“Phasers set to kill”? Well, 1st, God typically uses people to do what they can, and 2nd, them exacting justice would also affect them, and remind them that judgment does happen, and war is not a neat antiseptic thing, and with such in mind, Israel would be warned that it could happen to them if they continued in immoral rebellion.
No, the smiting and smoting kind, instead of forcing people to commit genocide, and more specifically, infanticide. War is no excuse for deliberately targetting the innocent.
It would also remind then that the world not a safe playground, but a battleground. And in which the fallen sinful nature of man is constantly manifest, and there are consequences of such and measures to be taken. While liberals imagine this not to be true, and that wars are never necessary, this delusion results in more deaths of innocent.
“...history teaches with unmistakable emphasis that appeasement but begets new and bloodier wars.” “There can be no compromise with atheistic Communism - no half-way in the preservation of freedom and religion.” - Gen Douglas MacArthur.
False comparison. World War II was not about targetting innocents and non-actors, specifically.
“It would harden any heart to beyond the point of repair.”
False (and i suspect you are female, no offense).
Another erroneous presumption, but let's leave this aside for now. It has no relevance beyond revealing an attempt at straying from the debate.
As an unjust practice it can, or as in video games as gratuitous violence, but dropping the A bomb on Japan did not necessarily require or effect such.
“Once war is forced upon us, there is no other alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end. War’s very object is victory, not prolonged indecision.”
“The soldier above all others prays for peace, for it is the soldier who must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war. “ - Gen Douglas MacArthur.
Totally unwarranted comparison. Was the A-bomb dropped with the intention of killing innocent children? Was the bomb tweaked in a way so that children would be specifically wiped out? No.
1 Samuel 15:3 however, does just that. And that makes it immoral.
“It is plainly vile and contradicts everything that the New Testament is about.”
Negative again, as once again the Lord and those who belong to Him will wage war against a recalcitrant multitude, in a manner that makes it unmistakeably clear that it is of Him. (Rev. 19:14-21) But the time will come when all they shall “not learn war any more.” (Is. 2:4; Mic. 4:3) Thanks be to God.
The character of Jesus, as portayed, would be incapable of advocating deliberate child-slaughter.
“Your justification is basically that the divine entity presented itself to the people in a very “real” sense...I would have wished for a deeper justification than that.”
Did you read thru #20? (see also 28 and 38) I presented much more than that. The author of life has a right to take it, which you concur with, and justly executed a wicked people, while delivering the innocent form further perpetuating such, and from requiring Israel to carry a burden they could not handle. Your remaining object seems to be the manner in which killing of innocent was done.
A "burden they could not handle" is not an excuse for child-slaughter. The "author of life" can take what's given any time, but there is something twisted when the "taking away" is done by people claiming divine sanction. This problem wouldn't have existed if the "taking away" was done by the "author of life" itself. Sodom and Gomorrah underwent that. Zap?
I read through all that you'd typed here, and perused through the links, but no good case was made in any of them. What I argued earlier, still stands.
“I tried to peruse through the other link that was posted in response, but all I got...”
Read more. Driving the defiling Canaanites out seems to have been the main solution, but total annihilation to a degree did happen, rarely, but not wantonly, but justly.
There is no justice in butchering innocent children and infants, deliberately. There is ertainly no meaning to the above argument if donkeys and assed were needed to be done away with, as well.
Once again, as before, in spite of lengthy and verbose compositions on your part, the basic morality that is completely and totally absent in ritualised child-slaughter, remains to hold true. "Divine sanction" is no excuse for the same. It is a common tactic to avoid specific replies by posting lengthy tracts which don't address the arguments. If a case can be made for justifying child-slaughter, it wouldn't require verbal acrobatics.
If your arguments to this are going to be a re-hash of the earlier ones, I think the purpose of furthering this debate is futile. I will, as always, continue to insist that child-slaughter cannot be justified under any circumstance. Any person, entity or claimed divinity ordering the same to be carried out by human mediators, is of suspect moral character.
They did not simply target the innocent, but everyone of that area. And again, which innocent would have been spared becoming guilty immoral people, which including engaging in infanticide. And you previously seemed to have concurred that the author of life had the power to take it.
When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee. Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations. (Deuteronomy 20:10-15)
But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee: That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the LORD your God. (Deuteronomy 20:16-18)
When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly. (Deuteronomy 7:1-4)
And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.
(Joshua 6:21; cf. Jos_9:24-25; 10:28,39; 11:14; Dt. 2:34,; 7:2-3; 7:16; 20:16-17; 1Sa_15:3,8,18-19.
"For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father." (1 Ki 11:4)
False comparison. World War II was not about targetting innocents and non-actors, specifically.
My point here was in relation to the effects such means of warfare would have certainly resulted in, according to you, versus what exposure can do in contrast to imaging sin has no judgment, and or that appeasement of evil is a wise policy in the end.
Totally unwarranted comparison. Was the A-bomb dropped with the intention of killing innocent children? Was the bomb tweaked in a way so that children would be specifically wiped out? No. 1 Samuel 15:3 however, does just that. And that makes it immoral
While perhaps they would have saved such, atomic bombs do make such distinctions, and neither did the judgment of God, though it might have. But despite your efforts and assertions, it does not follow that this was immoral. You still must refuse to allow that the killing of the innocent, presuming that is all whom you object to, could not have been in their best interest, or that the manner in which is was done could not have worked towards Israel's fear of becoming like them, among other things.
The character of Jesus, as portayed, would be incapable of advocating deliberate child-slaughter.
He often warned of judgment, and that affirmed the previous revelation, and the wisdom of God, which certainly covers the extermination of the Canaanites, and the deliverance of the innocent from perpetuation of their iniquities, including child sacrifice, and the means of such, but which wisdom, you, in your seeming omniscience, cannot allow even as a possibility.
The "author of life" can take what's given any time, but there is something twisted when the "taking away" is done by people claiming divine sanction.
So here again the real problem can be agnosticism/atheism. Since God does not exist, or as the author of the Bible, He could not have been acting justly or wisely in killing all of the Canaanites, including all (once) “ox, and sheep, and ass” (which would have been a reminder of Amalek , and may even have been accustomed to the practice of bestiality). Your problem here is not that of claiming Divine sanction, but your exclusive sanction of what your own finite, unreasonable, closed human mind will “objectively” allow as just and wise possibilities.
A "burden they could not handle" is not an excuse for child-slaughter. The "author of life" can take what's given any time, but there is something twisted when the "taking away" is done by people claiming divine sanction. This problem wouldn't have existed if the "taking away" was done by the "author of life" itself. Sodom and Gomorrah underwent that. Zap?
So you reject the social agency argument, but still allow their destruction if done by God with fire and brimestone? He just cannot use men. I wonder which was quicker.
Once again, as before, in spite of lengthy and verbose compositions on your part, the basic morality that is completely and totally absent in ritualised child-slaughter, remains to hold true.
Now child-slaughter is ritualised? And you accuse others of reading things into the Bible! It was such that God strictly forbade, and the utter conquest of nations was not a universal practice or a ritual.
"Divine sanction" is no excuse for the same.
And this logic says that since some use this as an excuse, thus it can never be valid. But that is what God made such exceeding manifest, and then forbade taking His name in vain, which is your charge.
It is a common tactic to avoid specific replies by posting lengthy tracts which don't address the arguments.
Don't address the arguments!!!! That is what you hardly have done, with this being your best, but poor effort. Rather, with due respect, it is common for skeptics to post objections based upon superficial understanding of things related to deep theological issues, and complain when the limitations of their bias is revealed, and they are challenged to do some deeper thinking. Good night.