Is genocide ok if God tells you to do it?

[Autodidact]

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.

Only because they chose to. Here's the plot, over and over:

God: "I gave you this land. Now go kill everyone in it." That's pure, simple, unjustified, unprovoked genocide.

Do I need to cite the verses?

In any case, war does not justify genocide. Ever. Period. Only religionists are so morally retarded as to assert that it does. Decent people abhor it as the ultimate evil.

 

[TheKnight]

Do I need to cite the verses?

Yes.

In any case, war does not justify genocide. Ever. Period. Only religionists are so morally retarded as to assert that it does. Decent people abhor it as the ultimate evil.

One should make every attempt to spare life while at war. However, if sparing life will damage, harm, or hinder your nation in any way (while at war) then you should not be afraid to take that life.

Granted, this is all predicated on the fact that the war is being fought for good reason. I am certain that a verified prophet telling you that it was God's desire for you to go to war would constitute a good reason.

As far as the OP, I do not know of any instance where God has ever commanded genocide without prior provocation.

 

[fantome profane]

Yes.

One should make every attempt to spare life while at war. However, if sparing life will damage, harm, or hinder your nation in any way (while at war) then you should not be afraid to take that life.

Granted, this is all predicated on the fact that the war is being fought for good reason. I am certain that a verified prophet telling you that it was God's desire for you to go to war would constitute a good reason.

As far as the OP, I do not know of any instance where God has ever commanded genocide without prior provocation.

I have to say I find your attitude here disgusting and morally reprehensible. All I can say is that I think you should spend some time thinking about this.

Imagine that an enemy soldier had killed your family in time of war. Would you be so quick to call that a moral act? What if that enemy soldier was obeying the word of a “prophet of God”? Would that make any difference to you as you mourn the loss of those you love?

 

[TheKnight]

I have to say I find your attitude here disgusting and morally reprehensible. All I can say is that I think you should spend some time thinking about this.

Imagine that an enemy soldier had killed your family in time of war. Would you be so quick to call that a moral act? What if that enemy soldier was obeying the word of a “prophet of God”? Would that make any difference to you as you mourn the loss of those you love?

I wouldn't like it. But I wouldn't like the fact that an enemy soldier killed me either. Tell me, why is it OK to kill a certain person during a war, and not another person?

As I said, one should certainly attempt to spare ALL life that it is possible to spare while in a war. It would be best if it could be solved without any loss of life whatsoever. But if it comes down to your country losing the war, and the life of a civilian who is on the other side, then I would imagine that any sane person would attack.

Would you refrain from attacking the men who are shooting at you because those men are hiding behind civilians? If you did attack those men and the civilians died as a result, who's hands would the blood of those civilians be on? Who would be morally wrong? Would it be you who is trying to protect your life? Or would it be the enemy soldier who is endangering the lives of the citizens of his own country?

I mean, honestly, what soldier fighting for his country hides behind the citizens of his country? One who expects his enemies not to fire because there are civilians in the way.

I would hate it if my family was killed in war, but if I am fighting for my country and my family dies because I am hiding behind them, then their blood is on my hands.

 

[fantome profane]

Would you refrain from attacking the men who are shooting at you because those men are hiding behind civilians?

Yes, I would absolutely refrain from firing if civilians were in the line of fire. Furthermore I would expect any soldier in my nations military to do the same. And even furthermore I would prosecute any soldier who fired on a civilian for murder. This is not acceptable behaviour even in times of war. If the time ever comes when you do become a soldier in war, and I hope this never happens, someone at some point in your military training will have taught you not to shoot at civilians, ever. At least you will have been taught this if you are serving in the military of a civilized nation.

 

[TheKnight]

Yes, I would absolutely refrain from firing if civilians were in the line of fire. Furthermore I would expect any soldier in my nations military to do the same. And even furthermore I would prosecute any soldier who fired on a civilian for murder. This is not acceptable behaviour even in times of war. If the time ever comes when you do become a soldier in war, and I hope this never happens, someone at some point in your military training will have taught you not to shoot at civilians, ever. At least you will have been taught this if you are serving in the military of a civilized nation.

So you would prefer that the soldier (from your own country) die rather then fire at the enemy soldier and live (even if it meant the death of an enemy civilian)?

 

[git-r-done]

I believe in evolution and if you look at humans, we are fast taking over and literally eating the world to death. So, it might be evolution's way for humans to kill each other as a way of population control..

Of course, it would suck to be on the death end of the deal, but, humans being the biggest parasite on earth, it's only logical that nature made us kill each other off to maintain a proper balance.

