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?

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to JLB32168]

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

“You asked which the greater crime was. I said that it was opinion. Do you dispute it’s opinion? That said, I think that a reasonable sampling of people would conclude that the worship of Molech that had occurred for centuries involved the deaths of many more infants than the Hebrews could ever kill. You’re free to disagree, of course.�

The Canaanites killed more children then the Israelites.
Many people believe the the Canaanites killed more children then the Israelites.
Blah, blah … irrelevant.

First,
Because you can't show that the Canaanites killed more children then the Israelites is to be the truth.(Or can you? If yes, please do)

Second,
Your just trying to distract the attention from the main issue: the massacre of innocent children for which both parties are guilty of. Plus your making yourself guilty of using a logical fallacy. Again!!!

Ad Populum fallacy

The ad populum fallacy is the appeal to the popularity of a claim as a reason for accepting it.
The number of people who believe a claim is irrelevant to its truth. Fifty million people can be wrong. In fact, millions of people have been wrong about many things: that the Earth is flat and motionless, for example, and that the stars are lights shining through holes in the sky.

Let’s take a few examples of serial killers who have murdered many children(Some more then others):

Luis Garavito
Colombia
1990s
Proven victims:138
Possible victims:172–300+
Child-murderer, torture-killer, and rapist known as �La Bestia� (“The Beast"). Confessed to killing 140 children over a five-year period in Colombia. He is suspected of murdering over 300 victims, mostly street children.[2][3]


Daniel Camargo
Colombia-Ecuador
1974 to 1986
Proven victims:72
Possible victims:150
Child-murderer, believed to have possibly raped and killed over 150 victims, primarily young virgin girls. Confessed to killing 72 victims, and incarcerated with Pedro Alonso Lopez. He is believed to have been motivated to kill from his stepmother abusing him as a child. He strangled young girls in Colombia and was arrested, but he escaped from prison and he started killing in Ecuador; rearrested in 1989, he was killed in jail.[5]

Serhiy Tkach
USSR-Ukraine
1984 to 2005
Proven victims:36
Possible victims:80–100
A former Ukrainian police criminal investigator, suffocated girls aged between 8 and 18 and performed sexual acts on their bodies after they were dead. Claims to have killed 100.

Manuel Octavio Bermúdez
Colombia
1999 to 2003
Proven victims:21
Possible victims:50+
Colombian pedophile and serial killer. Known as "El Monstruo de los Cañaduzales" (The Monster of the Cane Fields). He confessed to killing 21 children in remote areas of Colombia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... of_victims

Q: Is Luis Garavito (The Beast) murders so much more abhorrent or on a lesser moral ground then Daniel Camargo murders because he killed twice as much?

Q: Is Luis Garavito (The Beast) murders so much more abhorrent or on a lesser moral ground then Serhiy Tkach(The Monster of the Cane Fields) because he killed three time as much?

Q: Is Luis Garavito (The Beast) murders so much more abhorrent or on a lesser moral ground then Manuel Octavio Bermúdez because he killed six times as much?

[JLB32168]

The ancient Hebrews sound like the ISIS of their day and you seem pretty ok with that.

Isis kills people for not following their form of Islam. Hebrews killed people who followed a religion that required everyone to “let their children pass through the fires of Molech.�
I’m not seeing the validity of the analogy. One significant contrast – religious practices that demand the sacrifice of infants in fires seems a little more brutally barbaric than what ISIS is doing, which is still odious.

I see. The Bible is lauded as a source for teaching UNLESS that doesn't make sense -- then switch it to "venting our frustrations" and present a moving target to duck criticism (just as 'don't take that part literally because it is metaphor but DO take all the miracle and mystical parts literally').

What is your argument now? How exactly does a Psalm written centuries after the Hebrew conquest of Canaan prove that the Hebrews from three centuries prior enjoyed bashing babies heads against rocks? You’re making no sense, or did you drop that argument?

The Canaanites killed more children then the Israelites. Many people believe the the Canaanites killed more children then the Israelites. Blah, blah … irrelevant.

Oh no. When an atheist or other skeptic (or any theists for that matter) asks which crime was greater – that of the Hebrews or that of the Canaanites – one must use some sort of criteria/-on to justify his/her opinion. It seems to me that numbers of dead and length of time that an odious practice is performed is an appropriate standard to use in measuring which crime is greater. What criteria would you use to determine which crime was greater.

