Question Regarding Commonly A Commonly Held Argument

[SisterMiriamGodwinson]

Ok.... I sometimes dwell on a commonly held argument that the Bible contains atrocities. I think this is true, but I have noticed that many do not argue correctly against these atrocities.

Sometimes people argue about genocide against people that the Israelites conquered. However, I suggest that perhaps the debaters I am refering to may simply be missing something and therefore are out of context.

So... demon belief was rampant in the old days, even disregarding a belief in THE DEVIL. What if the Bible was referring to the Israelites conquering and destroying civilizations of people who were demon possessed? This may explain why the Bible sometimes instructs the Israelites destroy the entire country of their enemies, and why sometimes he only tells them to kill all the males, but to leave the women and children alone. It is believed by some, if only a few people, that one of the Canaanite peoples the "Jews" conquered were sacrificers of their own children. This entire city was cursed by God to be wiped out to every last man woman and child by the Israelites.

This is just a hypothesis I decided that may make sense.

[B5B7]

One word - apologetic.
Despite the bullshit that the ancient peoples used to justify atrocities, they were actually usually pretty practical in their activities, ie their actual motives were based on their own interests. I doubt demon belief was any greater than today.
Also, are you saying that these people were actually "demon possessed"?

[Surlethe]

Why does "the Canaanites were demon-possessed" make any more sense than "the Israelites were bastards"?

[SisterMiriamGodwinson]

Well, if it is true that the Bible was written centuries after events occured, it would make sense to make themselves look better wouldn't it?

[NetKnight]

Well, if it is true that the Bible was written centuries after events occured, it would make sense to make themselves look better wouldn't it?

Better by their standards, perhaps. However, these were standards that, like those of pretty much all local cultures of the time, did not classify genocide of rival tribes an evil act.

Besides, even if they Hebrews of the time did have a miraculously modern view toward the wrongness of genocide, why didn't they explicitly describe how the tribes they'd wiped out were 'possessed by the Devil', or leave out the embarrassing genocide altogether? Under your hypothesis, they're already re-writing their history (and "god's word") to their own advantage. Why do such a sloppy job of it?

[SisterMiriamGodwinson]

Under your hypothesis, they're already re-writing their history (and "god's word") to their own advantage. Why do such a sloppy job of it?

If the Bible has so much of it missing or not inside of it, why not the Old Testament included?

[Stark]

This may stun you, but many historical accounts already use this kind of reasoing - after all, the jump from 'lesser people' or 'sub humans' or 'primitives' to 'demons were in them' is very slight. The idea of apologists picking some reason to justify their staggering brutality isn't new or even unusual.

It actually amuses me a great deal that this line of thought means the Jews responded to people who wouldn't change their ways to suit them with utter annihilation/genocide/mass rape, whereas the Jews themselves refuse to change their ways to suit any other culture in history and are surprised when some cultures react with discrimination, pogroms, annihilation etc. Hypocrisy is hilarious the more gruesome it becomes.

[Count Chocula]

The Israelites weren't the only ones murdering in the Bible. Does the name "Pharoh" ring a bell? Cain and Abel? Bueller? The Jews led by Moses didn't spend 40 years in the desert because they liked the weather!

You are attempting to ascribe (impute) motivations for millenia-old events that are not in the most accurate existing record of the times, the Christian Bible (and maybe the Torah? Dunno). You are a professed Muslim. Have you studied the Bible? In all my years of Catholic church and Catholic school we never, not once, read of "demon possession" in the OT or NT.

[Masami von Weizegger]

Have you studied the Bible? In all my years of Catholic church and Catholic school we never, not once, read of "demon possession" in the OT or NT.

You must have been out sick the days you covered Matthew 9:32-33; 12:22; 17:18; Mark 5:1-20; 7:26-30; Luke 4:33-36; Luke 22:3; Acts 16:16-18. Just for starters.

[Count Chocula]

Shit, Masami, now I've got homework! I'll look them up.

...tick, tick, tick...

OK my Catholic upbringing wasn't a total waste. While the verses you cite all speak of demonic or malignant possession (Acts 16), they all refer to individual possessions. The OP asked if the Jews killed "entire civilizations" of demon possessed. I stand by my original conclusion.

SisterMiriamGodwinson, MAJOR faux pas on my part! I called you a Muslim mistakenly. I don't know if you are or not, I mistook you for BountyHunterSAx (winces). Please go easy on the cat o' nine tails!

[SisterMiriamGodwinson]

Uh, expose your genitalia and I'll only use one strike!

[SisterMiriamGodwinson]

This may stun you, but many historical accounts already use this kind of reasoing - after all, the jump from 'lesser people' or 'sub humans' or 'primitives' to 'demons were in them' is very slight. The idea of apologists picking some reason to justify their staggering brutality isn't new or even unusual.

