Is genocide ok if God tells you to do it?

[angellous_evangellous]

Read this, if you can.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/philosophy/82099-why-angellous-not-christian.html

 

[Perfect Circle]

Compare this cursory reading with the demographics of ancient cities and the definition of genocide.

Failing to do so before jumping to conclusions is intellectually dishonest and irresponsible.

We could do that all day long. I understand that you shouldn't judge the actions of the past on the standards of the present, but to someone who get's their morals from the Bible, that is immaterial.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

We could do that all day long. I understand that you shouldn't judge the actions of the past on the standards of the present, but to someone who get's their morals from the Bible, that is immaterial.

:biglaugh:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

One learns something new every day.

In your case, not much.

:clap oh my :clap

 

[Perfect Circle]

:biglaugh:

I read your OP on the link you provided. That's a beautiful interpretation of the religion. If more Christians thought like that I may still be one, but I wasn't appealing to your "Christian values" as far as miraculous resurrection of virgin birth are concerned. I was appealing to compassion and tolerance, which you appear to have had a recent lapse of.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I read your OP on the link you provided. That's a beautiful interpretation of the religion. If more Christians thought like that I may still be one, but I wasn't appealing to your "Christian values" as far as miraculous resurrection of virgin birth are concerned. I was appealing to compassion and tolerance, which you appear to have had a recent lapse of.

My tolerance has its limits.

I have little respect for intellectual dishonesty and even less when they combine it with disrespect for my religious convictions - be they a "fellow Christian" or not. I've taken it from both sides recently.

If you want to interpret the Bible as condoning genocide, define your terms. Genocide is a modern phenomenon because only in recent times have our killing abilities become effective enough to do so. Demographic relationships must be established as well to imagine the ancient world properly, answering the question: were there sufficient people groups in the ancient cities, even as the author imagined it, to classify this as a mythical or imagined genocide?

So far no one has considered anything historical, or even substantively hypothetical.

On top of this, it is basic historical knowledge that such a genocide never occured.

Combine this intellectual dishonesty and ignorance with the strawman - no Jew or Christian would say that it is ok for people to commit genocide in the name of God - and we have the perfect storm of mental vomit.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I was appealing to compassion and tolerance, ...

Absolute rubbish.

 

[painted wolf]

Not to mention that singling any group out from this time period is stupid.
Every culture practiced the same mentality of warfare and civilians were not spared by anyone, regardless of religion or culture.

It took the Geneva Conventions to enshrine civilian protection during war...

To attack any modern people by the actions of their thousands of years ago ancestors is stupid and a waste of time.

wa:do

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Not to mention that singling any group out from this time period is stupid.
Every culture practiced the same mentality of warfare and civilians were not spared by anyone, regardless of religion or culture.

It took the Geneva Conventions to enshrine civilian protection during war...

To attack any modern people by the actions of their thousands of years ago ancestors is stupid and a waste of time.

wa:do

I believe that both the Christians and Muslims had some rules of warfare designed to protect civilians during their wars.

We should also note that gross violations Geneva conventions are more commonly used to justify NATO, UN, or other foreign engagement in wars rather than carefully followed by countries.

 

[Humanistheart]

I believe that both the Christians and Muslims had some rules of warfare designed to protect civilians during their wars.

We should also note that gross violations Geneva conventions are more commonly used to justify NATO, UN, or other foreign engagement in wars rather than carefully followed by countries.

You believe they did? How about some proof? In the crusades they slaughtered men women children caddle, burned crops etc. Same with the genocide of the native peoples.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You believe they did? How about some proof? In the crusades they slaughtered men women children caddle, burned crops etc. Same with the genocide of the native peoples.

Yes, you never know how ignorant the reader is.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Yes, you never know how ignorant the reader is.

Arrogant, too.

Ignorant and proud of it.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Arrogant, too.

Ignorant and proud of it.

haha

poof porf-coming

I must do some real work first.:sorry1:

 

[painted wolf]

I believe that both the Christians and Muslims had some rules of warfare designed to protect civilians during their wars.

I'm sure lots of groups did... in theory.

We should also note that gross violations Geneva conventions are more commonly used to justify NATO, UN, or other foreign engagement in wars rather than carefully followed by countries.

