Can genocide ever be morally right?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
That's Paul...How about some OT context?

"When the Lord your God has cut off before you the nations whom you are about to enter to dispossess them, when you have dispossessed them and live in their land, take care that you are not snared into imitating them, after they have been destroyed before you: do not inquire concerning their gods, saying, “How did these nations worship their gods? I also want to do the same.” You must not do the same for the Lord your God, because every abhorrent thing that the Lord hates they have done for their gods. They would even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods" (Deuteronomy 12:29-31).

"When you come into the land that the Lord your God is giving you, you must not learn to imitate the abhorrent practices of those nations. No one shall be found among you who makes a son or daughter pass through fire, or who practices divination, or is a soothsayer, or an augur, or a sorcerer, or one who casts spells, or who consults ghosts or spirits, or who seeks oracles from the dead. For whoever does these things is abhorrent to the Lord; it is because of such abhorrent practices that the Lord your God is driving them out before you. You must remain completely loyal to the Lord your God" (Deuteronomy 18:9-13).

Originally posted by SwissGambit
[b]1. You're saying that God is without sin, and sin is failing to love God. Summary: God always loves himself wholeheartedly. 😛 That's trivial.

And just how does one "love" God? For some of his followers, it meant dishing out death at the edge of the sword, and for others, it meant giving all they had to the poor. Can you understand why the prospective believer would be confused about what it actually means to try to please God?

The term love means that you have two parties with the choice to love each other. If either party is manipulated into loving the other it is not really love. Having said that, if I were to choose to love someone I would then seek to please them. For example, if you love your wife then you will seek to do what pleases her. Then again, if you do not love her you will probably seek to upset her in some way and distance yourself from her. I think this is what God craves. Think about it. If God is all powerfull and can do anything, what benefit is there in creating beings in which you can manipulate their every move? I think it would be very boring to say the least. It is akin to playing tick tack toe with yourself all day. Would it not be far more interesting to choose to give your creation the power to choose for themselves? If so, seeking to share a loving relationship with them would be far more interesting and it would probably be your prized posession. It is the one thing you choose not to control and, therefore, it is the one thing you prize the most. However, if you are a God who is the personification of love then love is all you have to share. If your creation then rejects you, ie rejects love, then what is there to share with him. You would then become disconnected from God.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
2. What is love? Your love for God shows a trust in him, despite the apparently hideous nature of his actions. I would ask you why you have a double standard for men and God. If a friend walked up and punched you in the face, you'd probably demand to know the reason he did it. You certainly wouldn't call it an act of love without getting a convincing reason from him. Why don't you ask the same of your God?

Your objection reminds me of a story in the OT in 1 Corinthians 13:9. In this story king David was moving the ark of the covenant by cart. In the cart was a man by the name of Uzzah. Then the cart began to tilt as the oxen drove the cart and Uzzah stretched out his hand to stop the ark from sliding. When he did, however, he died instantly. God forwarned them that his presence was within the ark and that any sinful mortal who touched it would die instantly. David was angry with God, however. In fact, David became fearful of God during this time and decided not to take the ark back to his home and instead took it to the house of a man named Obededom. Here we see David questioning the morality of God himself. After all, Uzzah was only trying to preserve the ark from sliding off the cart, no?

I think there with every believer there comes a time when they question whether God is "on their side" so to speak or is really "good". We can look for reasons, as did Job, but we often find ourselves without answers as did Job. As for my answer in why Uzzah was slain, I suspect it revovled around disobedience. The Israelites were instructed to move the ark with two men carrying it on two polls, not by ox cart. Whatever the reason, only God knows for sure. Perhaps you think God was immoral for slaying Uzzah. Perhaps he is not really "good" in your sight. However, when Obededom took the ark into his house he was blessed continually while it remained there. David did later come around again and make amends with his Creator. However, this seems to have taken a few months before he took the ark back. As for why you walked away from him, only you can answer. As for me, I have had my moments of doubt as well. However, I came back. Deep down I know he loves me and is on my side even though I am allowed to suffer as well as those I love. In the end, suffering will disappear, but not before sin disappears. For me, sin is the reason for suffering, not God.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]Is it consistent for a "just, loving and merciful" God to order thousands of people, some of whom are innocent children, to be killed?

You don't need to imagine a hypothetical situation in which genocide is morally correct, because the OT provides you with several real ones. If God is good, then there obviously must have been an extremely hein ...[text shortened]... —yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them" (Romans 1:18-32).[/b]

If God is good, then there obviously must have been an extremely heinous provocation to incite his wrath. And it's no mystery what that provocation was: idolatry. Find out why God hates idolatry so much and you will have the answer to your question.

That's a weak excuse. Since God sent his message primarily to the Israelites, it's completely unreasonable to annihilate other cultures for idolatry when they hadn't heard of Israel's God.

No being has the right to be loved or respected, and they certainly don't have a moral right to kill someone for not doing so.