It actually amuses me a great deal that this line of thought means the Jews responded to people who wouldn't change their ways to suit them with utter annihilation/genocide/mass rape, whereas the Jews themselves refuse to change their ways to suit any other culture in history and are surprised when some cultures react with discrimination, pogroms, annihilation etc. Hypocrisy is hilarious the more gruesome it becomes.

This is true in the real world, but if you have ever played Warhammer, the Empire is blatantly into exterminating xenos for the good of the universe.... Its terrible that in the real world people think like this, but it clicks in some people's minds.

[Darth Wong]

Ok.... I sometimes dwell on a commonly held argument that the Bible contains atrocities. I think this is true, but I have noticed that many do not argue correctly against these atrocities.

Sometimes people argue about genocide against people that the Israelites conquered. However, I suggest that perhaps the debaters I am refering to may simply be missing something and therefore are out of context.

So... demon belief was rampant in the old days, even disregarding a belief in THE DEVIL. What if the Bible was referring to the Israelites conquering and destroying civilizations of people who were demon possessed? This may explain why the Bible sometimes instructs the Israelites destroy the entire country of their enemies, and why sometimes he only tells them to kill all the males, but to leave the women and children alone. It is believed by some, if only a few people, that one of the Canaanite peoples the "Jews" conquered were sacrificers of their own children. This entire city was cursed by God to be wiped out to every last man woman and child by the Israelites.

This is just a hypothesis I decided that may make sense.

You obviously have not bothered reading any of these arguments regarding Biblical atrocities, otherwise you would not so completely miss the point. The point of those criticisms is to attack the morality of the religion itself, not the character of the Biblical Israelites within the context of that religion. If we decide that the Israelites committed atrocities because of their beliefs, this does not exonerate those beliefs.

[bobalot]

The Israelites weren't the only ones murdering in the Bible. Does the name "Pharoh" ring a bell? Cain and Abel? Bueller? The Jews led by Moses didn't spend 40 years in the desert because they liked the weather!

There is no proof outside the Old Testament (written or archeological) that the Israelites were ever slaves or they ever wondered around for 40 years. The story is most likely bullshit.

[Stark]

This is true in the real world, but if you have ever played Warhammer, the Empire is blatantly into exterminating xenos for the good of the universe.... Its terrible that in the real world people think like this, but it clicks in some people's minds.

You know that even if you accept the Bible as historical, the Jews killed all those people for money, right? Wealth, land, moveable goods, women? Just like every other bunch of nomadic conquerors in history? What lunatic bullshit they believed is irrelevant. Hitler believed God wanted him to kill millions of people too, right? So fucking what? I must have missed the part where motive exonerates atrocities.

[Rye]

Weird thing is, even if you assume the enemies of the israelites were demon-possessed (though this is never stated and would count as you "adding to scripture" and earning yourself all the curses of the book), they were still somehow in societies that hadn't died out and were at least organised enough to make technology beyond the israelites and have families to be destroyed. That implies some level of morality and cooperation.

[NetKnight]

Under your hypothesis, they're already re-writing their history (and "god's word") to their own advantage. Why do such a sloppy job of it?

If the Bible has so much of it missing or not inside of it, why not the Old Testament included?

Umm... what? If you're pointing out that the Bible is, in fact, not accurate history, then for your hypothesis to work it'd have to be incompetently written fictional propaganda rather then incompetently re-written history, which requires even greater incompetence. If not, what is the "it" that is missing?

In any event, this is tangential to the main discussion, which has already been quite well covered by other posters. At the risk of asking redundantly, if 'demons' (and a demon-Yahweh proxy conflict) exist, why is genocide of one side's client tribes in this proxy war any more moral then the Hebrews committing genocide of their own accord? If not, then how do different excuses alter the morality of the actions?

[Mobiboros]

Weird thing is, even if you assume the enemies of the israelites were demon-possessed (though this is never stated and would count as you "adding to scripture" and earning yourself all the curses of the book), they were still somehow in societies that hadn't died out and were at least organised enough to make technology beyond the israelites and have families to be destroyed. That implies some level of morality and cooperation.

I was just going to note this. Let's assume they are demons in human bodies (or whatever "Possession" is). Okay, how does that make it better to wipe them out? They dont' seem to be rampaging around killing like Chaos Daemons from Warhammer. They are living their lives, growing food, making clothes, presumably having freaky demon sex, raising kids, etc...

So how does "They are demons!" justify genocide?

Seems like even worse logic to say that genocide was basically committed for racist reasons (we hate demons!) than economic/political ones (we want land/slaves/goods!).

