Moses bin Amram and Adolph Hilter

[Willum]

SallyF is hinting at similarities between Hitler and Jesus - honestly I don't see it, but I am ready to be surprised.

But it did make me see a relation between Moses and Hitler.

Both led their people from slavery.
Both were xenophobes.
Both attempted genocide, only one succeeded.
Both were artists.

Let's look at other similarities and differences.

[Willum]

So disappointing that there are no other contributors.
Sad when the Chief Executor of the Abrahamic religions turns out to be a more horrible person than the Chief Executor of his race.

Here are some other similarities and differences.

One institutionalized slavery, essentially into history.
One institutionalized rape.
One was a murderer.
One commanded the slaughter of his own people, over a golden statue.

Both were artists.
Supposedly Hitler was an occultist, Moses definitely was.

They both claimed to be chosen.
They both whine about reclaiming their empire.
Both claimed to be the best, but betrayed.

[bjs]

Both led their people from slavery.

Hitler did not lead his people from slavery.

Both were xenophobes.

Moses was not a xenophobe. Many of his commands (Deuteronomy 10:19, Exodus 23:9, Leviticus 19:33-34, etc.) directly contradicted xenophobia.

Both attempted genocide, only one succeeded.

Moses did not attempt genocide.

Both were artists.

On what are you basing the claim that Moses was an artist?

At this point, the comparison seems as stretched as the comparison between Jesus and Hitler. Neither comparison seems to bear any resemblance to reality.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 3 by bjs]

Hitler did not lead his people from slavery.

All of Germany was enslaved due to treaty and reparation to Europe. It's entire economy working to pay an insurmountable war bill. History man, history.

Moses was not a xenophobe. Many of his commands (Deuteronomy 10:19, Exodus 23:9, Leviticus 19:33-34, etc.) directly contradicted xenophobia.

And all the genocides under his belt say he was.

Moses did not attempt genocide.

No he succeeded, thrice, arguably four times. Canaanites, Midianite, Armorites and Egyptians.

On what are you basing the claim that Moses was an artist?

He wrote songs, and was pretty good with a chisel.

At this point, the only thing you have demonstrated is a lack of knowledge of the Bible and history.

[bjs]

[Replying to post 3 by bjs]

Hitler did not lead his people from slavery.

All of Germany was enslaved due to treaty and reparation to Europe. It's entire economy working to pay an insurmountable war bill. History man, history.

Germany was under considerable debt. That’s not what the word slavery means.

Moses was not a xenophobe. Many of his commands (Deuteronomy 10:19, Exodus 23:9, Leviticus 19:33-34, etc.) directly contradicted xenophobia.

And all the genocides under his belt say he was.

Moses did not attempt genocide.

No he succeeded, thrice, arguably four times. Canaanites, Midianite, Armorites and Egyptians.

Moses died before reaching Canaan. The Midianite, Armorites and Egyptians all survived Moses, which means that he did not succeed in a genocide against them. What specific passage makes you think Moses attempted, much less succeeded, in genocide?

On what are you basing the claim that Moses was an artist?

He wrote songs, and was pretty good with a chisel.

What songs did he write? Psalm 90 was attributed as a prayer of Moses, suggesting that the basic wording came from Moses. However, it was not attributed as a psalm of Moses, suggesting that someone else transformed Moses’ prayer into a psalm. He did record Psalms attributed to other people. Chiseling commands on stone would stretch the definition of “artist� beyond its breaking point.

At this point, the only thing you have demonstrated is a lack of knowledge of the Bible and history.

It would seem that my knowledge is limited to events actually in the Bible and in history.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 5 by bjs]

So, the Bible lied about its genocides? Is that your argument? You are putting me in the position of Bible literalism, while you say it is false?
How can you trust anything it says?

As to the rest, I will just call that quibbling, desperate quibbling, as it is close enough for an analogy, show how comparable the two monsters were, and rest my case.

[Mithrae]

Moses died before reaching Canaan. The Midianite, Armorites and Egyptians all survived Moses, which means that he did not succeed in a genocide against them. What specific passage makes you think Moses attempted, much less succeeded, in genocide?

Let's get this straight: Your defense of Moses in the case of the Midianites, for example - who the Israelites slaughtered because the Israelite men had decided to have consentual sex with Midianite women and participate in a nonviolent religious ritual with them, 'causing' God to kill thousands of his own people - is that Moses "did not succeed in a genocide against them" because after killing all the Midianite men, burning all their towns, and capturing then butchering all the women and boys, they kept alive 32,000 virgin girls for their own use?

