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?

[JLB32168]

Is it your position that the Canaanites should be killed? If that's the case shouldn't the Hebrews be killed to?

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.

No nation is appointed, anointed, authorized to police the actions of other nations or destroy a culture – even (especially) if they claim 'divine mandates' for doing so. Might does not make right.

What makes right – you??

Those who support the idea of forceful intervention in the affairs of others ALSO should accept that any who disapprove of THEIR actions are entitled to invade, slaughter, destroy THEM as well.

Okay – so you support the idea of letting a culture that throws infants into the fire continue with their practice of throwing infants into the fire.

'God told me to' is NOT justification.

Says who – you?? For someone who says that absolute/objective morality doesn’t exist, you seem to find it quite easy to tell everyone what’s in/just – as if your standard trumps everyone else’s.

My position is that the Hebrews should NOT have moved into lands of other people but stayed in the desert where they lived.

Okay – so they should have stayed where they were while knowing that another culture was immolating infants on a daily basis.

Living in peace and minding one's own business seems like a good plan for individuals and societies. I would advise Mind your own business, fix your own problems and let others deal with theirs.

So the US was wrong in declaring war on Japan. It should have simply let the Japanese continue with the rape of Nanjing.

Gotcha.

[rikuoamero]

[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.

The problem with this analogy is that the Allies in WW2 were not acting under the command of a god who told them to invade Nazi territory and kill everyone they found but keep the virgin women for themselves.
I personally don't fault the Allied soldiers because they took the responsibility for what they did on themselves. They didn't say "God told me to, I was only following orders". Indeed, "only following orders" didn't exonerate the Nazis during the Nuremberg trials.

Okay – so you support the idea of letting a culture that throws infants into the fire continue with their practice of throwing infants into the fire.

Notice the false dichotomy you've raised here. Either endorse the invasion of the Hebrew armies, the genocide of the Canaanites (including the infants the war is supposedly over)...or let the ritualistic sacrifice continue.
My position is that an actual omni-whatever god would not have been constrained to only those two options.

Says who – you?? For someone who says that absolute/objective morality doesn’t exist, you seem to find it quite easy to tell everyone what’s in/just – as if your standard trumps everyone else’s.

If Gold told me IS a justification then in your view, then you CANNOT fault the Canaanites for saying it too. Their god told them to (or they believed he did) to throw infants into a fire, so they did.
Just like the Hebrew God told the Hebrews (or they believed he did) to invade cities and slaughter their inhabitants, so they did.

Okay – so they should have stayed where they were while knowing that another culture was immolating infants on a daily basis.

Re-read my part about the false dichotomy.

So the US was wrong in declaring war on Japan. It should have simply let the Japanese continue with the rape of Nanjing.

Do I need to mention Pearl Harbour? It was the Japanese who attacked the US. Until then, attitudes in the US were isolationist, due to the damage the first world war caused.

[Zzyzx]

.

Is it your position that the Canaanites should be killed? If that's the case shouldn't the Hebrews be killed to?

I would say that the deaths of the infants are a result of the parent’s crime.

If Canaanites killed some of their children and Hebrews slaughtered ALL Canaanites which is the greater 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.

Evoking Hitler is not germane to discussion of Hebrew slaughter of Canaanites.

No nation is appointed, anointed, authorized to police the actions of other nations or destroy a culture – even (especially) if they claim 'divine mandates' for doing so. Might does not make right.

What makes right – you??

I do not pretend to know what is right for everyone.

I observe that no nation is mandated to police the world.

Those who support the idea of forceful intervention in the affairs of others ALSO should accept that any who disapprove of THEIR actions are entitled to invade, slaughter, destroy THEM as well.

Okay – so you support the idea of letting a culture that throws infants into the fire continue with their practice of throwing infants into the fire.

I support the idea that no nation has a mandate to police the internal affairs of other nations. If you disagree, cite the mandate / authorization.

'God told me to' is NOT justification.

Says who – you??

Yes, I say so. Do you disagree?

Those who claim that 'God told me to' is adequate justification for violent action against other individuals and nations have no valid complaint if others commit violence against them because their 'god told them to'.

For someone who says that absolute/objective morality doesn’t exist, you seem to find it quite easy to tell everyone what’s in/just – as if your standard trumps everyone else’s.

