Just war And the Caananites: An Oh so Original thread

[_Abyssinia]

Fair enough, I know little about Biblical warfare methods so I’ll take that. But surely babes in arms, toddlers, these couldn’t possibly have engaged the enemy. I know groups such as the LRA have recruited soldiers as young as 5 or 6, but still, I’m sure there was a significant number of non combatant toddlers and babes to warrant being spared?

Sarah x

Can you find any line in the record of the Cannanites that any children or women were killed? Why would children and women have been around if the fighting was with soldiers? It is known for sure whether they were killed

 

[Portofino]

Can you find any line in the record of the Cannanites that any children or women were killed? Why would children and women have been around if the fighting was with soldiers? It is known for sure whether they were killed

Strictly speaking, it was (at best) implied by the command, “leave nothing breathing” (in these cities or towns). Some have argued that this might have been rhetorical hyperbole and not historical fact. But William Lane Craig, the Christian apologist, decided to take the bolder route of saying that, if it did happen and was commanded by God, it was morally justified. He didn’t want to back himself into the corner of acknowledging that God’s moral perfection depended on this never having happened (or on the Bible’s not having been inerrant in proclaiming it a divine injunction).

 

[Portofino]

Ironically, in a sense, the ideal form of divine command is one that defies all logic (like Abraham being asked to sacrifice Isaac). If the logic of a divine command is too compelling and graspable through reason --e.g; “what could we do with these Canaanite children”; “if we didn’t destroy the Canaanites, their sinfulness would spread to others, etc.”–there is a greater danger that this logic could be replicated by human beings, in rationalizing similar actions. Ironically, if we believe in divine command theory, the less we understand the reasons for it, the better.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Strictly speaking, it was (at best) implied by the command, “leave nothing breathing” (in these cities or towns). Some have argued that this might have been rhetorical hyperbole and not historical fact. But William Lane Craig, the Christian apologist, decided to take the bolder route of saying that, if it did happen and was commanded by God, it was morally justified. He didn’t want to back himself into the corner of acknowledging that God’s moral perfection depended on this never having happened (or on the Bible’s not having been inerrant in proclaiming it a divine injunction).

Did some web research and discovered philosopher of ethics Dr Paul Copan who says of the annihilation quoted in the Old Testament, ‘I observed in my previous essay that the language of total obliteration is an Ancient Near East rhetorical device, an exaggeration commonly associated with warfare’

Copan says of old Testament scholar Richard Hess, ‘Hess’s research has led him to conclude that the ban (war commands from God) refers to the ‘total destruction of all warriors in the battle not noncombatants’

Hess says ‘all’ at Ai and Jericho is ‘stereotypical expression for the destruction of all human life in the fort, presumably composed entirely of combatants’

Hess says, ‘we know that many of these ? cities’ were used primarily for government buildings, and the common people lived in the surrounding countryside.’ Hess believes looking at archeological, inscriptional etc evidence that Jerico had probably less than 100 soldiers

Pages 29, 30 of Hess’ Jericho and Ai

Joshua 6:3-4 says they could march around the city 7 times in 1 day

Read Hess’ ‘War in the Hebrew Bible’

In Old Testament Ethics for the People of God by Christopher C.J. Wright he says that words ‘men and women’ in were used for descriving all people in region or town ‘without predisposing the reader to assume anything further about their ages or even their genders’

Words such as ‘young and old,’ ‘all,’ ‘man and woman’ wouldbe used even if no women present, they were expresions for totality

 

[atheistgirl]

I like how you come on here to troll. Say something is disturbing. Then end with a smile But in reality I just shake my head and pray for you

I like how you come on here to respond to my posts here in the discussion with insults and calling me a troll.

But in reality, I just add people like you to ignore, since your post contributed nothing other than personal insult.



Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

Craig also never moves on to the next obvious question, though an absolutely vital one: “how do we know when it is God commanding it?”

Exactly

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

Well, they would have died in either case. If the Israelites had spared them, they would have died of starvation, or been eaten by animals. I don’t know of any two year olds who have the ability to hunt and gather successfully.

