Capital Punishment Upon the Canaanites

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

I am hesitant to term it genocide because of a number of factors, among them.

1.) The greater concern was to destroy Canaanite religion more so than the Canaanites per se.

2.) The "ban" (herem) meaning a consecration to destruction, did not eliminate Rehab and her family in Jericho. The devotion to destruction was not irreversible or absolute in this case with a prostitute and her family who were willing to submit to the one true God who judged the Egyptian gods and Canaanite gods. In both cases lives were spared for the realization of God's reality.

I don't think the Germans would have cared if a Jew had said that they were after all, a fan of Hitler. He had gotten the trains running on time and other societal benefits.

3.) The peace treaty with the Gibeonites (Josh 11:19) was honored even though they deceived the Hebrews. The devoting to destruction was not so great as to not honor the treaty.

I don't think true genocide would have had them eliminate them from existence regardless. And the offer of a peace treaty seems to have been implicitly made to the city of Jericho.

4.) The text refers at times to "driving out" the Canaanites. To clear away the land for habitation didn't require killing. It did call for destruction of the Canaanite centers of worship which God wanted to terminate.

5.) Certain (more cooperative) Canaanites were subjected to forced labor rather than annihilation (Judges 1:27-36; 1 Kings 9:20-21; Joshua 15:63; 16:10; 17:12-13; compare Psalm 106:34-35).

6.) The Bible says that Joshua carried out what Moses commanded (Deut, 7 and 20). But extermination of every last Canaanite did not occur.

7.) Groups of Canaanite people were still around apparently after it says they were "totally destroyed". See Judges chapter one.

Originally posted by sonship
I am hesitant to term it genocide because of a number of factors, among them. [etc. etc.]

The most glaring omission among the factors you cite is your own steadfast reluctance to use the term "genocide" and the rhetorical summersaults you seem willing to do in an effort to do so.

Originally posted by sonship
1.) The greater concern was to destroy Canaanite [b]religion more so than the Canaanites per se.[/b]

Attempting to destroy a religion by killing its adherents is genocide.

Originally posted by sonship
7.) Groups of Canaanite people were still around apparently after it says they were [b]"totally destroyed". See Judges chapter one.[/b]

Not being 100% successful, and even not seeking to kill 100% of your intended victims, does not mean it's not genocide.

Originally posted by sonship
6.) The Bible says that Joshua carried out what Moses commanded (Deut, 7 and 20). But extermination of every last Canaanite did not occur.

There were Jews who survived the Holocaust. But I don't think you'd be "hesitant to term it genocide".

Originally posted by sonship

I am hesitant to term it genocide because of a number of factors, among them.

1.) The greater concern was to destroy Canaanite [b]religion more so than the Canaanites per se.

2.) The "ban" (herem) meaning a consecration to destruction, did not eliminate Rehab and her family in Jericho. The devotion to destruction was not irreversible or absolute in this case with a prostitute and her family who were willing to submit to the one true God who judged the Egyptian gods and Canaanite gods. In both cases lives were spared for the realization of God's reality.

I don't think the Germans would have cared if a Jew had said that they were after all, a fan of Hitler. He had gotten the trains running on time and other societal benefits.

3.) The peace treaty with the Gibeonites [b](Josh 11:19) was honored even though they deceived the Hebrews. The devoting to destruction was not so great as to not honor the treaty.

I don't think true genocide would have had them eliminate them from existence regardless. And the offer of a peace treaty seems to have been implicitly made to the city of Jericho.

4.) The text refers at times to [b]"driving out" the Canaanites. To clear away the land for habitation didn't require killing. It did call for destruction of the Canaanite centers of worship which God wanted to terminate.

5.) Certain (more cooperative) Canaanites were subjected to forced labor rather than annihilation [b](Judges 1:27-36; 1 Kings 9:20-21; Joshua 15:63; 16:10; 17:12-13; compare Psalm 106:34-35).

6.) The Bible says that Joshua carried out what Moses commanded [b](Deut, 7 and 20). But extermination of every last Canaanite did not occur.

7.) Groups of Canaanite people were still around apparently after it says they were [b]"totally destroyed". See [b]Judges chapter one.

Perhaps you should give me your personal definition of "genocide".

Originally posted by FMF

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whose land is it anyway in the final analysis ?
The land is God's.

He punished the Canaanites for defiling themselves and the land by their sins. And He latter punished the nation of Israel for the same thing.


What Jesus ~ who is not here to argue His corner
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

He speaks for the God of the whole Bible.
Noticeably His view is not yours.

