Even if God had a morally valid justification for the OT genocides he authored, we can still criticize those of his followers of today who, self-admittedly, do not understand the nature of that justification, yet embrace the killings as moral anyway.
Such people destroy their own credibility on moral matters. If they can't condemn something that looks so wrong to them, even after hours of reflection, then we should have serious doubts that they possess much good moral judgment overall.
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemVery well put.
Even if God had a morally valid justification for the OT genocides he authored, we can still criticize those of his followers of today who, self-admittedly, do not understand the nature of that justification, yet embrace the killings as moral anyway.
Such people destroy their own credibility on moral matters. If they can't condemn something that lo ...[text shortened]... flection, then we should have serious doubts that they possess much good moral judgment overall.
Originally posted by Great King RatClassic because atheism isn't even a thing per se
They believe they are right, just like you.
You are both wrong.
So, to be clear: ISIS and Eladar believe that murdering for God is good.
Great King Rat believes this to be false.
Which makes ISIS and Eladar religious nutcases, and atheist GKR normal.
Atheism 1, religion 0. Again.
As far as I can tell three are three arguments that have been made. One a legal argument concerning the land of Canaan and a promise that God had made to give it to the descendants of Abraham. The second concerning Gods sovereignty and his 'right' to exercise justice as he sees fit and the third that the Canaanites were extremely morally depraved and therefore deserved it, child sacrifice, bestiality, incest, temple prostitution, sodomy etc.
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemRuin credibility with who? Non-Christians?
Even if God had a morally valid justification for the OT genocides he authored, we can still criticize those of his followers of today who, self-admittedly, do not understand the nature of that justification, yet embrace the killings as moral anyway.
Such people destroy their own credibility on moral matters. If they can't condemn something that lo ...[text shortened]... flection, then we should have serious doubts that they possess much good moral judgment overall.
If so, who cares? That's a given.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI would say go with the reason given. So the locals would not corrupt God's people.
As far as I can tell three are three arguments that have been made. One a legal argument concerning the land of Canaan and a promise that God had made to give it to the descendants of Abraham. The second concerning Gods sovereignty and his 'right' to exercise justice as he sees fit and the third that the Canaanites were extremely morally depraved and therefore deserved it, child sacrifice, bestiality, incest, temple prostitution, sodomy etc.