I reject the idea from Romans that God is self-evident to everyone; just look around at all the various religious beliefs in the world. Your God isn't even getting the majority vote. If the truth of his existence is really so self-evident, then why don't most people believe in him?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yours and Gods moral standards are equally inconsequential. As I said, you haven't got even a basic grasp of the concept of morals. The quote you gave shows that the Bible (at least that translation of it anyway) doesn't either.

Yours and Gods moral standards are equally inconsequential.

For a person who doesn't believe in or obey God, God's moral standards are inconsequential, sure. Nevertheless that person must stand before God in judgment, no matter how confident he or she is that God's standards are inconsequential. And there isn't any higher standard than God's standard: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets"" (Matthew 22:37-40).

But God's law has already condemned you, "for no one can ever be made right with God by doing what the law commands. The law simply shows us how sinful we are" (Romans 3:20). "No one can be made right with God by trying to keep the law. For the Scriptures say, “It is through faith that a righteous person has life.” This way of faith is very different from the way of law, which says, “It is through obeying the law that a person has life”" (Galatians 3:11-12).

If we aren't justified by following God's standard, neither are we justified by following our own standard, no matter how lofty our standard or how exactingly we obey it. Faith in Jesus is the only path to justification because Jesus is the only fulfillment of God's law. "Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God’s law will disappear until its purpose is achieved. So if you ignore the least commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God’s laws and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven" (Matthew 5:17-19).

Whether or not your grasp of morals are superior to mine, under God's law we are both sinners. I wonder, though, what good your moral standards are, if they haven't led you to repentance, and the subsequent justification through faith in God's mercy? Only God's law can do that, that's why.

Originally posted by whodey
The term love means that you have two parties with the choice to love each other. If either party is manipulated into loving the other it is not really love. Having said that, if I were to choose to love someone I would then seek to please them. For example, if you love your wife then you will seek to do what pleases her. Then again, if you do not love he ...[text shortened]... ejects love, then what is there to share with him. You would then become disconnected from God.

The term love means that you have two parties with the choice to love each other.

No, it does not. There is such a thing as unrequited love.

If either party is manipulated into loving the other it is not really love.

Killing someone who fails to love you is a very strong way of manipulating others, wouldn't you say?

Having said that, if I were to choose to love someone I would then seek to please them. For example, if you love your wife then you will seek to do what pleases her. Then again, if you do not love her you will probably seek to upset her in some way and distance yourself from her.

That's not always true. If your wife was trying to quit drinking, and you caught her sneaking swigs of liquor, I doubt that pleasing her would be high on the priority list at that point. An extreme example, but that's life. Sometimes it's necessary to tell people what they don't want to hear.

If God is all powerfull and can do anything, what benefit is there in creating beings in which you can manipulate their every move? I think it would be very boring to say the least. It is akin to playing tick tack toe with yourself all day. Would it not be far more interesting to choose to give your creation the power to choose for themselves?

But that's exactly what he did. Again, killing those who choose against you is the ultimate manipulation, the ultimate coercion.

Originally posted by whodey
Your objection reminds me of a story in the OT in 1 Corinthians 13:9. In this story king David was moving the ark of the covenant by cart. In the cart was a man by the name of Uzzah. Then the cart began to tilt as the oxen drove the cart and Uzzah stretched out his hand to stop the ark from sliding. When he did, however, he died instantly. God forwarned t sappear, but not before sin disappears. For me, sin is the reason for suffering, not God.

In heaven, the saved will allegedly have new bodies and will not sin. Why didn't God create us all that way, rather than putting us through all this grief?

Originally posted by SwissGambit

[b]The term love means that you have two parties with the choice to love each other.

No, it does not. There is such a thing as unrequited love.

Such as God loving those who do not love him back? I would agree, however, to have a loving relationship both parties must agree to it.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
That's a weak excuse. Since God sent his message primarily to the Israelites, it's completely unreasonable to annihilate other cultures for idolatry when they hadn't heard of Israel's God.

No being has the right to be loved or respected, and they certainly don't have a moral right to kill someone for not doing so.

I reject the idea from Romans that ...[text shortened]... th of his existence is really so self-evident, then why don't most people believe in him?

That's a weak excuse. Since God sent his message primarily to the Israelites, it's completely unreasonable to annihilate other cultures for idolatry when they hadn't heard of Israel's God.

The God of Israel's fame was known throughout the earth because of what he did for the Israelites to deliver them from Egypt:

"By now I could have lifted my hand and struck you and your people with a plague to wipe you off the face of the earth. But I have spared you for a purpose—to show you my power and to spread my fame throughout the earth" (Exodus 9:15-16).

"They said to Joshua, “We are your servants.” And Joshua said to them, “Who are you? And where do you come from?” They said to him, “Your servants have come from a very far country, because of the name of the Lord your God; for we have heard a report of him, of all that he did in Egypt, and of all that he did to the two kings of the Amorites who were beyond the Jordan, King Sihon of Heshbon, and King Og of Bashan who lived in Ashtaroth" (Joshua 9:8-10).