Because you can't show that the Canaanites killed more children then the Israelites is to be the truth.(Or can you? If yes, please do)

I think that it is reasonable to speculate that a religion practiced for centuries, in which everyone was required to sacrifice an infant to Molech, would involve many more infants than the Hebrews could ever kill. The combined populations of Tokyo and Beijing could have contained the population of the entire Bronze Age world – a fifth of those living in China. The average city might have contained two thousand people so how many of those would be infants and children? They’ve found multiple burial grounds with children’s bones mixed w/animal bones in the area and that suggests that these burial grounds weren’t merely children’s cemeteries.

Your just trying to distract the attention from the main issue: the massacre of innocent children for which both parties are guilty of.

Yes – the Hebrews killed the children along with their parents. I’m not sure how that’s an ad populum fallacy since I couldn’t care less if you accepted the reason or not. I’m only trying to argue who committed the greater crime, which a skeptic asked.

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to JLB32168]

“Oh no. When an atheist or other skeptic (or any theists for that matter) asks which crime was greater – that of the Hebrews or that of the Canaanites – one must use some sort of criteria/-on to justify his/her opinion. It seems to me that numbers of dead and length of time that an odious practice is performed is an appropriate standard to use in measuring which crime is greater. What criteria would you use to determine which crime was greater.�


Again.

Let’s take a few examples of serial killers who have murdered many children(Some more then others):

Luis Garavito
Colombia
1990s
Proven victims:138
Possible victims:172–300+
Child-murderer, torture-killer, and rapist known as �La Bestia� (“The Beast"). Confessed to killing 140 children over a five-year period in Colombia. He is suspected of murdering over 300 victims, mostly street children.[2][3]

Daniel Camargo
Colombia-Ecuador
1974 to 1986
Proven victims:72
Possible victims:150
Child-murderer, believed to have possibly raped and killed over 150 victims, primarily young virgin girls. Confessed to killing 72 victims, and incarcerated with Pedro Alonso Lopez. He is believed to have been motivated to kill from his stepmother abusing him as a child. He strangled young girls in Colombia and was arrested, but he escaped from prison and he started killing in Ecuador; rearrested in 1989, he was killed in jail.[5]

Serhiy Tkach
USSR-Ukraine
1984 to 2005
Proven victims:36
Possible victims:80–100
A former Ukrainian police criminal investigator, suffocated girls aged between 8 and 18 and performed sexual acts on their bodies after they were dead. Claims to have killed 100.
Manuel Octavio Bermúdez
Colombia
1999 to 2003
Proven victims:21
Possible victims:50+
Colombian pedophile and serial killer. Known as "El Monstruo de los Cañaduzales" (The Monster of the Cane Fields). He confessed to killing 21 children in remote areas of Colombia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... of_victims

Q: Is Luis Garavito (The Beast) murders so much more abhorrent or on a lesser moral ground then Daniel Camargo murders because he killed twice as much?

Q: Is Luis Garavito (The Beast) murders so much more abhorrent or on a lesser moral ground then Serhiy Tkach(The Monster of the Cane Fields) because he killed three time as much?

Q: Is Luis Garavito (The Beast) murders so much more abhorrent or on a lesser moral ground then Manuel Octavio Bermúdez because he killed six times as much?

Please answer these question.



“Yes – the Hebrews killed the children along with their parents. I’m not sure how that’s an ad populum fallacy since I couldn’t care less if you accepted the reason or not. I’m only trying to argue who committed the greater crime, which a skeptic asked.�

You said this : “That said, I think that a reasonable sampling of people would conclude that the worship of Molech that had occurred for centuries involved the deaths of many more infants than the Hebrews could ever kill.�

Q: How is relevant how many people believe that the Canaanites killed more infants then the Israelites in a talk about who killed more?



“I think that it is reasonable to speculate that a religion practiced for centuries, in which everyone was required to sacrifice an infant to Molech, would involve many more infants than the Hebrews could ever kill. The combined populations of Tokyo and Beijing could have contained the population of the entire Bronze Age world – a fifth of those living in China. The average city might have contained two thousand people so how many of those would be infants and children? They’ve found multiple burial grounds with children’s bones mixed w/animal bones in the area and that suggests that these burial grounds weren’t merely children’s cemeteries.�

Speculative nonsense.

First,
Having multiple burial grounds with children’s bones mixed w/animal bones in the area and that suggests that these burial grounds does not tell you how much children bones were from sacrificial rituals and how much died from other causes.

Secondly,
Your conclusions are disputed by recent archaeological work.