• Number 31:7 They did battle against Midian, as the Lord had commanded Moses, and killed every male. 8 They killed the kings of Midian: Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba, the five kings of Midian, in addition to others who were slain by them; and they also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9 The Israelites took the women of Midian and their little ones captive; and they took all their cattle, their flocks, and all their goods as booty. 10 All their towns where they had settled, and all their encampments, they burned, 11 but they took all the spoil and all the booty, both people and animals. . . .
  
  15 Moses said to them, “Have you allowed all the women to live? 16 These women here, on Balaam’s advice, made the Israelites act treacherously against the Lord in the affair of Peor, so that the plague came among the congregation of the Lord. 17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man by sleeping with him. 18 But all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves.

It only counts as genocide if not a single person remains alive, is that what you think? That has never been the definition of the word, as a few seconds' thought would show; otherwise you should have been arguing that Hitler never committed genocide either!

• UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
  Article II
  In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: Killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

At this point, the comparison seems as stretched as the comparison between Jesus and Hitler. Neither comparison seems to bear any resemblance to reality.

It's surprising how readily Jesus the pacifist gets thrown under the bus in defense of Moses the ethnic cleanser.

[Goose]

Moses died before reaching Canaan. The Midianite, Armorites and Egyptians all survived Moses, which means that he did not succeed in a genocide against them. What specific passage makes you think Moses attempted, much less succeeded, in genocide?

Let's get this straight: Your defense of Moses in the case of the Midianites, for example - who the Israelites slaughtered because the Israelite men had decided to have consentual sex with Midianite women and participate in a nonviolent religious ritual with them, 'causing' God to kill thousands of his own people - is that Moses "did not succeed in a genocide against them" because after killing all the Midianite men, burning all their towns, and capturing then butchering all the women and boys, they kept alive 32,000 virgin girls for their own use?

• Number 31:7 They did battle against Midian, as the Lord had commanded Moses, and killed every male. 8 They killed the kings of Midian: Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba, the five kings of Midian, in addition to others who were slain by them; and they also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9 The Israelites took the women of Midian and their little ones captive; and they took all their cattle, their flocks, and all their goods as booty. 10 All their towns where they had settled, and all their encampments, they burned, 11 but they took all the spoil and all the booty, both people and animals. . . .
  
  15 Moses said to them, “Have you allowed all the women to live? 16 These women here, on Balaam’s advice, made the Israelites act treacherously against the Lord in the affair of Peor, so that the plague came among the congregation of the Lord. 17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man by sleeping with him. 18 But all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves.

It only counts as genocide if not a single person remains alive, is that what you think? That has never been the definition of the word, as a few seconds' thought would show; otherwise you should have been arguing that Hitler never committed genocide either!

• UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
  Article II
  In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: Killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

How would we differentiate, then, the Allied bombing of Dresden, the American nuclear bombing of Hiroshima, and Nagasaki from that definition of genocide? Surely we could make a case these destructive acts align, perhaps with the exception of the final clause, with the definition of genocide above?

As barbaric as these events recorded in the Bible may seem to us now, how much should the fact that they occurred during an era of total tribal warfare, which was nation versus nation type warfare something like the Total War of WWII, play a part in how we apply the charge of genocide?

At this point, the comparison seems as stretched as the comparison between Jesus and Hitler. Neither comparison seems to bear any resemblance to reality.

It's surprising how readily Jesus the pacifist gets thrown under the bus in defense of Moses the ethnic cleanser.

If Moses was an ethnic cleanser, what does this imply about Churchill and Truman?

[Mithrae]

How would we differentiate, then, the Allied bombing of Dresden, the American nuclear bombing of Hiroshima, and Nagasaki from that definition of genocide? Surely we could make a case these destructive acts align, perhaps with the exception of the final clause, with the definition of genocide above?

As barbaric as these events recorded in the Bible may seem to us now, how much should the fact that they occurred during an era of total tribal warfare, which was nation versus nation type warfare something like the Total War of WWII, play a part in how we apply the charge of genocide?

At this point, the comparison seems as stretched as the comparison between Jesus and Hitler. Neither comparison seems to bear any resemblance to reality.

It's surprising how readily Jesus the pacifist gets thrown under the bus in defense of Moses the ethnic cleanser.

If Moses was an ethnic cleanser, what does this imply about Churchill and Truman?

You're citing examples in which the Allied forces A) as victims of aggression undertook drastic measures B) killing tiny fractions (~0.04% and ~0.3% respectively) of the targeted nations' population, reportedly on the basis of C) shortening the conflicts and saving more lives and yet even so D) have been issues of controversy and at best regrettable necessity even in those Allied countries themselves.

In the case of Moses' actions against the Midianites and commands against the seven nations of Canaan A) the Israelites were active aggressors B) intending and according to the stories largely succeeding in wiping out all or the overwhelming majority of those peoples, C) with no justification save religious purity in the Midianite case and the usual kind of baby-killing propaganda against the Canaanites, and later in the Israelite story D) praised and lauded as the glorious actions of Yahweh.

