Is genocide ok if God tells you to do it?

[autonomous1one1]

I'll see your Ted and raise you a Willie.

As an ex-trumpet player permit me to see Willie and raise you an Ed, double with this solo duet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KV9b7Vuvaw8

The following concern the OP:

It helps if people who post 'provocative' threads (or rather non stimulating), understand the scriptures that they are selectively ripping bits and pieces of.
If the Bible informs us of the character of God it is done by several authors, with differing ideologies, different qualities and unique philosophies of their own.
T.......Clearly, if you are at least partially well read in the Bible, it doesnt make sense to copy and paste certain passages and call it the character of God without admitting that you have completely ignored the many other parts of the text, or indeed the content of the scriptures as a whole.

What have you achieved with an OP like that? not much, other than a display of superficially scratching a certain layer of the Biblical library.

now someone who has a genuine interest in researching the scriptures, not only would not necessarily look for the character of God at all, but would have the desire to study the human intellect working behind the text, its development and the background (historically, ideologically) behind the written material.

A constructive and mature criticism would be to point at the injustices done by specific individuals or groups, analyze their method, and show that you understand where they are coming from.

after all, just as the people you want to point the finger at were able to commit atrocities in the name of the Bible as one claims, we have other men and women of great stature who have done exactly the opposite.

An important lesson that many of us can take away from this thread is this post and similar points made by Angellous and Jay. We need to understand much of the context of the time to really understand some things in the Bible. The information is available to us.

(genocide)[/color]?

Concerning the question of the OP as expressed by Autodidact, one can only respond from one's own perspective. From a perspective of nonduality the question is impossible and irrelevant. To ask it, to answer it, and/or act on it relevant to genocide would be equivalent to insanity - egoistic, ethnocentric insanity.

 

[Autodidact]

Concerning the question of the OP as expressed by Autodidact, one can only respond from one's own perspective. From a perspective of nonduality the question is impossible and irrelevant. To ask it, to answer it, and/or act on it relevant to genocide would be equivalent to insanity - egoistic, ethnocentric insanity.

But of course, if you were on the receiving end, you'd just be dead.

 

[autonomous1one1]

But of course, if you were on the receiving end, you'd just be dead.

haha. Perhaps you have missed other posts that explain with the nondual perspective comes the realization of eternal life. This means that One does not die.

 

[Autodidact]

Unless, of course, you're mistaken. Then you're just dead.

 

[autonomous1one1]

Unless, of course, you're mistaken. Then you're just dead.

Good afternoon, Autodidact. Your dialogue on this subject has been very much appreciated and one hopes that you will join in future threads with such because of its beneficial element in sharpening explanations. Concerning your last post, let one offer that what you see will be gone whether the posts from a nondual perspective are mistaken or not. Forgive me for offering in addition that a good correlative question would be 'but what if he is right.'

Best Wishes

 

[Autodidact]

Is Mormon Defender serious? I'm calling parody--and a darned good one.

 

[TheKnight]

i had this debate in another thread, but that one seems to have vanished, so i thought id create this one.

when conquering Palestine, the Hebrews committed genocide against a number of peoples there. and this wasnt long after he gave them the commandments telling them not to kill.

of course i dont believe this, i believe its an excuse the Hebrews used to excuse their genocide. but, for the sake of argument, lets say the order did come from god, did that make it ok? shouldnt an order like this be a sure sign that your god is evil? or does having him on your side matter more?

You misunderstand the issue. The Jews were given laws not to kill, and then they were given exceptions to that law. Indeed, there are many exceptions to nearly every Jewish law.

Particularly in the case of war, and of self-preservation. In a time of war it is permissible for the Jews to completely annihilate the opposing nation (assuming that the war is being fought for valid reasons).

So is it OK to commit genocide when God tells you to? Is there any reason to think that God would tell us to commit genocide? If there is, is there any reason why this would be problematic? God told them not to kill and then told them the times when they are allowed to (or must) kill another person. I think it demonstrates wisdom rather then illogic for God to make the laws flexible for various situations.

 

[Autodidact]

You misunderstand the issue. The Jews were given laws not to kill, and then they were given exceptions to that law. Indeed, there are many exceptions to nearly every Jewish law.

Particularly in the case of war, and of self-preservation. In a time of war it is permissible for the Jews to completely annihilate the opposing nation (assuming that the war is being fought for valid reasons).

So is it OK to commit genocide when God tells you to? Is there any reason to think that God would tell us to commit genocide? If there is, is there any reason why this would be problematic? God told them not to kill and then told them the times when they are allowed to (or must) kill another person. I think it demonstrates wisdom rather then illogic for God to make the laws flexible for various situations.

And that would include the enemy babies, right? If God authorizes the war, then killing the enemy babies is permissible in that war?

 

[TheKnight]

And that would include the enemy babies, right? If God authorizes the war, then killing the enemy babies is permissible in that war?

If, in order to accomplish victory, civilians must be killed then yes.

 

[JMorris]

You misunderstand the issue. The Jews were given laws not to kill, and then they were given exceptions to that law. Indeed, there are many exceptions to nearly every Jewish law.