“Carthage was notorious to its neighbors for child sacrifice. Plutarch (ca. 46–120 AD) mentions the practice, as do Tertullian, Orosius and Diodorus Siculus. However, Livy and Polybius do not. The Hebrew Biblealso mentions what appears to be child sacrifice practiced at a place called the Tophet ("roasting place") by the Canaanites, ancestors of the Carthaginians, and by some Israelites.

The accuracy of such stories is disputed by some modern historians and archaeologists.[18] At Carthage, a large cemetery exists that combines the bodies of both very young children and small animals, and those who argue in favor of child sacrifice have argued that if the animals were sacrificed then so too were the children.[19] However, recent archaeological work has produced a detailed breakdown of the age of the buried children and based on this, and especially on the presence of pre natal individuals - that is still births, it is also argued that this site is consistent with the burial of children who had died from natural causes in a society that had a high infant mortality rate - as Carthage is assumed to have been. I.e. this data supports the view that Tophets were cemeteries for those who died shortly before or after birth, regardless of the cause.[19]

Greek, Roman and Israelite writers refer to Phoenician child sacrifice. However, some historians have disputed this interpretation, suggesting instead that these were resting places for children miscarried or who died in infancy.[citation needed] Skeptics suggest that the bodies of children found in Carthaginian and Phoenician cemeteries were merely the cremated remains of children that died naturally.[20] Sergio Ribichini has argued that the Tophet was "a child necropolis designed to receive the remains of infants who had died prematurely of sickness or other natural causes, and who for this reason were "offered" to specific deities and buried in a place different from the one reserved for the ordinary dead".[21] The few Carthaginian texts which have survived make absolutely no mention of child sacrifice, though most of them pertain to matters entirely unrelated to religion, such as the practice of agriculture.�

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sacrifice

 

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 64 by bluethread]




[center]
Possible Fallacious Religious Reasoning:
"Babylonian monsters."
Part One[/center]

I wonder what kind of monster has to be taught not to bash babies against rocks is not a good thing to do?

Babylonian monsters.

In the light of Z's correction I am now confused.
Could some Christian help me out here?

Were the Babylonians being applauded for bashing kids on rocks, or was it the Hebrews?

___________

Here is the full text of Psalm 137:

• 1 By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept
  when we remembered Zion.
  
  2 There on the poplars
  we hung our harps,
  
  3 for there our captors asked us for songs,
  our tormentors demanded songs of joy;
  they said, "Sing us one of the songs of Zion!"
  
  4 How can we sing the songs of the LORD
  while in a foreign land?
  
  5 If I forget you, O Jerusalem,
  may my right hand forget its skill.
  
  6 May my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth
  if I do not remember you,
  if I do not consider Jerusalem
  my highest joy.
  
  7 Remember, O LORD, what the Edomites did
  on the day Jerusalem fell.
  "Tear it down," they cried,
  "tear it down to its foundations!"
  
  8 O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction,
  happy is he who repays you
  for what you have done to us-
  
  9 he who seizes your infants
  and dashes them against the rocks.
  

___________


Who is being repaid by whom, exactly?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 64 by bluethread]




[center]Cynicism as a good teaching method.
Part Three: Calling a threat of "dashing babies on rocks" as 'expected' when one worships this God.[/center]

Being happy about the misfortunes of others is not a good thing.

I quite agree. Dashing babies on rocks is an abomination to me.
In Psalm 13:7, who is being praised for dashing babies against rocks?

No one, the Babylonians are being criticized in a cynical manner.

Psalm 137 is very famous.
Do you consider it a fine thing to say that their babies should be dashed on rocks?
Whose babies do you think the passage is referring to, anyway?

No, I am saying that it is to be expected that people will be happy when cruel people undergo misfortune, and that is what the psalmist is also saying.

It seems to me that the psalmist is saying that we should expect to have babies dashed on rocks.

There is no command here or even an encouragement of that behavior, but an acknowledgement that people will respond in a vindictive manner.

In my opinion, dashing babies on rocks would be one of the worst war crimes imaginable.

__________

Questions:

1. Are you saying that when dealing with the Hebrews that the psalmist is talking bout, it's only to be EXPECTED to have your babies dashed on rocks?
2. Are you saying that, when God is on one's side that it's fine to dash anyone on rocks, including babies?
3. When is it acceptable to dash babies on rocks, in your opinion?
4. What babies would be dashed on rocks, the Babylonian babies, or the Hebrew babies?
5. You say that being happy about the misfortunes of others is not a good thing. Where does it say in the Bible that the psalm was wrong in any way?
6. Again, who are the monsters who would dash babies on rocks in this story?
__________

[polonius]

__________

Questions:

Where does it say in the Bible that the psalm was wrong in any way?

