The Conquest Of Canaan

[FarflungWanderer]

For the purposes of this debate, we will not​ be discussing the actual historical evidence involving the Israelite conquest of Canaan as described in the Old Testament.

 

 

A couple of days ago, my father and I had a debate over the acts of genocide committed by the Israelites as described in the Bible*, and I decided to put our arguments up on here so it can prompt a good discussion. Due to the ad-hoc manner of our debate, neither my father nor I made specific mention to scripture aside from vague references. It was more a discussion of morality and ideas rather than strict textual analysis. As such, I will not be posting too many scriptural references in this post to reflect that lack of intense study.

 

The debate can be broken down into a single argument followed by a long hypothetical discussion, which I will write below, listing both my father's arguments (in red) and mine (in green). This debate revolved mainly over the massacre of the Amalekites as described in Joshua.

 

 

Argument: The Amalekites were given many chances by God to repent, but refused to. Their perfidious acts and constant aggression against Israel eventually gave the Israelites the ​casus belli to destroy their enemy.

Response A: While the Bible states (as paraphrased by my father) that the Amalekites were given chances by God to repent, this attempt to redeem the Amalekites is not mentioned (to my knowledge) anywhere else in the Bible. Regardless of whether or not they were given a chance to repent, the Amalekites acted no better or worse than any other civilization from the area. Child sacrifice was rather common, and going around raiding and killing is as old as time itself. To say that the Amalekites were worse than any other people is silly.

Response B: The constant attacks by Amalekites towards the Israelites, with their intent to annihilate the Israelite people, made it so that there was no other recourse than utter and total destruction for the enemies of the people of God.

Response C: There was no recourse whatsoever aside from genocide? Every last man, woman, and child had to be killed? How would that make the Israelites better than the Amalekites? Why did helpless children have to be killed? Women who could pose no military threat to the Israelites?

Response D: The Amalekite society raised more and more Amalekites. It was corrupt through and through, and it had to die completely. Otherwise, the children who survived would grow up to become a new threat to Israel.

It was at this point that I began to question the sanity of my father.

Response E: That's moronic. The Amalekite society may have created warriors and genocidal maniacs out of its children, fine, but when the Israelites annihilated their cities, fighting men, and culture, there wouldn't have been an Amalekite society anymore. Whatever would have raised their children to become what they had always been was forever removed. The circle has been broken, and those children could become blank slates, able to find some other tribe to raise them, or even attach themselves to the Israelites and become a new generation of fighting men.

This went back and forth for a distressingly long time as I explained again and again that the Amalekite society was gone the instant that the Israelites won the war. Even if all the men were killed and the women and children were spared from this culling, the children would not grow up to become Amalekites, but rather they would become whatever the society that they would find themselves in afterwards molded them to be.

Response F: Even if the women and children were spared, where would they go? The Israelites were having a major food problem and would not have been able to carry the weight of an entire society's survivors.

Response G: So the only response is genocide? Absolute, complete, and total annihilation of a people? The death of innocent women and children? Why was it necessary? Are you saying that an all-powerful, just, and good God could not have provided for those survivors? Given them food, water, and clothing as He had for the Israelites? Are you saying that there was no ​alternative to mass genocide?

 

This marked the end of the debate proper, but somewhere in-between Response E and Response F we began a long hypothetical situation. The set-up was "What if Mexico was extremely aggressive and was raiding cities on the border, wiping out entire towns and massacring everyone inside, innocent or not. What would you, the President of the United States, do in response?"

Response: I'd go to war. An action like that would not and could never stand. I would destroy the Mexican army, occupy their land, and overthrow their government that had sanctioned such actions. I would not, however, go about nuking the entire country in some stupid idea of revenge. The dead are dead, but those civilians had nothing to do with what the Mexican military was doing on my border. The people would be protected, educated, cared for, and once they set up a stable government, I would pull the military back and resume regular trade with the new nation.

Naturally, he pointed out that the Israelites did not have the capability to occupy a territory, which is a fair point. However, he decided to go one further and continue onto Response F.

 

That's really all that happened. I hope you guys enjoy reading through this and the following discussion. I will monitor this thread best I can (work tends to get in the way), and get involved where possible. Happy reading, and no asshattery, please.