Who do you think I should trust more ?
I think I should take note that, for instance, when He spoke concerning the flood of Noah, not a word was said about how "unrighteous" God was. Rather He warned that it would be the same with the world in the last days before His coming.


~ 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".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"May or may not have said" is throwing more dust into the air to obfuscate His moral judgment upon the God of the Old Testament.

Are you afraid that Jesus Christ might not agree with you in everything ?

Originally posted by sonship
Are you afraid that Jesus Christ might not agree with you in everything ?

I don't attach the same significance as you do to the life of Jesus, so I'll leave being "afraid" of whether or not Jesus "agrees with you in everything" to you. Pretending that I 'believe in' Jesus enough to perhaps be "afraid" of Him is a rhetorical trick and not an argument that justifies your use of use of the word "righteous", and your denial of genocide . Ultimately, what is under scrutiny here is what effect your rationalization of genocide has on the basis for your moral compass, and not the degree to which I am "afraid" of the God figure you just so happen to believe in.

Originally posted by sonship
Whose land is it anyway in the final analysis ?
The land is God's. He punished the Canaanites for defiling themselves and the land by their sins. And He latter punished the nation of Israel for the same thing.

This is only according to the Hebrews' literature.

Originally posted by sonship
Who do you think I should trust more ? [Jesus or FMF]

I am not asking you to "trust" me more than Jesus. I am not asking you to give up your belief that the genocide was "righteous". I am not asking you to give up your religion ~ as you well know ~ especially if it results in you living your life in a morally sound way.

I am simply asking you about the quality and use of the "evidence" that you claim there is justifying the OT genocides we have discussed. It is your ideology that is under scrutiny - Your definition of genocide - Your attitude to 'historical method' - The moral lesson you claim to have learned from the Hebrews slaughtering the Canaanites because they say their God figure told them to do it.

You asking me if I am "afraid" of Jesus or if I want you to "trust" me more than Jesus, and all your peculiar redefinition of the term "genocide" - are rhetorical tricks - and would suggest that once you stray from preaching to a choir, you do not fare well.

Originally posted by FMF
This is only according to the Hebrews' literature.

I believe we are dealing with God communicating with man in man's language, written in greater part by Hebrews.

You think we are only dealing with Hebrew literature.
For sure SOMEBOY wrote these things.
And SOMEBODY kept saying "I am Jehovah your God. ... I am Jehovah your God ... etc."

Now examining a few things written in say one life time, sure, I might conclude some impersonation is taking place. IE Somebody was putting words into the mouth of a fictitious God.

After examining this God's interaction with His people over a few thousand years, I have come to believe God is speaking to mankind.

Now you have enjoyed the constant role of sitting back and playing skeptic, asking question after question. I just might ask you some.

In the writing of the laws I read this:

"And if a sojourner sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong.

The sojouner who sojourns with you shall be to you AS THE NATIVE AMONG YOU, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt; I am Jehovah your God." (Lev. 19:33,34)

If God commanded that every last non-native be exterminated to death, why would the be this law to love the non-native sojourners " as yourself " ?

It appears that God knew that once the worship centers were destroyed and the pagan religion terminated and the combatants killed, some deprived of their land would be sojourners.

How come it didn't say, ie. "Take that sojourner who is a non-Israelite and kill him like the rest." ? That would have been the true genocidal thing to command.

( to be fair an instance of sparring an Amalekite was rebuked )

I believe we have God speaking in Hebrew writing through Hebrew prophets who were faithful to pass on the experience with God in both favorable and unfavorable terms.

Originally posted by FMF

Ultimately, what is under scrutiny here is what effect your rationalization of genocide has on the basis for your moral compass, and not the degree to which I am "afraid" of the God figure you just so happen to believe in.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After 440 years, the greater part consisting of the crimes enumerated in Leviticus 18 I can see God's long suffering tolerance on that society coming to a RIGHTEOUS end.

IE.

"And you shall not give any of your offspring to pass through the fire to Molech, and so profane the name of your God, I am Jehovah." (v.21)

How many children could have been sacrificed like this during the span of 440 years ? God was righteous to terminate that society.

" The nakedness of your sister, your father's daughter, or your mother's daughter ... you shall not uncover." (Lev. 18:9)

The greater part of four centuries this immoral act may have been the norm.

"The nakedness of your son's daughter or of your daughter's daughter' their nakedness you shall not uncover; " (v.10)

Another common act to perhaps taken place for the better part of four centuries.

