Capital Punishment Upon the Canaanites

Originally posted by sonship
What I mean is if the creative power and managerial skill of a typical person like you were compared to the creative and managerial skill of God the Creator, I think many billion fold wisdom and knowledge is displayed by the Creator over you.

The 'contest' is not between me and your God figure. What is under scrutiny is your "wisdom and knowledge" as you defend an instance of genocide, in the mythology you subscribe to, by citing only the writings of the perpetrators, and then pronounce yourself as having used 'historical method'.

Originally posted by sonship
The hatred of God toward sin must be revealed before the meaning of Christ dying for ALL the sins of everyone on earth for all history can be contemplated.

On what basis are making the claim about what the Canaanites were "guilty" of?

Originally posted by FMF
I am making no "accusatory analysis against the God of the Bible", the nature of whom and revelation is, I believe, a figment of your imagination; I am saying that your evidence and method is weak and your ideology is therefore not coherent and is overly reliant on being shored up by your personal sincerity and enthusiasm. You pass yourself off as a 'historian' ...[text shortened]... tion constitutes evidence of something more than simply the degree of personal devotion at work.

I am making no "accusatory analysis against the God of the Bible", the nature of whom and revelation is, I believe, a figment of your imagination;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The "figment of imagination" is more you assumed innocent self.
I have no imaginary excuse for assuming I have not transgressed the the righteous law of God.

I have no imaginary innocence before God. I know I need a Savior.


I am saying that your evidence and method is weak and your ideology is therefore not coherent and is overly reliant on being shored up by your personal sincerity and enthusiasm. You pass yourself off as a 'historian'
-----------------------------------------------------------------

I didn't say I was a professional historian. I said historians look for things like potentially embarrassing details written by followers of someone as indication that the truth is probably being told.


when you are more akin to a poetry or literature critic who adores the only author he analyzes and thinks that this personal devotion constitutes evidence of something more than simply the degree of personal devotion at work.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm sorry if you have no one to adore.
You can subtract points for my loving God.
I don't mind that.

Originally posted by sonship
Where you are probably going is that that was parallel in all respects. But I don't think the 30s and 40s in Europe was exactly equivalent.

The issue is evidence. What do the writings of those who carried out the genocide in Europe tell us about their victims?

Originally posted by sonship
I'm sorry if you have no one to adore.
You can subtract points for my loving God.
I don't mind that.

This kind of post does nothing to strengthen the evidence you present or your use of it.

Originally posted by sonship
I don't even think "genocide" may be the best term for what happened. But I am studying that.

Weren't all the children to be murdered too? Does the term "genocide" not fit?

Originally posted by FMF
Weren't all the children to be murdered too? Does the term "genocide" not fit?

Canaanites show up latter in the history of Israel in the Promised Land. So they could not have been totally exterminated.

Genocidal motives would argue against Israel coming out of Egypt "a mixed multitude" (Exo. 12:23; Num. 11:4) . Some of their mortal enemies, the Egyptians, joined them.

Joseph married and Egyptian woman as Moses married an Ethiopian one. Pure genocidal motives of racial superiority wouldn't have permitted these marriages of these significant forefathers of the Hebrews.

Asenath the Egyptians gave birth to Manasseh and Ephraim (Gen. 41:50) . Pure racial superiority which usually fuels genocide should have disqualified then two tribes of the Hebrews for this impure backround.

Rehab the Moabite woman was a testimony that their enemies could be incorporated into the Hebrew clan.
True Genocidal motives should have forbidden the intermarriage.

I call the conquest Sinocide. Regardless of how happy some Hebrews were to see their enemies defeated, some of them underwent such similar fate from God's hands when they performed the same hated sins.

If one fails to notice that in reading the Bible, one must be blind or doesn't read except the commentaries of skeptics.

" Sinocide" was dispensed upon the Israelites for their mimicking the Phoenicians ritual infant sacrifice to the Baals and Asherahs and to Molech e.g. (,2 Kings 23:10; compare Leviticus 18:21; Deut. 18:10).

Originally posted by sonship
Canaanites show up latter in the history of Israel in the Promised Land. So they could not have been totally exterminated.

Surely you are not saying it was not a "genocide" because it wasn't 100% successful?

Originally posted by sonship
The "figment of imagination" is more you assumed innocent self.
I have no imaginary excuse for assuming I have not transgressed the the righteous law of God. I have no imaginary innocence before God. I know I need a Savior.

What was done to the Canaanites does not become "righteous" simply by you slipping the word "righteous" in there. Are you perhaps insisting that what the Hebrews did was "righteous" because you think or hope that - in some way - doing so will make up for the fact that you feel you have "no imaginary innocence before God"?

Originally posted by sonship
Joseph married and Egyptian woman as Moses married an Ethiopian one. Pure genocidal motives of racial superiority wouldn't have permitted these marriages of these significant forefathers of the Hebrews.

Surely you are not saying it was not a "genocide" because its victims and its perpetrators may not have been from groups that were racially pure?

Take a break readers.

This archeologist says between 80% and 90% of what evangelicals think they know about archeology is either outdated, untrue or out and out hoax. He says:

" Now Mark Twain defined faith as believing in something you know really isn't true. ... Let me say this; All of the faith of all of the Christians who have ever lived on this planet can't make one word of the Bible true if it isn't true in reality to begin with."

He went looking for Sodom as it is located in the book of Genesis with an attitude "Its either there or its not."

With this skeptical and cautious backround he then gives a talk about excavation of Sodom and the cities of the plain.

The Apologetics Canada Conference 2011: Dr. Steven Collins Confirming the Bible Through Archaeology.

YouTube

Originally posted by sonship
Rehab the Moabite woman was a testimony that their enemies could be incorporated into the Hebrew clan. True Genocidal motives should have forbidden the intermarriage.

I call the conquest [b]Sinocide. Regardless of how happy some Hebrews were to see their enemies defeated, some of them underwent such similar fate from God's hands when they performed ...[text shortened]... and Asherahs and to Molech e.g. (,2 Kings 23:10; compare Leviticus 18:21; Deut. 18:10).[/b]

It would seem that appropriating the words "genocide" and "genocidal", and lending them alternative and specific meanings that are convenient to you, forms part of your "evidence" that you suggest makes the slaughter of the Canaanites "righteous".

Originally posted by sonship
Take a break.

Do as you please. The questions about your peculiar commandeering of the term "genocide" remain dangling there.

Originally posted by FMF
It would seem that appropriating the words "genocide" and "genocidal", and lending them alternative and specific meanings that are convenient to you, forms part of your "evidence" that you suggest makes the slaughter of the Canaanites "righteous".

If Jesus Christ said His Father - the God constantly mentioned in the Old Testament, was righteous, that is significant.

Why didn't Jesus rant about the unfair genocide of the conquest of Canaan ? He spoke quite much about the stories in the Old Testament.

Where do you see Him distance Himself from what God commanded the theocratic nation to do in this one time event ?

Originally posted by sonship
If Jesus Christ said His Father - the God constantly mentioned in the Old Testament, was righteous, that is significant.

Why didn't Jesus rant about the unfair genocide of the conquest of Canaan ? He spoke quite much about the stories in the Old Testament.

Where do you see Him distance Himself from what God commanded the theocratic nation to do in this one time event ?

I am taking issue with the way you argue your ideology when it comes to the mass murder of the Canaanites and the taking of their land. What Jesus ~ who is not here to argue His corner ~ may or may not have said centuries after the event does not vindicate your attitude towards, or use of, "evidence" here and now, nor your use of the words "righteous", "pure" and "genocide".