Perhaps a kind, loving, fatherly God might have commanded the women and children spared and adopted?

Sarah x

 

[Pearl_of_Tyburn]

Hello, everyone.

It’s interesting how this discussion should come up now, because I was just pondering it a few days ago. It is a very reasonable query and deserves serious consideration. Here is what I’ve derived from listening to various points of view on the subject:

Of course it is disturbing to read about the Israelites being told by God to obliterate neighboring tribes who warred against. But it is also disturbing for me to read about the polygamy and unbridled sexuality that men in the Old Testament were allowed to have with their wives and concubine. Also, the constant sacrifice of dumb animals seems unwarranted and cruel. What was going on, and how could a profoundly gracious God ever allow, or even encourage, such acts?

The Gospel reading today dealt with Christ’s declaration that Law of Moses dealing with divorce was made only because of the hardened hearts of the people. When Jesus came, he declared that from the beginning of time, this was not supposed to have been the case. I believe the same is so for the slaughter of the tribes, polygamy, sex outside of marriage, and animal sacrifice. Why exactly God allowed it all this to take place in the days before his Son’s coming is a mystery, but we can grasp that Christ’s mission dealt with fulfilling the law and bringing things around to the way they were supposed to be.

Mass slaugter in battle is now forbidden; sexual intercourse is now only for one man and one woman who are bound together for life in Holy Matrimony; animals are no longer sacrificed in droves. So we can thank God for the coming of Jesus Christ, who demonstrated how deep the His love is for humanity by suffering a humiliating and brutal death to save us from ourselves. God worked with humanity incrementally before finally bringing them from the darkness into light, from death into life.

God Bless,
Pearl

P.S. Sarah, are you of Native American Ancestry? If so, what tribe? I have some Cherokee blood in me.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Ironically, in a sense, the ideal form of divine command is one that defies all logic (like Abraham being asked to sacrifice Isaac). If the logic of a divine command is too compelling and graspable through reason --e.g; “what could we do with these Canaanite children”; “if we didn’t destroy the Canaanites, their sinfulness would spread to others, etc.”–there is a greater danger that this logic could be replicated by human beings, in rationalizing similar actions. Ironically, if we believe in divine command theory, the less we understand the reasons for it, the better.

This is a good point. Recognizing our limitations just in being able to sort out the moral issues that confront us would seem to be enough of a challenge.

That being said, you didn’t answer my question.

Assuming you were Moses and were witness to all of the extraordinary events (voice from the burning bush, Egyptian plagues, parting of the Red Sea, etc.) and these clearly demonstrated a power “from on high” which preceded the command to wage war on the neighboring groups because they had been tried and found worthy of destruction by this same power, what would you do?

Could you rely on your own limited moral sense or defer to this one who seemed to know better?
In particular, since these people had been monitored by God for 400 years (Genesis 15:14-16) and been given ample opportunity to change their ways. What would you, Portofino, do? The same question could be asked of AtheistGirl. We are not talking voices in your head or ambiguous signals, but clear extraordinary and miraculous signs, not just witnessed by you but by large numbers of others. Could you simply ignore the command? By what authority would you? Your own moral sense? But clearly the moral sense of this ostensibly omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God would (should?) veto that, would it not? Do you trust your own moral capacity that much that you would say no to a being much more qualified to make a judgement?

I await your thoughts.

 

[Portofino]

Assuming you were Moses and were witness to all of the extraordinary events (voice from the burning bush, Egyptian plagues, parting of the Red Sea, etc.) and these clearly demonstrated a power “from on high” which preceded the command to wage war on the neighboring groups because they had been tried and found worthy of destruction by this same power, what would you do? Could you rely on your own limited moral sense or defer to this one who seemed to know better?
In particular, since these people had been monitored by God for 400 years (Genesis 15:16) and been given ample opportunity to change their ways. What would you, Portofino, do? The same question could be asked of AtheistGirl. We are not talking voices in your head or ambiguous signals, but clear extraordinary and miraculous signs, not just witnessed by you but by large numbers of others. Could you simply ignore the command? By what authority would you? Your own moral sense? But clearly the moral sense of this ostensibly omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God would (should?) veto that, would it not? Do you trust your own moral capacity that much that you would say no to a being much more qualified to make a judgement?