 

[fantome profane]

So you would prefer that the soldier (from your own country) die rather then fire at the enemy soldier and live (even if it meant the death of an enemy civilian)?

Yes, no question about it.

And the vast majority of soldiers in of my country would agree and abide by this. That is why they are so respected. I have a great deal of respect for people of the military who put their lives on the line precisely because they do so to protect civilians of other countries, not to kill them.

 

[git-r-done]

Then comes the question of military not playing fair and dressing up as civilians to kill your country men and women. Some people even dress up mentally challenged people with bombs and put them in civilian markets and such to cause terror..

So, what do you do if the army against you is hidden as civilians? Keep being true and right or do you become very suspicious at anything that moves (like most soldiers do and are smart to do)?

 

[TheKnight]

Yes, no question about it.

And the vast majority of soldiers in of my country would agree and abide by this. That is why they are so respected. I have a great deal of respect for people of the military who put their lives on the line precisely because they do so to protect civilians of other countries, not to kill them.

Then you are certainly admirable for such a trait. I would hope that if I were to be in the same situation I would do the same, but I cannot say for sure that I would.

 

[fantome profane]

Then you are certainly admirable for such a trait. I would hope that if I were to be in the same situation I would do the same, but I cannot say for sure that I would.

Back up there and read the question you asked me. You asked me what I would prefer the soldier do, not what I would do. Would I do the right thing? I don’t know. I am not pretending to be a beacon of morality. But the fact remains that the right thing to do is the right thing to do, regardless of whether or not you or I would actually do it. As I said that is why I respect the soldiers of my country because I expect them to do the right thing. But I am no soldier and I don’t plan on being in Afghanistan anytime soon.

Then comes the question of military not playing fair and dressing up as civilians to kill your country men and women. Some people even dress up mentally challenged people with bombs and put them in civilian markets and such to cause terror..

So, what do you do if the army against you is hidden as civilians? Keep being true and right or do you become very suspicious at anything that moves (like most soldiers do and are smart to do)?

The question here is not what is smart, or practical, or the most efficient, or the best military strategy. The question is about what is moral. And the moral question does not change because you are afraid. Knowingly firing at an innocent civilian is an immoral act, that does not change because an enemy soldier is firing at you, it does not change because your commanding officer orders you to fire, it does not change because the leader of your country tells you to fire, it does not change because a “prophet of God” tells you to fire, and it does not change even if “God” tells you to fire.

There may be instances where it is moral to cause the death of an innocent person (and strangely these often involve a runaway trolley). But to return to the actual topic of this thread let me reiterate. An immoral act does not become moral just because “God” commands it.

 

[git-r-done]

Agreed Fantome.. I have not seen "God" come down and tell anyone to go to any war. Once we have a video tape of that, then anything god says will be justified. Till then, it is immoral in my human eyes to kill anyone whatsoever. However, it is in human nature to do so and if a person takes up a gun and says "I am fair game I will kill you if I can" then it is fair game and I will do the same. But, there is no point in doing that. There is no proof that god ever told anyone to kill their fellow humans. It is human nature and it is bad any way you look at it.

 

[averageJOE]

OK look, it seems that fantome profane is the only one who understands how the US military operates.

Here is an example; if soldiers are walking or driving down a populated road and suddenly a single person pops out and starts shooting and kills one or two soldiers and then retreats into a crowd of people the soldiers CANNOT fire back. All they can really do is send a few soldiers to try and chace him down. But one thing is for sure, they CANNOT open fire into a group of civilians.

How can soldiers keep themselves from firing back after wathcing their friends get killed? Dicipline.

However, even if they did, that act is NOT genocide. This thread is about GENOCIDE, not war. For some reason TheKnight keeps talking about war, and confusing war with genocide.

(I am a soldier currently in Iraq and will be in Afganistan next year)

 

[Autodidact]

Yes.

One should make every attempt to spare life while at war. However, if sparing life will damage, harm, or hinder your nation in any way (while at war) then you should not be afraid to take that life.

Granted, this is all predicated on the fact that the war is being fought for good reason. I am certain that a verified prophet telling you that it was God's desire for you to go to war would constitute a good reason.

As far as the OP, I do not know of any instance where God has ever commanded genocide without prior provocation.

In the verses in question, the commandments, and the narratives, are not about a few civilians that become accidental casualties. They say, "be sure to kill everyone, including the babies. All of them. Be sure to kill each and every baby."

3'Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'"

Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man..

And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain.

Slaughter old men, young men and maidens, women and children, but do not touch anyone who has the mark. Begin at my sanctuary.