 

 

*Believe or not, we got on this when discussing ISIS. We were listening (begrudgingly on my part) a talk radio show (Mark Levin, if you've ever heard of him), and the host was upset that the US wasn't doing enough to stop the militants. I complained, saying that the only thing you could do more was to start carpet bombing civilian areas, and that was not an alternative. This led to a discussion on morality when it comes to war, and my father was trying to state that our morality was based in the Bible. I must have touched a nerve when I said that ISIS' military tactics adhered more to the Bible's than the more humanist American and Western concept of "not killing people without guns".

[Guest sylensikeelyoo]

Damn NICE arguments. I must admit, a year ago, I would have agreed with your dad. However, since deconverting, my thoughts on war have grown very complex, as my ideas on morality have shifted drastically. Since I no longer look above my head to an invisible, made-up deity or an ancient "holy" book, but rather, inward for my basis for morality, I am more inclined to side with you on this debate.

 

The atrocities of war have always weighed heavily on my mind, and I could never really reconcile the idea of an infinitely "good" god demanding death because of disobedience or difference of opinion. I therefore maintained a form of cognitive dissonance and just brushed it all off as ,"well god must have had a really REALLY good reason for ordering the slaughter of all those people, and the women and children And babies must not have been all that innocent." I now see how completely absurd that sounds. But that's what happens when someone's head is clouded by religion. They can't see reality for what it is and therefore, their ideas on morality are so distorted, that right is wrong and wrong is right.

 

The arrogance is what gets me. The fact that someone can be so wrong, yet so sure of themselves and their fucked up worldview, that they are even indignant when you come at them with an opposing view.

[Blood]

Response D: The Amalekite society raised more and more Amalekites. It was corrupt through and through, and it had to die completely. Otherwise, the children who survived would grow up to become a new threat to Israel.

 

 

 

This type of "argument" is also used by Bible-believers to justify Joshua's mass slaughter of the Canaanites as well. According to theologian William Lane Craig, the Israelites were actually the real "victims," since smashing babies against rocks is bound to produce some post-traumatic stress disorder down the line. 

 

You really cannot reason with someone like this. Their minds have been so warped by the Bible, they deserve pity, not scorn. 

[ironhorse]

The "Slavery, Rape, and Genocide" thread now on page 10 has two of my replies concerning the Amalekites. (Posts #10, #18)

 

Crazyguy123 took time to read the link I posted and wrote a rebuttal. (post #16)

 

 

 

That said, I think we are the barbarians, not God.

 

 

A few statistics on how we are taking care of the children:

 

-50 million abortions worldwide every year

 

-45% of deaths of children every year is caused by hunger. (3.1 million every year)

 

-36 million people enslaved. (8.6 million are children)

[FarflungWanderer]

The "Slavery, Rape, and Genocide" thread now on page 10 has two of my replies concerning the Amalekites. (Posts #10, #18)

 

Crazyguy123 took time to read the link I posted and wrote a rebuttal. (post #16)

 

 

 

That said, I think we are the barbarians, not God.

 

 

A few statistics on how we are taking care of the children:

 

-50 million abortions worldwide every year

 

-45% of deaths of children every year is caused by hunger. (3.1 million every year)

 

-36 million people enslaved. (8.6 million are children)

 

Irrelevant. God said to massacre the Amalekites.

 

Throwing random facts about how bad people are to people are a canard. A blood-red herring, if you will.

[sdelsolray]

 

The "Slavery, Rape, and Genocide" thread now on page 10 has two of my replies concerning the Amalekites. (Posts #10, #18)

 

Crazyguy123 took time to read the link I posted and wrote a rebuttal. (post #16)

 

 

 

That said, I think we are the barbarians, not God.

 

 

A few statistics on how we are taking care of the children:

 

-50 million abortions worldwide every year

 

-45% of deaths of children every year is caused by hunger. (3.1 million every year)

 

-36 million people enslaved. (8.6 million are children)

 

Irrelevant. God said to massacre the Amalekites.

 

Throwing random facts about how bad people are to people are a canard. A blood-red herring, if you will.

 

It's the common, "Hey, look over there!"