[SisterMiriamGodwinson]

Ok.... I sometimes dwell on a commonly held argument that the Bible contains atrocities. I think this is true, but I have noticed that many do not argue correctly against these atrocities.

Sometimes people argue about genocide against people that the Israelites conquered. However, I suggest that perhaps the debaters I am refering to may simply be missing something and therefore are out of context.

So... demon belief was rampant in the old days, even disregarding a belief in THE DEVIL. What if the Bible was referring to the Israelites conquering and destroying civilizations of people who were demon possessed? This may explain why the Bible sometimes instructs the Israelites destroy the entire country of their enemies, and why sometimes he only tells them to kill all the males, but to leave the women and children alone. It is believed by some, if only a few people, that one of the Canaanite peoples the "Jews" conquered were sacrificers of their own children. This entire city was cursed by God to be wiped out to every last man woman and child by the Israelites.

This is just a hypothesis I decided that may make sense.

You obviously have not bothered reading any of these arguments regarding Biblical atrocities, otherwise you would not so completely miss the point. The point of those criticisms is to attack the morality of the religion itself, not the character of the Biblical Israelites within the context of that religion. If we decide that the Israelites committed atrocities because of their beliefs, this does not exonerate those beliefs.

However,I"m not advocating the Bible or saying its true either. I'm simply offering an explanation that even some people might understand because of the superstition of the times.

[Darth Wong]

However,I"m not advocating the Bible or saying its true either. I'm simply offering an explanation that even some people might understand because of the superstition of the times.

Again, you're not understanding the point. If people are attacking the superstitions of the era (upon which several modern religions are still based), it does not refute their argument to say that the atrocities were caused by those same superstitions.

[Shroom Man 777]

SisterMiriamGodwinson:

I have quite a few superstitious beliefs myself, mostly regarding "people" like Jews and Gypsies. Oh, and Slavs too. Will these beliefs have any effect on the debates that will spring up in my war crimes tribunal? It's an explanation that some people might understand because of the super Semite-superstition of the times, and because of the hardships mein Volk unt Fatherland had to endure.

Your "hypothesis" can apply to any group of people who've committed atrocities. Your hypothesis is meaningless.



Pssst. The Israelites didn't systemically exterminate the Canaanites because of demons. The Israelites wanted Lebensraum and so God gave Joshua a Final Solution to the equation of those untermenschen subhumans. It was their manifest destiny. Haven't you read the Mein Kam- err, I mean, The Holy Bible?

I wonder how the Israelites disposed of all the bodies of the people they slew. They probably used bonfires to make giant funeral pyres, but they sure would've found ovens handy.

[SisterMiriamGodwinson]

However,I"m not advocating the Bible or saying its true either. I'm simply offering an explanation that even some people might understand because of the superstition of the times.

Again, you're not understanding the point. If people are attacking the superstitions of the era (upon which several modern religions are still based), it does not refute their argument to say that the atrocities were caused by those same superstitions.

Maybe I am missing the point, as you suggest, but this was more of a thread for me to throw out a possibility, even if not a probability, of something that might be interesting. I didn't care to take an argumentative stance.

[Darth Wong]

Maybe I am missing the point, as you suggest, but this was more of a thread for me to throw out a possibility, even if not a probability, of something that might be interesting. I didn't care to take an argumentative stance.

Yes you did. In fact, you said "I have noticed that many do not argue correctly against these atrocities." This is a claim that those arguments are flawed, but you have shown no flaw.

Instead of lying and saying that you were not trying to make an argument, you should 'fess up and just admit that you erred and thought you'd found an error when in fact you hadn't.

[SisterMiriamGodwinson]

Alright... I am not lying... so I will conceed that it doesn't matter.

[TithonusSyndrome]

Weird thing is, even if you assume the enemies of the israelites were demon-possessed (though this is never stated and would count as you "adding to scripture" and earning yourself all the curses of the book), they were still somehow in societies that hadn't died out and were at least organised enough to make technology beyond the israelites and have families to be destroyed. That implies some level of morality and cooperation.

I was just going to note this. Let's assume they are demons in human bodies (or whatever "Possession" is). Okay, how does that make it better to wipe them out? They dont' seem to be rampaging around killing like Chaos Daemons from Warhammer. They are living their lives, growing food, making clothes, presumably having freaky demon sex, raising kids, etc...

So how does "They are demons!" justify genocide?

This goes back again to the fundamental moral edicts of the Bible being all about slavish obedience to Sky Daddy, and having little to nothing to do with actual morality. A "demon" is an entity whose very existence is a violation of God's will and a blasphemy unto him, and even if he carried on a perfectly moral existence, the a priori nature of it's existence is reason enough to be destroyed.

So in other words, no REAL harm comes of being a "demon" other than that on the supernatural plane.