Where does it say in the Bible that anything it says is wrong in any way?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 75 by polonius.advice]




[center]Does Psalm 137 promote dashing babies on rocks or not?
Part One[/center]

Where does it say in the Bible that the psalm was wrong in any way?

Where does it say in the Bible that anything it says is wrong in any way?

Could you elaborate on that comment?

It seems to me that the psalm we are talking about is threatening enemies with "dashing babies on rocks". This seems more of an endorsement of what I consider a moral abomination than a critique of the practice.

Some person in here went so far as to say that dashing babies on rocks was to be expected, and seems to consider THAT to be a great moral lesson.. And then, uses "cynicism" in some strange way to .. support the notion?

I don't know.
Some people are harder to understand than others, I suppose.

Maybe you can clarify what you meant by your comment.
That wasn't particularly clear to me, either.

Thanks

[bluethread]

Psalm 137 is very famous.
Do you consider it a fine thing to say that their babies should be dashed on rocks?
Whose babies do you think the passage is referring to, anyway?

Yes, I believe it is fine to refer to say that it would make a victim happy if one who performed an act of violence experienced similar violence in their lives. That is a common human response.

No, I am saying that it is to be expected that people will be happy when cruel people undergo misfortune, and that is what the psalmist is also saying.

It seems to me that the psalmist is saying that we should expect to have babies dashed on rocks.

No, the psalmist is saying that the victim would be happy if the perp's babies were dashed on rocks.

There is no command here or even an encouragement of that behavior, but an acknowledgement that people will respond in a vindictive manner.

In my opinion, dashing babies on rocks would be one of the worst war crimes imaginable.

That is why we have a psalm regarding a vindictive reaction.

__________

Questions:

1. Are you saying that when dealing with the Hebrews that the psalmist is talking bout, it's only to be EXPECTED to have your babies dashed on rocks?

No, it would be expected that the a victim would be vindictive and be happy if the perp were to experience their grief.

2. Are you saying that, when God is on one's side that it's fine to dash anyone on rocks, including babies?

No.

3. When is it acceptable to dash babies on rocks, in your opinion?
4. What babies would be dashed on rocks, the Babylonian babies, or the Hebrew babies?

It is a hypothetical.

5. You say that being happy about the misfortunes of others is not a good thing. Where does it say in the Bible that the psalm was wrong in any way?
6. Again, who are the monsters who would dash babies on rocks in this story?

It doesn't. It leaves it to the reader to make that judgement. The Psalm does not say whom the hypothetical baby killers are, it just says that whoever they are, people will be happy if it were to happen to the Babylonians.

Let me put this in a modern context for you. Don't you think that the Kurds would be happy if members of ISIS were burned alive or drowned on cages? By the way, do you read much poetry?

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 77 by bluethread]

What a FINE example of religious teaching – promoting vindictiveness (and defense of the practice).

No, the psalmist is saying that the victim would be happy if the perp's babies were dashed on rocks.

There is no command here or even an encouragement of that behavior, but an acknowledgement that people will respond in a vindictive manner.

That is why we have a psalm regarding a vindictive reaction.

No, it would be expected that the a victim would be vindictive and be happy if the perp were to experience their grief.

Let me put this in a modern context for you. Don't you think that the Kurds would be happy if members of ISIS were burned alive or drowned on cages?

'Dashing babies' seems a bit extreme even for a fanatic – but extremism and fanaticism appear to be acceptable to some religionists, particularly when attempting to defend their literature.

[bluethread]

.
[Replying to post 77 by bluethread]

What a FINE example of religious teaching – promoting vindictiveness (and defense of the practice).

No, the psalmist is saying that the victim would be happy if the perp's babies were dashed on rocks.

There is no command here or even an encouragement of that behavior, but an acknowledgement that people will respond in a vindictive manner.

That is why we have a psalm regarding a vindictive reaction.

No, it would be expected that the a victim would be vindictive and be happy if the perp were to experience their grief.

Let me put this in a modern context for you. Don't you think that the Kurds would be happy if members of ISIS were burned alive or drowned on cages?

'Dashing babies' seems a bit extreme even for a fanatic – but extremism and fanaticism appear to be acceptable to some religionists, particularly when attempting to defend their literature.

So, are you saying that the Scriptures should only paint a rosy picture? Come on, you would be the first to find fault if the Scriptures did not portray people realistically.