[mymistake]

 

 

-50 million abortions worldwide every year

 

-45% of deaths of children every year is caused by hunger. (3.1 million every year)

 

-36 million people enslaved. (8.6 million are children)

 

 

Looks like whoever is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good really sucks at running the universe.

[Guest sylensikeelyoo]

 

-50 million abortions worldwide every year

 

-45% of deaths of children every year is caused by hunger. (3.1 million every year)

 

-36 million people enslaved. (8.6 million are children)

 

 

 

Looks like whoever is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good really sucks at running the universe.

^^^ FACT.

[midniterider]

The "Slavery, Rape, and Genocide" thread now on page 10 has two of my replies concerning the Amalekites. (Posts #10, #18)

 

Crazyguy123 took time to read the link I posted and wrote a rebuttal. (post #16)

 

 

 

That said, I think we are the barbarians, not God.

 

Isn't God the one who brings us into the world? We are his children, his creation, right? So if we are barbarians, we are just the barbarians that God created. Maybe God should create better people if we are indeed barbarians.  Really though, I don't think there is a God but you're right, 'some' of us humans are barbarians.

 

A few statistics on how we are taking care of the children:

 

-50 million abortions worldwide every year

 

-45% of deaths of children every year is caused by hunger. (3.1 million every year)

 

-36 million people enslaved. (8.6 million are children)

 

God supposedly drowned EVERYONE ON EARTH but a small handful of people in the Great Flood. But I guess KILLING EVERYONE ON EARTH is ok if you're God cuz God can do no wrong! Ever! KILLING EVERYONE ON EARTH is only a minor anger issue compared to the evil barbarianism committed by His children....that He created.

[midniterider]

A few statistics on how we are taking care of the children:

 

-50 million abortions worldwide every year

 

They just took their instruction from Hosea 13:16.

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

The "Slavery, Rape, and Genocide" thread now on page 10 has two of my replies concerning the Amalekites. (Posts #10, #18)

 

Crazyguy123 took time to read the link I posted and wrote a rebuttal. (post #16)

 

 

 

That said, I think we are the barbarians, not God.

 

 

A few statistics on how we are taking care of the children:

 

-50 million abortions worldwide every year

 

-45% of deaths of children every year is caused by hunger. (3.1 million every year)

 

-36 million people enslaved. (8.6 million are children)

 

But yet, fetuses are not even considered people in your Bible and there is no instance in which the act of killing a fetus is even considered wrong. How could it be that humans are barbarians if they give or receive abortions, but yet your god is not, even when he gives instructions to kill infants and rip open pregnant women with swords? The abortion statistic information you bring up does nothing to defend your position and it is also completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

 

As for the problem of child hunger, we are not responsible for the existence of this problem. It is caused by overpopulation and greed on the part of those who already have the resources necessary to stop child hunger. It appears that your all-knowing, all-powerful god cannot even be bothered to lift a finger to stop child-hunger, even though he certainly could. If I had the resources to feed every starving child at the same time, I would do it, but your god who supposedly is more than capable, does not. If he is so powerful and so loving, then why does he not just give them manna, like he supposedly did for his chosen people while they were supposedly in Egypt? Maybe he either does not exist or does not care? Bringing up the problem of child hunger has done nothing to defend your position and is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

 

It is clear from the Bible that your god is perfectly okay with slavery (unless the slaves were his chosen people, because they are just so precious to him). Israelites were even permitted to purchase and own slaves for life as long as they were foreigners. Is bringing up the issue of slavery still a failed attempt at defending your position? It certainly looks that way. Also, once again, bringing up the issue of slavery is still irrelevant.

[duderonomy]

The "Slavery, Rape, and Genocide" thread now on page 10 has two of my replies concerning the Amalekites. (Posts #10, #18)

 

Crazyguy123 took time to read the link I posted and wrote a rebuttal. (post #16)

 

 

 

That said, I think we are the barbarians, not God.

 

 

A few statistics on how we are taking care of the children:

 

-50 million abortions worldwide every year

 

-45% of deaths of children every year is caused by hunger. (3.1 million every year)

 

-36 million people enslaved. (8.6 million are children)

 

Wow. Those are the exact same statistics on how Biblegod is taking care of the children. The only difference I can see is that the barbarians are hanging in there and trying to make things better.