, but still the point remains.

He changed the argument when he realized how absurd its illogic was.