Exactly where in this comparison do you imagine that the numerous Israelite genocides come out looking good?

The morality of the Allied bombings can be and indeed are questioned and debated... so what does that say about stories of the Israelites which are far more reprehensible on every imaginable level? Biblical apologists have no possible rational recourse, as far as I can see, besides arguing either that 1) in these cases aggressive genocide was somehow okay because someone claimed that Yahweh said it was okay, or more plausibly 2) that the stories are indeed abhorrent but fortunately were entirely fabricated as 'watch out or the bogeyman will get you too' style warnings to keep the Israelites under control of Yahweh's priests.


As things stand, even the German people and nation condemn Hitler. But perhaps if his plans had worked out they would praise him and his God-given successes just as many Jews (and Christians) continue to exalt and defend their more prolific and more successful biblical genocidaire even now.

[Goose]

You're citing examples in which the Allied forces A) as victims of aggression undertook drastic measures B) killing tiny fractions (~0.04% and ~0.3% respectively) of the targeted nations' population, reportedly on the basis of C) shortening the conflicts and saving more lives and yet even so D) have been issues of controversy and at best regrettable necessity even in those Allied countries themselves.

So the counter arguments are the Allied bombings weren’t acts of genocide because of the above points A-D?

A) Is a, “Yeah, but he started it!� defence. Self defence is justifiable providing it’s not excessive. Was Nagasaki not excessive? And as far as I’m aware the British weren’t directly, themselves, the victims of Nazi aggression. Certainly the women and children of Dresden did nothing to the British. The Americans were victims of Japanese aggression in Pearl Harbour. But let’s keep in mind this was aggression localized to a military target, an American naval base. There were 68 civilian casualties. The Americans in turned bombed thousand of women and children melting their skin off. The Japanese never bombed and American city. Further, the Americans were also involved in the fire bombing of Dresden killing about 25,000 civilians including women and children. The Americans weren’t victims of Nazi aggression either.

B) I could make the same argument regarding the Bosnian genocide. Only 8,000 were killed. Representing roughly 0.4%, a tiny fraction, of the population. These kinds of cold calculations veil the real numbers as though it’s not genocide because the number of deaths represented are a relatively low percentage of the total population. Approximately 140,000 men, women, and children were killed in a matter of moments in the bombing of Hiroshima alone. That’s possibility quite a bit more than the Israelites killed.

C) Saving more American lives. Clearly, sparring Japanese lives was not the objective. Hardly a defence from genocide.

D) Right. And justification for such acts will at best be weakly sufficient. Can we agree that acts of war, whether justified or not, are horrible?

In the case of Moses' actions against the Midianites and commands against the seven nations of Canaan A) the Israelites were active aggressors B) intending and according to the stories largely succeeding in wiping out all or the overwhelming majority of those peoples, C) with no justification save religious purity in the Midianite case and the usual kind of baby-killing propaganda against the Canaanites, and later in the Israelite story D) praised and lauded as the glorious actions of Yahweh.

A) And that makes it genocide because...

B) But if it’s in the context of total war, why is this genocide? And what if the Japanese had not surrendered? The Americans dropped atomic bombs on two different cities within three days of each other. Who’s to say they would not have continued until the Japanese people were virtually obliterated from the planet?

C) You don’t think the practise of child sacrifice was sufficient moral grounds for waging war? How is the Allied justification really any better then?

D) And that’s relevant to the charge of genocide because...

Exactly where in this comparison do you imagine that the numerous Israelite genocides come out looking good?

No amount of justification will make these kinds of acts “come out looking good.� Do you really think the above justifications (A-D) for the Allied bombings make the Allies “look good�? The point, one which you don’t seem to be disputing, is that the acts of the Israelites and Allies were done under the context of total warfare. As such, the criminal charge of genocide seems to be misplaced.

The morality of the Allied bombings can be and indeed are questioned and debated... so what does that say about stories of the Israelites which are far more reprehensible on every imaginable level?

The morality of the actions is quite irrelevant to my point. Let’s just say it is always immoral for one person to kill another and leave it at that.

My reason for bringing these events up was to challenge the charge of genocide. I’m not so sure genocide is the correct charge here. It’s a highly emotive term coined to describe a relatively recent event, the Holocaust. An event which had some very specific characteristics which seem to be lacking in the wars of the Israelites. Applying a specialized modern criminal term to tribal warfare which took place thousands of years ago seems to be some kind of anachronistic fallacy. When in the context of tribal warfare of the time, the actions of Moses and the Israelites were consistent with how warfare of the time took place.

My argument being, given your definition of genocide, it seems to me either Moses, Truman, and Churchill (and by extension the American and British people) are all guilty of genocide or none of them are.