I’ll answer the question in two parts – the first is for Moses; the second is for me.

As regarding Moses, I frankly don’t know if these events actually happened, or not. Perhaps they were meant symbolically. I’m inclined to be skeptical that these events happened, whether we’re talking alleged events of this type from 2500 years ago, or today.

What I do know about today is that people are constantly hearing voices telling them to do things. Some of them are severely mentally ill; others are simply idealists who are a little misguided. I don’t discount, though, that such things can occur, potentially (for example, I believe that trance mediumship is a real phenomenon, and I believe Richard Bach when he says that a “voice in his head” dictated his novel Jonathan Livingston Seagull).

But I am very, very cautious and skeptical regarding the receiving of divine commands, especially when it has to do with killing people

As to what I would do, if such things occurred. I would be very careful about not misinterpreting natural phenomenon – or mere coincidences – as a sign of supernatural intervention. But let’s say there is something unmistakable – for example, a blank sheet of paper that suddenly begins filling itself out with text. Let’s say a number of miracles of this type occur, and then a voice starts speaking to me on a regular basis. Let’s say that others heard this voice, as well.

Now, one day, I’m told to bomb a center for Scientology, because it’s having a pernicious effect on American culture and “there’s just no other way; trust me; I know everything. I’m the very source of goodness and conscience, remember that. Also, by the way, if you disobey me, you’ll regret it.”

I honestly would tell myself, “I never believed in a devil – until today. Voice, you were wonderful, but I can’t allow you to be my Doctor Caligari. Strike me down dead, if that is your choice, or do your worst. I won’t do it.”

Of course, I don’t exclude the possibility that the voice would say, “Congratulations – you passed the test.”

---

As a postscript, if I may interject a bit of humor – I’m reminded of that Twilight Zone episode, “To Serve Man.” These visiting aliens seemed all-knowing and all-benevolent–they established world peace, ended famine and drought–but their ulterior motive was diabolical (“to serve man” not as an act of altruism, but as the main course to be cooked up and eaten).

Also, the snake deceived Eve in the Garden, with a voice that sounded persuasive.

Finally, as Hamlet put it: “May be the devil, and the devil hath power
T’ assume a pleasing shape. Yea, and perhaps
Out of my weakness and my melancholy,
As he is very potent with such spirits,
Abuses me to damn me. I’ll have grounds
More relative than this.”

Not that I mean to offend the Almighty, but–then again – I’m doing justice to the Almighty (to the fatherly, loving, all-benevolent, all-wise entity) in trusting that such an entity would never ask me to do something which it had already told me, in no uncertain terms, was wrong.

To the best of my lights, I would ask myself, “what would Jesus do?” and then just as confidently proclaim, “you are not Jesus.”

 

[Peter_Plato]

Not that I mean to offend the Almighty, but–then again – I’m doing justice to the Almighty (to the fatherly, loving, all-benevolent, all-wise entity) in trusting that such an entity would never ask me to do something which it had already told me, in no uncertain terms, was wrong.

To the best of my lights, I would ask myself, “what would Jesus do?” and then just as confidently proclaim, “you are not Jesus.”

I think you neatly skirted the question. If you were Moses…

That assumes you knew without a doubt this was the Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth, speaking to you. Not the devil; not some other character. The same one who created you, all of humanity and the universe. The same one who benevolently taught you to follow the beatitudes but in this case at this time made an omnibenevolent decision to bring down justice.

This is not a test, you know without question that God has made a well-informed decision taking into account the good (not in a utilitarian sense) for all time, on this. Do you seriously believe you have a right, given all of these premises, to veto God’s judgement with your own?

Let me put this another way: Do you as a limited moral agent, in principle, ever have right to overrule a judgement you know with certainty is the result of the omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent Divine Judgement.

If you say yes you do have such a right, then on what basis? Your moral wisdom? But God’s is infinitely greater than yours. That you have some hidden power to bring the best out of the situation? Clearly you have no such power.