Readers will decide for themselves whether I 'tell everyone what's in/just' – or whether I present rational grounds for decision making.

My position is that the Hebrews should NOT have moved into lands of other people but stayed in the desert where they lived.

Okay – so they should have stayed where they were while knowing that another culture was immolating infants on a daily basis.

Exactly. It seems rational and ethical to expect the Hebrews to stay in their own land (wherever they lived) and NOT invade other areas and destroy other cultures. I consider 'they sacrifice children' as nothing more than an excuse used to 'justify' invading another society.

Those who support invasions to acquire land or punish miscreants have no valid grounds for complaint if others invade and punish them.

I do not support infanticide whether committed by Hebrews or Canaanites.

Living in peace and minding one's own business seems like a good plan for individuals and societies. I would advise Mind your own business, fix your own problems and let others deal with theirs.

So the US was wrong in declaring war on Japan. It should have simply let the Japanese continue with the rape of Nanjing.

Gotcha.

Are you somehow NOT aware that the US declared war on Japan AFTER Japan bombed Pearl Harbor?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 32 by Zzyzx]

Exactly. It seems rational and ethical to expect the Hebrews to stay in their own land (wherever they lived) and NOT invade other areas and destroy other cultures. I consider 'they sacrifice children' as nothing more than an excuse used to 'justify' invading another society.

Agree. Assuming for the sake of argument that JLB is being genuine when he rails against the Canaanite practice of child sacrifice, why isn't he asking why his god didn't personally do anything about it? How come God can send an angel to physically stop Abraham from sacrificing Isaac, but apparently can't or didn't do anything to stop the Canaanites from doing the same?

[JLB32168]

If Canaanites killed some of their children and Hebrews slaughtered ALL Canaanites which is the greater crime?

This is all opinion and nothing more. I’m of the opinion that the elimination of advocates of this religion ended the practice of throwing infants into fires. I’m also of the opinion that destructions of these peoples was justified in that they had blood on their hands. The best version of your argument is that the Hebrews should have died along with them.

Evoking Hitler is not germane to discussion of Hebrew slaughter of Canaanites.

What is germane is the fact that in war, the deaths of innocents occur, but history doesn’t fault the belligerents with any moral failing.

I do not pretend to know what is right for everyone.

Except that you’ve done that. You’ve declared the Hebrew actions wrong and unjustified.

I observe that no nation is mandated to police the world.

Why is that important?

I support the idea that no nation has a mandate to police the internal affairs of other nations. If you disagree, cite the mandate / authorization.

Okay – so you support a nation’s right to determine for themselves if throwing infants into the fire is a good thing. I disagree and my mandate/authorization is me. I declare it so.

Those who claim that 'God told me to' is adequate justification for violent action against other individuals and nations have no valid complaint if others commit violence against them because their 'god told them to'.

Okay – so they’re not wrong. They had just better be ready to have the same thing done to them. Why then do you say their actions are morally wrong – which is what unjustified means?

Exactly. It seems rational and ethical to expect the Hebrews to stay in their own land (wherever they lived) and NOT invade other areas and destroy other cultures.

So allowing a culture to immolate infants is superior to wiping out that culture that immolates infants.
Gotcha.

I do not support infanticide whether committed by Hebrews or Canaanites.

Except that you would support the infanticide committed by the Canaanites via omission. What happens when good men do nothing?

Are you somehow NOT aware that the US declared war on Japan AFTER Japan bombed Pearl Harbor?

So had Pearl Harbor never happened, you’d been okay with the US doing nothing about stopping the rape of China because . . . well . . . you’ve decided that minding your own business when atrocities are taking place is good since it's not your problem.

I understand.

[Willum]

[Replying to JLB32168]

If Canaanites killed some of their children and Hebrews slaughtered ALL

Canaanites which is the greater crime?

This is all opinion and nothing more. I’m of the opinion that the elimination of advocates of this religion ended the practice of throwing infants into fires. I’m also of the opinion that destructions of these peoples was justified in that they had blood on their hands. The best version of your argument is that the Hebrews should have died along with them.

That is exactly what Stalin said!

So, why is it so important that one people be better than another? If I've noticed one thing in life, people might be different, but they are never 'better.'
Don't you know this is the root of racism, genocide and all else that is best in humanity?