Particularly in the case of war, and of self-preservation. In a time of war it is permissible for the Jews to completely annihilate the opposing nation (assuming that the war is being fought for valid reasons).

So is it OK to commit genocide when God tells you to? Is there any reason to think that God would tell us to commit genocide? If there is, is there any reason why this would be problematic? God told them not to kill and then told them the times when they are allowed to (or must) kill another person. I think it demonstrates wisdom rather then illogic for God to make the laws flexible for various situations.

seems convenient more than anything else. but it dosent really matter, because as angellous has shown, the bible is completely made up, so its not really worth debating anything in it anyway.

 

[Autodidact]

If, in order to accomplish victory, civilians must be killed then yes.

Including infants?

 

[Willamena]

seems convenient more than anything else. but it dosent really matter, because as angellous has shown, the bible is completely made up, so its not really worth debating anything in it anyway.

Interestingly, it's completely made up in the same way every book written has been completely made up.

 

[JMorris]

Interestingly, it's completely made up in the same way every book written has been completely made up.

indeed

 

[TheKnight]

seems convenient more than anything else. but it dosent really matter, because as angellous has shown, the bible is completely made up, so its not really worth debating anything in it anyway.

Riiiight....

Including infants?

Obviously one would not want to kill an infant, and one should certainly try not to. But if there is a soldier (that is trying to kill you) and he is hiding behind an innocent civilian, then the fact that the civilian is there should not stop you from killing him. Should you decide not to, fine. But if you did it there wouldn't be anything morally wrong with that.

War is not pretty, ever. Regardless of who dies war is not ever a good thing. There's no need to try and make it prettier by being dangerously sympathetic. As I said, if possible, avoid killing anyone at all, but if it is necessary then it is necessary.

 

[Caladan]

Riiiight....




Obviously one would not want to kill an infant, and one should certainly try not to. But if there is a soldier (that is trying to kill you) and he is hiding behind an innocent civilian, then the fact that the civilian is there should not stop you from killing him. Should you decide not to, fine. But if you did it there wouldn't be anything morally wrong with that.

War is not pretty, ever. Regardless of who dies war is not ever a good thing. There's no need to try and make it prettier by being dangerously sympathetic. As I said, if possible, avoid killing anyone at all, but if it is necessary then it is necessary.

I can see that you are very young. nor have you served in the armed forces.

 

[Caladan]

seems convenient more than anything else. but it dosent really matter, because as angellous has shown, the bible is completely made up, so its not really worth debating anything in it anyway.

Its not worth debating it for those who dont have too much knowledge of the Bible's content and Biblical research, and that their argument is summed up in saying 'the bible is evil'!
Im sure angellous is thirsty for a decent biblical debate, however not everyone are up for the challenge

 

[AlsoAnima]

Is Mormon Defender serious? I'm calling parody--and a darned good one.

You call of parody is correct. But I wouldn't say it was a good one. A good parody tends to be amusing, not disturbing.

 

[averageJOE]

Riiiight....




Obviously one would not want to kill an infant, and one should certainly try not to. But if there is a soldier (that is trying to kill you) and he is hiding behind an innocent civilian, then the fact that the civilian is there should not stop you from killing him. Should you decide not to, fine. But if you did it there wouldn't be anything morally wrong with that.

War is not pretty, ever. Regardless of who dies war is not ever a good thing. There's no need to try and make it prettier by being dangerously sympathetic. As I said, if possible, avoid killing anyone at all, but if it is necessary then it is necessary.

Riiiiiight...

You speak of war as if you've been in one. War is not genocide. Genocide is not war. The two are independant of each other.

Genocide by definition is the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group. What Hilter did was genocide. Anytime the US military goes to war there are rules that must be followed at all times, little rules too like a soldier is not allowed to kill an enemy with a knife with teeth, and a soldier cannot kill an enemy with a hollowed tip bullet. There are no rules with genocide. Genocide is a 100% complete extermination of a population by any means neccassary.

Geonocide is the ultimate of evil acts.

 

[TheKnight]

Riiiiiight...

You speak of war as if you've been in one. War is not genocide. Genocide is not war. The two are independant of each other.

Genocide by definition is the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group. What Hilter did was genocide. Anytime the US military goes to war there are rules that must be followed at all times, little rules too like a soldier is not allowed to kill an enemy with a knife with teeth, and a soldier cannot kill an enemy with a hollowed tip bullet. There are no rules with genocide. Genocide is a 100% complete extermination of a population by any means neccassary.

Geonocide is the ultimate of evil acts.

People describe the actions of the Israelites in the Bible as genocide. They were at war in every case of "genocide" that they were involved in.

 

[Autodidact]

Obviously one would not want to kill an infant, and one should certainly try not to. But if there is a soldier (that is trying to kill you) and he is hiding behind an innocent civilian, then the fact that the civilian is there should not stop you from killing him. Should you decide not to, fine. But if you did it there wouldn't be anything morally wrong with that.

Those are not the circumstances relayed in the OT. In the OT, the Hebrews already won the battle. The battle was over. They had already killed all the men, and taken all the women prisoner. God became angry at them, and commanded them to go back and kill the infants. Was it moral for them do so? Would it have been moral for them not to?