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?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 39 by Zzyzx]

The respect Hawkins has for your agency, for your ability to freely make choices, has been noted.

[JLB32168]

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

I agree that it is not a little crass of someone to accuse another of lying when indeed it might be misunderstanding and it’s always good to err on the side of caution.

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.

In all fairness, you’re citing a verse that was written centuries after the Hebrew conquest of Canaan. Secondly, you’re citing a poem and poems aren’t meant to be metaphorical more often than not. Thirdly, it calls for karma upon Babylon who razed Jerusalem and its environs to the ground. That’s hardly a support for the assertion that the Hebrew men rejoiced as they killed Canaanite babies.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 36 by JLB32168]
JLB
OK, if you are going to make a habit of only reading one sentence of my posts, I guess I will post one sentence at a time.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 36 by JLB32168]

Don't you know [one people being better than another] this is the root of racism, genocide and all else that is best in humanity?

[Elijah John]

.
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?

Moderator Warning


Do not accuse others of lying and/or being controlled by Satan. Do not demonize your opponents on this site. If you think someone is wrong, give them the benefit of the doubt and demonstrate HOW they are mistaken.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[KenRU]

.
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?

It can't be justified without mental gymnastics, imo.

In order to justify this, one has to say: "I don't want you killing babies, so I'm going to come over there and kill you AND ALL of your babies! This way, we won't have any more baby killing going on!"

How does this make any sense whatsoever? How can a being that advocates such thinking be considered benevolent? Or even sane?

-all the best

[Zzyzx]

.

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

I agree that it is not a little crass of someone to accuse another of lying when indeed it might be misunderstanding and it’s always good to err on the side of caution.

It is also prudent to consider that you may be the one who is wrong and what you consider 'lying' or 'misunderstanding' may be truthful and accurate.

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.

In all fairness, you’re citing a verse that was written centuries after the Hebrew conquest of Canaan.

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

Secondly, you’re citing a poem and poems aren’t meant to be metaphorical more often than not.

Bait and switch – 'the Bible is true unless it is intended as metaphorical and Believers are entitled to say what is metaphorical'. Ironically, the distinction between metaphorical and literal truth just happens to coincide with whatever point the Believer is trying to make.

Theists seem to get all upset when the 'resurrection' is considered metaphorical.

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

Thirdly, it calls for karma upon Babylon who razed Jerusalem and its environs to the ground.

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?

That’s hardly a support for the assertion that the Hebrew men rejoiced as they killed Canaanite babies.

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

[Zzyzx]

.
I appreciate Apologists demonstrating to readers that their religious beliefs can be used to justify or excuse warfare, genocide, infanticide.

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

This is all opinion and nothing more.

Correction: The killings are taken from Bible stories. Christians and Jews apparently think it is noble and god-approved to kill Canaanites but not noble to kill Hebrews. I disagree with killing in general.

I’m of the opinion that the elimination of advocates of this religion ended the practice of throwing infants into fires.

Infanticide is currently practiced in India, China, Nepal and South Korea.

In China and India alone, an estimated 2,000,000 baby girls go "missing" each year. They are selectively aborted, killed as newborns, or abandoned and left to die. Neighboring countries with similar cultural traditions, such as South Korea and Nepal, have also faced this problem.
http://asianhistory.about.com/od/govern ... n-Asia.htm

Shall we invade those nations to eliminate the practice? Or is it okay as long as they don't throw them into fires or if they only kill female children?

In 1978, anthropologist Laila Williamson, in a summary of data she had collated on how widespread infanticide was among both tribal and developed, or "civilized" nations, found that infanticide had occurred on every continent and was carried out by groups ranging from hunter gatherers to highly developed societies and that rather than this practice being an exception, it has been commonplace. The practice has been well documented among the indigenous peoples of Australia, Northern Alaska and South Asia, and Barbara Miller argues the practice to be "almost universal", even in the West. Miller contends that in regions where women are not employed in agriculture and regions in which dowries are the norm then female infanticide is commonplace, and in 1871 in The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, Charles Darwin wrote that the practice was commonplace among the aboriginal tribes of Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_infanticide

Bold added. Since the practice of infanticide is commonplace worldwide, is invasion and destruction of all such cultures justified?

Also see http://www.domesticviolenceservices.com ... icide.html

I’m also of the opinion that destructions of these peoples was justified in that they had blood on their hands.

China, India, Nepal and South Korea also 'have blood on their hands' – so destruction of those nations is 'justified'. Right? Shall we just nuke them – or shall we invade and destroy them?

Shall we keep the virgin girls for ourselves?

The best version of your argument is that the Hebrews should have died along with them.

My argument is that neither of the killings is justified. I do not accept that two wrongs make a right.

I do not propose killing of Hebrews or Canaanites (perhaps because I am not a religionist).

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.

Deaths of innocents occurring in war is NOT the same as deliberately destroying entire culture.

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.

Correction: I state 'unjustified' which means without justification (unless one accepts 'My gods told me to� as justification for atrocities).

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

Why is that important?

It is only important if one prefers peace to warfare. But carry on deciding which nations should be destroyed.

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.

More accurately, I say that I am not (our nation is not) entitled or empowered to force others to do what I (we) think is correct.

I respond the same way to individuals. What others do is not my business unless it affects my life. If they commit crimes against society's laws they risk being punished. That is an issue for law enforcement and the legal system – not vigilantes.

I disagree and my mandate/authorization is me. I declare it so.

Congratulations.

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.

By that reasoning nations are 'not wrong' if invading and making war on each other as long as their 'god' told them to do so. Agreed?

Thus, Muslims and Jews are 'not wrong' for attacking each other for a thousand years. Christians are / were not wrong for conducting Crusades against Muslims (and occasionally other Christians who worshiped wrong) if 'God' told them to make war on people.

ANYONE can invade anyone else and be 'not wrong' if 'god told me to'. Right?

They had just better be ready to have the same thing done to them.

What happened to 'love one another' and 'love thy enemies'?

Would it not seem more appropriate to live in peace regardless who worshiped what gods?

Why then do you say their actions are morally wrong – which is what unjustified means?

I use the term unjustified to mean not justified and define justify as to provide or be a good reason for (something). I do not attach moralistic or religious meanings (as one should expect).

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.

Who has a mandate to wipe out a culture? Shall we start with China? Or India? Nepal might be easier and quicker.

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

Except that you would support the infanticide committed by the Canaanites via omission.

Refusing to intervene in the internal affairs of other nations does NOT constitute support of their practices. Do you advocate invading all nations that we find objectionable or abhorrent?

What happens when good men do nothing?

The same things that have been going on for thousands of years.

There are some terrible things going on in Africa. Shall we rush over and play policeman? If we do nothing are we supporting terrible actions? Are we ethically bound to right the wrongs of the world?

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.

Now that you understand that Japan initiated war with the US by bombing Pearl Harbor, you want me to speculate about “what if� it hadn't happened. Thanks, but no thanks. I am not given to speculating about hypothetical scenarios. That is one reason I am not a Theist.

I understand.

Perhaps you THINK you understand.

I present ideas that I do not expect many Theists to understand or appreciate, but do trust that many readers without religious blinders or god glasses may understand and appreciate. They will decide which ideas have merit and which they accept.

[JLB32168]

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. You’ve produced a Psalm that was written hundreds of years later calling for Karma on Babylon for their crimes against the Jewish people.

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.

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.

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?

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.

[bluethread]

. . . 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.