Contrary to your assertion, all nations of the earth were well aware of Israel's God. Furthermore, he displayed his power in Egypt specifically as a warning to every nation on earth to depart from their evil ways.

I reject the idea from Romans that God is self-evident to everyone.

No surprise. I imagine you'll reject anything in the bible which doesn't support your view.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
But that's exactly what he did. Again, killing those who choose against you is the ultimate manipulation, the ultimate coercion.[/b]

Put yourself in God's position. Here you have those who are wicked and sin against their fellow man by murdering, stealing, etc. and in the process violating the free will you have endowed them with. What do you do? Do you allow them to continue thus allowing them to continue to violate the free will of others or do you violate their free will by ending their life? After all, God said he destroyed certain civilzations for their wickedness and murder etc. For God it seems that it is like walking a tight rope. You want to preserve ones free will without them violating others free will. There seems to be a line in the sand, so to speak, that when you cross it by a certain level of wickedness you die.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Sometimes it's necessary to tell people what they don't want to hear.

Your telling me. 😛

Originally posted by whodey
Put yourself in God's position. Here you have those who are wicked and sin against their fellow man by murdering, stealing, etc. and in the process violating the free will you have endowed them with. What do you do? Do you allow them to continue thus allowing them to continue to violate the free will of others or do you violate their free will by ending th ...[text shortened]... line in the sand, so to speak, that when you cross it by a certain level of wickedness you die.

You conveniently seem to forget what we are talking about. We are not talking about God taking the life of some baddie who has been "sinning against God" and running amok etc. We are discussing genocide...this means the slaughter of not just the baddie's but the children the women the babies and even the animals...i.e. every living thing.

If you want to tie yourself in knots doing the mental gymnastics necessary to believe what you read in the Bible, AND continue to think the God you worship actually deserves your respect, much less your worship, you go right ahead. However, it is incredibly naive of you to think that everyone else will be similarly willing to call genocide anything other than what it is just because it was perpetrated by your preferred deity.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]That's a weak excuse. Since God sent his message primarily to the Israelites, it's completely unreasonable to annihilate other cultures for idolatry when they hadn't heard of Israel's God.

The God of Israel's fame was known throughout the earth because of what he did for the Israelites to deliver them from Egypt:

"By now I could have lifted ...[text shortened]... ise. I imagine you'll reject anything in the bible which doesn't support your view.[/b]

The Joshua verse shows that some, not all, of the peoples of Caanan knew of the God of Israel. The Exodus verse says nothing about foreknowledge - in fact, the implication is that the fame of God would spread after Israel's conquests.

I find it a bit silly that you claim that all nations of the earth were aware of the God of Israel. You're trying a bit too hard. It's not like Israel ever went and conquered, say, China.

No surprise. I imagine you'll reject anything in the bible which doesn't support your view.

That sort of response is much easier than answering the reason I gave for rejecting the Romans passage. If you're no longer interested in debate, just let me know, and I'll let you be.

Originally posted by whodey
Put yourself in God's position. Here you have those who are wicked and sin against their fellow man by murdering, stealing, etc. and in the process violating the free will you have endowed them with. What do you do? Do you allow them to continue thus allowing them to continue to violate the free will of others or do you violate their free will by ending th ...[text shortened]... line in the sand, so to speak, that when you cross it by a certain level of wickedness you die.

You have resorted to vilifying the victims of genocide.

Had all 12,000 people in Ai murdered someone? No. There were innocent children who had done no wrong. Should stealing be punishable by death? Again, no - too harsh, too excessive.

What good is it to talk about 'levels of wickedness', when God constantly espouses death as the main punishment for all levels of wickedness?

What would I do in God's position? Easy. Spare the non-violent and non-murderous. Imprison, or execute, the murderers (based on severity of their crime) and imprison, or extract restitution from, the thieves. Whether any of them become loyal to me or not is of no concern. I'm trying to do what's right.

Edit: I would only intervene if man proved unable to punish killers and thieves on his own.

Originally posted by TheSkipper
You conveniently seem to forget what we are talking about. We are not talking about God taking the life of some baddie who has been "sinning against God" and running amok etc. We are discussing genocide...this means the slaughter of not just the baddie's but the children the women the babies and even the animals...i.e. every living thing.

If you want ...[text shortened]... ocide anything other than what it is just because it was perpetrated by your preferred deity.

You conveniently forget that we are talking about the God of the bible. Within the context of the bible God's actions are justified, which we've proven over and over again. If you deny the validity of God's word, then, of course, what point is there for anyone to argue with you from its pages. Your indignation is really all that you have to offer. Far from making your point, though, that the God of the bible is evil, your indignation merely betrays the fact that you do not fear God. Perhaps you would have him justify himself to you? You may not 'prefer' him, but the God of the Israelites is nevertheless your creator and you are accountable to him, not the other way around. I pray that you'll discover this before it's too late.