They deliberately targeted the innocent children, and the animals as well, to ensure. I have no problem with any divinity taking away life it was the source of. However, as I mentioned earlier, it is not divinity taking it, but rather people claiming divine authority to do so. That is immoral.
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.
All of these would seem to fit comfortably in the Quran; not the New Testament.
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.
Collateral damage is not the same as deliberate targeting. There's a huge moral and ethical difference between the two.
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.
Yes. Killing the innocent can never be moral or ethical. Performing the act in the name of following a divine entity's orders corrupts whatever morality that particular entity was supposed to represent. You have a hard case if you attribute such vile qualities to a god, to later claim that such a god represents morality. These attributes completely violate the Golden Rule.
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.
If it violates the Golden Rule, then sorry, no sale on child-slaugter.
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.
I can make any moral decision purely based on the Golden Rule. It's neither unreasonable, nor unwise, to do so.
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.
Exactly. Because humans are faulty and are prone to justifying vile acts in the name of a deity.
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.
I meant 'ritual' as in the killings were purely conducted for the sake of pleasing a deity, and not on the guilt of the butchered children and infants.
"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.
My charge is just this: Humans killing the innocent in the name of divinity, is vile, and evil. It still holds as strong as it did, when it was first raised.
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.
Lengthy, convoluted, circular-logic "reasoning" is no explanation. Like I reasoned earlier, you will go to any extent to defend a vile act that is morally indefensible. To that end, let's agree to disagree, and call it a day.
They deliberately targeted everyone, not just children, or the animals. And post 69 postulates additional possible causes for this.
Collateral damage is not the same as deliberate targeting. There's a huge moral and ethical difference between the two.
Thus is true, but your problem is that you cannot allow and reasonable justification for the latter. That if God could take all the innocent to heaven, and stop self-perpetuating cruelty, malignant self-destructive iniquity, then He could only do it with the likes of fire and brimstone, and based upon your superior knowledge, you reject that using humans to do so, and to bury them, could have served a beneficial purpose,
If it violates the Golden Rule, then sorry, no sale on child-slaugter. ..I can make any moral decision purely based on the Golden Rule. It's neither unreasonable, nor unwise, to do so.
This addresses a larger topic. Doing unto others as you would have them do to you itself presumes an underlying morality. But in the Bible, the command of love for others as thyself is after the command to love, and thus obey, God, which thus determines how to love beneficially. Using the golden rule by itself, some would forbid punishment of criminals, as they would not want that done to them. Many parents give their children anything they want, as they want their own lusts to be fulfilled, and thus slowly harm their kids. And while souls can argue about what is beneficial, the moral reasoning of some can easily allowed them to justify what is self-serving and reject what is overall most beneficial. But assuming the latter, if a rational man can hurt in order to prevent evil and perform a greater good, how much more God could use men to. Your objection is still to the means, but a momentary pain (they were not to torture) for the innocent is nothing compared to eternal consolation, and hands-on served to warn Israel not to become like the Canaanites, etc., among other things i mentioned.
Exactly. Because humans are faulty and are prone to justifying vile acts in the name of a deity.
Thus, according to your logic, if some people misrepresent and authority, then no claim to be acting in the name of such can be valid, based upon your criteria of what an authority can do. If the authority is truly not acting in conformity with the standards he has set for himself, then you can have a case. But allowing that the actions at issue were just, and ultimately merciful to the innocent, then again, your objection is that the methodology cannot be justified. But which you cannot prove, and is grounded in your rejection of a Deity of superior knowledge, in both scope and wisdom, over which you presume superiority.
Lengthy, convoluted, circular-logic "reasoning" is no explanation.
It is i who has presented very reasonable explanations for justification regarding a Biblical issue, and it is within that context — what it reveals about God and morality — that the morality of it must be examined. But as you are opposed to the premise of God ordaining the actions at issue, then you reject that they, or the methodology, could be justified due in the light of the omniscience of God. Thus according to your understanding of what is allowed, only your understanding is correct.
Like I reasoned earlier, you will go to any extent to defend a vile act that is morally indefensible.
The only extent i have gone to is to posit that the creator can take life, which you agreed to, and that He was just and merciful in ordaining utter annihilation, and that the methodology itself can be justified as having a necessary effect, and with the brief period of anguish resulting in an eternity of the opposite for the innocent. You however, continue to rejecting at least the latter aspect as even a possibility, indicating that your real obstacle is that of allowing God to possess these attributes and motive, while in essence, justifying yourself as possessing superior knowledge. I understand one not being able to accept explanations which presume Theistic omniscience, due to committed adherence to only the naturalistic realm, but in debates about Bible accounts this must be allowed. But this has been a stimulating debate.