Debating Biblical Atrocities

[Darth Smiley]

I was debating an apologist on another site and he threw out this link as an explanation / justification for Biblical atrocities.

Net summary: claims that Biblical 'genocides' were actually relatively human methods of destroying cultures that were very militant and practiced human sacrifice.

What are some good counter-arguments to this? I had a hard timing finding anything on some of the things he claims are supported by archeological evidence, but nothing real substantive.

[Darth Wong]

For fuck's sake, the link uses the phrase "fair and balanced" in the very first paragraph. The guy is obviously channeling FOXNews.

I don't have time to go through the whole thing with a fine-toothed comb right now, but it seems to me that so far, he is basically using the well-worn Christian arguments of:

1) "God or the Israelites committed genocide but the victims deserved it".
2) "It's OK for God to do terrible things because he's God".

Here's a good quote:

There is an obvious pattern here:
The annihilations are judgments.
These judgments are for publicly-recognized (indeed, international and cross-cultural in scope!) cruelty and violence of an EXTREME and WIDESPREAD nature.
These judgments are preceded by LONG PERIODS of warning/exposure to truth (and therefore, opportunity to "change outcomes").
Innocent adults are given a 'way out'
Household members share in the fortunes of the parents (for good or ill).
Somebody ALWAYS escapes (Lot, Noah, Kenites)
These are exceptional cases--there are VERY, VERY few of these.

Apparently, it's OK because they're "judgments", and these "judgments" are fair because the people being judged are really really bad, and were given fair warning. He doesn't even try to explain why innocent children should suffer for their parents' sins, nor does he explain why "cruelty and violence of an extreme and widespread nature" are so evil when he is in fact attempting to justify acts of cruelty and violence of an even more extreme and widespread nature.

It's almost perverse that he says there are "very very few of these" incidents when he has just finished listing the number of tribes that were slated for annihilation, and it seems like an awfully long list to me. Moreover, when people condemn the Nazis, they seem to think that an attempt to wipe out just one tribe is horrific enough to warrant vilifying Hitler for all time; why is it suddenly OK to commit genocide as long as you "only" do it to a dozen entire tribes or so?

[Serafina]

Net summary: claims that Biblical 'genocides' were actually relatively human methods of destroying cultures that were very militant and practiced human sacrifice.

Does not justify genocide.

Note that the israelites were acutally ordered to slaugher everyone and everything in these conquered cities.
Not only combat-capable men, but also children, women and old people - even animals.
There is no way you can spin that as an "preventive strike" to prevent more conquest, since they went so totally overboard.

They were genocides by every definition of the word, since they aimed to eleminate all traces ot their enemies.

[Darth Wong]

You can paraphrase this argument as "We claim they were killing each other, so this justifies killing them all". By that logic, we might as well nuke all of Africa right now.

[Formless]

Its worse than that, because the Israelites themselves should logically qualify for destruction by that logic.

[Serafina]

Its worse than that, because the Israelites themselves should logically qualify for destruction by that logic.

Nah - they are god's chosen people.

And remember the main tenet of christian morality:
"Doing what god says is good, disobeying God is evil."

Or, to quote from Mikes signature:

"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

But if the guy Darth Smiley is debating pulls that card, he should just drop it - anyone who argues like that is a fundie beyond reason.

[Thanas]

There are several methods of analysiing genocide in the bible, one of which is to look at the history of the text, then compare it to other documents of the era (especially the Assyrian war curses), do extensive hermeneutical study....

or you can just go the easy way and say "God did it and he is always right".

Seriously, if you really want to discuss the genocides, don't do it with that guy. He is not worth it.

[Darth Smiley]

It is an interesting discussion. So far its not so much a debate as I'm asking several people how the Bible and specific verses relate to what they actually believe and act on. It's just one guy (who I do happen to know, and generally like in real life) who likes to play the apologist.

The biggest point he clings to is the justification that the enemies of the Israelis were were "just" moved. I'm looking for a good way to call bullshit on that.