What's next? Make war for peace, commit evil for good?
And I pointed it out, but I suppose you will make me prove it, AGAIN, the Canaan were the same people as the proto-Jewish. They were the same people who performed all that nastiness, but when they learned all that nastiness was reprehensible in the eyes of more advanced cultures, they chose to "kill" who they used to be...

For biblical scholars, just as significant is the surviving physical evidence (or rather lack of it) for the conquest. Archaeologists have long noted that there is scant support for the kind of violent destruction of the cities of Canaan – especially the ones mentioned in Joshua. Think for a second: if one were to look for archaeological evidence, or other external verification, to support the historical narratives of Joshua, what would one look for? ◦References to the invasion and conquest in other written sources outside the Bible.
â—¦Evidence that there were indeed walled cities and towns in Canaan at the time.
â—¦Archaeological evidence that the cities and towns mentioned actually were destroyed at the time (Jericho, Ai, Heshbon, etc.).
â—¦Shift in cultural patterns: that is, evidence of new people taking over from other peoples of a different culture (as you get in the Americas when Europeans came over bringing with them their own culture, different from that of the native Americans).

[JLB32168]

So, why is it so important that one people be better than another? If I've noticed one thing in life, people might be different, but they are never 'better.' Don't you know this is the root of racism, genocide and all else that is best in humanity?

Why is it an answer of one people being better? The people were eradicated because they performed infant sacrifice and had been doing so for centuries. Your argument is “Well, the Hebrews did it too.� If we only look at it from a numbers perspective, it’s unreasonable to conclude that the Hebrews killed enough infants to even approach that of the Canaanites. If we look at it from a cultural imperialistic version, you’re perfectly okay with calling Hebrew slavery abhorrent; however, you’re perfectly willing to say that imposing Hebrew norms and mores upon Canaanite practices is overstepping.

Slavery is wrong. Stopping infanticide is wrong. Do you not see the moral contradiction?

As for archaeological evidence, I'm content to debate this as a case of a story and nothing more - just as I can debate if the wolf's eating of grandmother was morally right/wrong/neutral.

[JLB32168]

Assuming for the sake of argument that JLB is being genuine when he rails against the Canaanite practice of child sacrifice, why isn't he asking why his god didn't personally do anything about it?

I don’t know why God didn’t do anything about it, but that isn’t the question before us. God was killing infants. The Canaanites were and had been for centuries. They were judged for it – something that people here are arguing as wrong using a tu quoque argument, which is fallacious.

[Hawkins]

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

Why do you have to lie?

Since when the Jews enjoyed smashing babies against rocks?

The "smashing babies" itself has nothing to do with what the Jews did to the Canaaniits. So tell us why you have to lie!?


You have to lie because sub-consciously you are here to attack Christianity with an agenda designed by Satan himself. You are under his control but without your own consent. That's why you have to lie.

How possible is the above speculation being correct?

[Zzyzx]

.

Why do you have to lie?

Accusation of 'lying' is regarded in this Forum as a serious matter.

Since when the Jews enjoyed smashing babies against rocks?

Psalm 137:8 O daughter of Babylon, you devastated one, How blessed will be the one who repays you With the recompense with which you have repaid us. 9How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones Against the rock.

The "smashing babies" itself has nothing to do with what the Jews did to the Canaaniits. So tell us why you have to lie!?

Correction:

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 ... istory.htm

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

You have to lie because sub-consciously you are here to attack Christianity with an agenda designed by Satan himself. You are under his control but without your own consent.

Opinion noted. You are not authorized or entitled in these debates to tell others they are controlled by 'Satan'.

My opposition to Christianity is NOT 'sub-conscious' nor is it controlled by an imaginary 'Satan'. Instead, my opposition is a reasoned response to self-righteous Christians attempting to inflict their religious beliefs and opinions onto individuals and the society in which I reside.

I challenge claims made in public debate. Those who make the claims but cannot SHOW they are true often become indignant or upset when their sacred cows are challenged.

That's why you have to lie.

The self-righteous often accuse others of lying RATHER than showing that they, themselves, speak truthfully. Thank you for demonstrating that to readers.

How possible is the above speculation being correct?

The 'speculations' to which you refer are quotations from or direct reference to the Bible.