Or to prosecute governments that violate them.
I think you will find more countries uphold the conventions than don't and that given the stae of current technology, that is a blessing.

wa:do

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I'm sure lots of groups did... in theory.

Or to prosecute governments that violate them.
I think you will find more countries uphold the conventions than don't and that given the stae of current technology, that is a blessing.

wa:do

Yes, my point is that you're placing a bit too much historical significance on the Geneva conventions.

They aren't the first rules of warfare, but they are possibly the first world-wide standard for warfare. And these rules are followed with the same diligence as previous rules, which is not much at all.

I suspect that if one were to get off ones arse and take a look at at the history of the Geneva conventions, one would find that the writers of these conventions incorporated previous rules and/or traditions of warfare from around the world - including rules from Christians and Muslims that idiots with a cursory knowledge of history love to demonize.

 

[Perfect Circle]

My tolerance has its limits.

I have little respect for intellectual dishonesty and even less when they combine it with disrespect for my religious convictions - be they a "fellow Christian" or not. I've taken it from both sides recently.

If you want to interpret the Bible as condoning genocide, define your terms. Genocide is a modern phenomenon because only in recent times have our killing abilities become effective enough to do so. Demographic relationships must be established as well to imagine the ancient world properly, answering the question: were there sufficient people groups in the ancient cities, even as the author imagined it, to classify this as a mythical or imagined genocide?

So far no one has considered anything historical, or even substantively hypothetical.

On top of this, it is basic historical knowledge that such a genocide never occured.

Combine this intellectual dishonesty and ignorance with the strawman - no Jew or Christian would say that it is ok for people to commit genocide in the name of God - and we have the perfect storm of mental vomit.

First off, let me clarify that I do not wish to attack your religious convictions or offend you in any way. I'm merely trying to understand your view point. So if you could please be patient with me, and help me to see it as you do, maybe this conversation won't degenerate into "mental vomit.":rainbow:

However, as modernly defined, Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.

All I am saying is that...

Joshua 10:40-41:
"So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. And Joshua smote them from Kadesh-barnea even unto Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon."

Sure sounds like the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group. And if I understand your post, it seems like you would argue that a size-able number of people would have to be killed in order for it to be considered genocide? Am I understanding this correctly?

 

[painted wolf]

It also sounds like total bollocks... propaganda that was common for the time.

wa:do

 

[Perfect Circle]

It also sounds like total bollocks... propaganda that was common for the time.

wa:do

Totally agree. It's almost certainly false. I just don't understand why that makes a difference. Even if it's a myth, and none of it actually took place... Shouldn't a student of the religion still take it as insight into God's character? The same way that modern liberal Christians aren't concerned with the details of the new testament and conflicting accounts within the gospels, but with the message of peace and compassion that Jesus taught.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

First off, let me clarify that I do not wish to attack your religious convictions or offend you in any way. I'm merely trying to understand your view point. So if you could please be patient with me, and help me to see it as you do, maybe this conversation won't degenerate into "mental vomit.":rainbow:

However, as modernly defined, Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.

All I am saying is that...

Joshua 10:40-41:
"So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. And Joshua smote them from Kadesh-barnea even unto Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon."

Sure sounds like the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group. And if I understand your post, it seems like you would argue that a size-able number of people would have to be killed in order for it to be considered genocide? Am I understanding this correctly?

Now, thinking carefully, how many people can you prove that Joshua killed, and what exactly is the makeup of their group?

There are two ways to approach this - historically and mythologically - and they overlap. That is, historical facts - inasmuchas we can determine them from historical sources like archaeology and epigraphy - helps us to determine the qualities of the myth.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Totally agree. It's almost certainly false. I just don't understand why that makes a difference. Even if it's a myth, and none of it actually took place... Shouldn't a student of the religion still take it as insight into God's character? The same way that modern liberal Christians aren't concerned with the details of the new testament and conflicting accounts within the gospels, but with the message of peace and compassion that Jesus taught.

Looking at the story with the smallest hint of intellectual responsibility would be a good starting point for the student.

Perhaps reading up on Greek tragedy would help.

Give me a break!

EDIT: *Angellous runs off to take some blood pressure medicine*