"And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ***, with the edge of the sword."

 

[Autodidact]

Then you are certainly admirable for such a trait. I would hope that if I were to be in the same situation I would do the same, but I cannot say for sure that I would.

Not if you follow the Biblical example, which was to be sure to kill all of the enemies, male and female, young and old.

 

[TheKnight]

Back up there and read the question you asked me. You asked me what I would prefer the soldier do, not what I would do. Would I do the right thing? I don’t know. I am not pretending to be a beacon of morality. But the fact remains that the right thing to do is the right thing to do, regardless of whether or not you or I would actually do it. As I said that is why I respect the soldiers of my country because I expect them to do the right thing. But I am no soldier and I don’t plan on being in Afghanistan anytime soon.

I see. My point, though, is that any soldier that were to fire on the civilians in attempt to kill the enemy soldier would not be immoral for doing so.

However, even if they did, that act is NOT genocide. This thread is about GENOCIDE, not war. For some reason TheKnight keeps talking about war, and confusing war with genocide.

(I am a soldier currently in Iraq and will be in Afganistan next year)

My point earlier was that the Bible doesn't speak of genocide, but of war.

In the verses in question, the commandments, and the narratives, are not about a few civilians that become accidental casualties. They say, "be sure to kill everyone, including the babies. All of them. Be sure to kill each and every baby."

Yes, Amalek is the only example where it appears that genocide is commanded. I suppose there's no way to explain the logic behind that to someone who doesn't believe in Judaism.

Not if you follow the Biblical example, which was to be sure to kill all of the enemies, male and female, young and old.

That was only in the case of Amalek. Outside of that, life should have been spared where possible.

 

[averageJOE]

I see. My point, though, is that any soldier that were to fire on the civilians in attempt to kill the enemy soldier would not be immoral for doing so.



My point earlier was that the Bible doesn't speak of genocide, but of war.

First, here is a hypothetical;
There is this wild gunman who is shooting up a mall and has killed 10 civilians and 2 cops. The gunman then gets surrounded by cops. But before that he gets himself a hostage, a close family member of yours, and uses them as a human shield. The cops say screw it, he's already killed civilians and cops, open fire! The cops kill the gunman and your family member.
Is that immoral? Would you want the cops held responsible and punished for their reckless killing of your family member? Or would you tell them that they did a good job?


Second, the story of Noah's Ark and the Great Flood is an act of global genocide!

 

[TheKnight]

First, here is a hypothetical;
There is this wild gunman who is shooting up a mall and has killed 10 civilians and 2 cops. The gunman then gets surrounded by cops. But before that he gets himself a hostage, a close family member of yours, and uses them as a human shield. The cops say screw it, he's already killed civilians and cops, open fire! The cops kill the gunman and your family member.
Is that immoral? Would you want the cops held responsible and punished for their reckless killing of your family member? Or would you tell them that they did a good job?

Why should the cops be punished? It's obvious that the gunman was the one who killed my family member. The cops simply stopped the gunman who has already killed people.

I'll tell you would I wouldn't want, I wouldn't want for them to not shoot and for him to kill even more people as a result.

I do not believe that one of my family members is worth the life of many people. Sure, being my family member means that I'd prefer that my family member didn't die, but if it came to the life of one family member verses the lives of 25 people and it absolutely had to be one or the other, I'd choose to save the 25 people. I would think everyone in my family would hope that I would choose the 25 people as well.

Second, the story of Noah's Ark and the Great Flood is an act of global genocide!

Maybe it is, but if it was it was committed by God. We are not talking about the things God has done, but about whether or not genocide is immoral if God tells us to do it.

 

[Caladan]

Yes, Amalek is the only example where genocide is commanded. I suppose there's no way to explain the logic behind that to someone who doesn't believe in Judaism.

Really? I challenge you make a survey with Israeli soldiers, asking them the very things you propagate here. please dont speak for Jews. both me and Autodidact are Jewish. and no we dont have to be of a certain brand of Judaism to meet standards.

 

[TheKnight]

Really? I challenge you make a survey with Israeli soldiers, asking them the very things you propagate here. please dont speak for Jews. both me and Autodidact are Jewish. and no we dont have to be of a certain brand of Judaism to meet standards.

I am not trying to speak for the Jews. I am telling you what the Jewish tradition says. Amalek is seen as the enemy of the Jewish people and the enemy of morality. The Jewish people in the Tanakh were ordered to completely destroy Amalek.

I realize that most Israelis today and most Jews today would not agree with what I am saying.