"You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's sister; she is your father's flesh." (v.12)

For four hundred and forty years God saw this constantly take place for a significant time. That is too long to tolerate how it threatened the very fabric of the human race.

"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination.

And you shall not lie with any beast to defile yourself with it; neither shall any woman stand before a beast, to lie down with it;

it is confusion." (vs. 22,23)

God was patient for 440 years. Righteously He intervened to judge. And not only to judge the non-repentant society but to save the rest the human race from the rampant spread of the moral cancer.

So my moral compass sees why God judged after so long a time of thousands of victims being inundated with societal education of this nature. And my moral compass sees the need for all of to be saved by the Jesus Christ who you dismiss as insignificant.

My moral compass, informed as it is from the Bible, agrees with God that the land is His, every inch of the earth. And the people upon it are also His.

And He demonstrated in a one time historical intervention of this sort, that such a world would fall under His judgment. I am glad the dreadful story IS recorded in the Bible. I am glad that the truth is told by the Great Physician to the sick patient.

More so that a cure is available, New Testament salvation in the Son of God.

Originally posted by sonship
My moral compass, informed as it is from the Bible, agrees with God that the land is His, every inch of the earth. And the people upon it are also His.

Ah yes. So, this is why you seek to justify the genocide committed by the Hebrews upon the Canaanites. You should have just said so instead of pretending to be a 'historian'. Your's is a compass that's akin to the 'just following orders' defence. Why not just admit this rather than wrapping it up in pseudo-intellectual claptrap involving stuff like disingenuous redefinition of the word "genocide" and pretending that you're doing anything other than just regurgitating the product of millennia of circular logic?

Originally posted by FMF

Ah yes. So, this is why you seek to justify the genocide committed by the Hebrews upon the Canaanites. You should have just said so instead of pretending to be a 'historian'.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I didn't pretend to be a historian. I referred to the methods of historians. I don't think in that regard I am doing anything that you might be doing.

This is the second occurrence of your false accusation that I portrayed my self as a historian. As a layman to that discipline I have every right to refer to the procedures of historians.

Your's is a compass that's akin to the 'just following orders' defence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's right. They followed orders. And i would not say that among those following order there weren't some who had less than holy motives.

I notice that many died in the failed attempt to take the city of Ai.
It looks like a discipline to me.

So if some followed orders with glee, God could deal with them at another time.

We see in the book of Amos that God punished some people who carried out His discipline upon a nation designated for punishment yet were excessive in doing so.

He noticed. And He dealt with them. Interested readers should refer to the entire first chapter of the prophet Amos.

So even if someone pointed to an Israelite that was ecstatic to see their enemies slaughtered, it doesn't mean that God could not deal with the crass attitude of that Israelite latter.

The story of Joab, one of David's mighty men, is a case in point. His selective dedication and cruelty met eventually with a judgment with no mercy upon him.

The bottom line is, "Folks, keep reading the Bible."

As for the remainder of your post, three alternatives remain to me:

1.) It didn't happen and some writers wrote a slanderously false account implicating God.

2.) It did happen and God was wrong.

3.) It did happen and God was right and we need to catch up with His wisdom and knowledge.

I take the third choice, I admitted that there are difficult aspects to the account. But then again, I read more of the surrounding related material for a fuller picture.

God not existing is out of the question.
God having to sit at FMF's feet to learn a thing or two about ethics, is also out of the question.

The Bible doesn't end with the book of Joshua.
And God demonstrating His angery judgment dramatically is appropriate to understand that though His attitude has not changed toward such sins, He may not always act in time the same way. And He may not always authorize His servants with the authority to act in the same way.

Nothing in the New Testament concerns me having to make a decision about slaughtering a sinful nation to possess their land.

Originally posted by sonship
God having to sit at FMF's feet to learn a thing or two about ethics, is also out of the question.

Of course it is out of the question; saying this is nothing but a prickly, pouting, cock the snook from you.

Your line of argument, when you boil it all down, is 'my God figure says it's ok', which, let's face it, when it comes to the propagation of ideology here in this forum, amounts to little more than 'sonship says so'.

I encountered the same with your notion of "perfect justice" ~ perverted beyond recognition and crow-barred into your rote-learned torturer God philosophy.

Mind you, there is no actual harm done to either you or me by way of this discussion, other than you will no longer have any credibility whatsoever if you should find yourself discussing genocide in this world of ours. It's not me who has had to corrupt the meaning of the word completely in order to participate in this discussion. So, there's a wee bit of harm done there, maybe.