Explain why your judgement could possibly overrule God’s!

 

[jmcrae]

Perhaps a kind, loving, fatherly God might have commanded the women and children spared and adopted?

Sarah x

By whom? They would have killed the Israelites in their sleep, so that idea is out.

What other enemy tribes are likely to have adopted them? Also, the first adoption agency was not going to exist for more than 3,000 years in the future.

 

[atheistgirl]

By whom? They would have killed the Israelites in their sleep, so that idea is out.

What other enemy tribes are likely to have adopted them? Also, the first adoption agency was not going to exist for more than 3,000 years in the future.

I don’t think any of that would be too big a problem for a kind loving fatherly God. I’m sure He could have commanded the women and children spared and given appropriate instructions as to how they could have alternatively been accommodated.

It didn’t happen.

Sadly.

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

What would you, Portofino, do? The same question could be asked of AtheistGirl.

That’s easy for me to answer because it is not within me to kill another human being. (I’ve elaborated on self defense elsewhere).

So I would say to this ‘voice’ you can’t be God, because if you were God, you made me, and you know me, and you know I could never do such a thing. Ever. So you don’t know me.

If it were then proved to me ebyond all doubt that this was indeed God, and this was indeed his Divine Command, I would simply ignore it.

He may do as He will, but He’ll never get me to kill another human being.

Do you trust your own moral capacity that much that you would say no to a being much more qualified to make a judgement?

Yes.

Sarah x

 

[Portofino]

But it’s a trick question – I am but a human being. Therefore, by definition, I cannot be infallibly certain that it is God that is speaking to me.

I could always be mistaken that it is God; therefore, by definition, absolute certainty that it is God speaking to me, is impossible.

I’ll stand by that – surely, you will grant the reality of human infallibility. I can always be mistaken and thus, by definition, can never be sure whether it is God speaking to me, or not.

If I ever could be certain of such a thing, I wouldn’t be a human being, but an angel – or, perhaps, God himself : )

Furthermore, if any believer were to say, “I know it’s God”, I would say, insofar as that person is a human being: “I’m sorry, but you can always be mistaken.”

It is relevant to this conversation to mention that the 9/11 hijackers were, for all intents and purposes, certain that killing people (and themselves) was God’s will. They were absolutely certain, and would answer “yes” – unequivocally–to your hypothetical about having a duty to obey God’s commands, and not second-guessing or questioning the will of the divine. But “they” were most likely wrong.

 

[Portofino]

That’s easy for me to answer because it is not within me to kill another human being. (I’ve elaborated on self defense elsewhere).

So I would say to this ‘voice’ you can’t be God, because if you were God, you made me, and you know me, and you know I could never do such a thing. Ever. So you don’t know me.

If it were then proved to me ebyond all doubt that this was indeed God, and this was indeed his Divine Command, I would simply ignore it.

He may do as He will, but He’ll never get me to kill another human being.

Yes.

Sarah x

It’s called free will The all-powerful could condemn you to hell for your refusal or say, “I understand. In fact, I’m so truly God, that I knew you would say no, before I even asked the question. Don’t even try to fathom why I asked”

 

[Peter_Plato]

But it’s a trick question – I am but a human being. Therefore, by definition, I cannot be infallibly certain that it is God that is speaking to me.

Again, in the presented situation the assumption is that the evidence is objectively certain. It is as verifiable as anything that can be known. Certainly, that level of objectivity would be stronger than your internal doubts, i.e., “I am only a human being.”

This is not a trick question. You are avoiding it. The evidence is external and certain, not internal and subjectively dependent. It is not God speaking to you, it is God proving without a shadow of possible doubt.

I could always be mistaken that it is God; therefore, by definition, absolute certainty that it is God speaking to me, is impossible.

I’ll stand by that – surely, you will grant the reality of human infallibility. I can always be mistaken and thus, by definition, can never be sure whether it is God speaking to me, or not.

If I ever could be certain of such a thing, I wouldn’t be a human being, but an angel – or, perhaps, God himself : )

Furthermore, if any believer were to say, “I know it’s God”, I would say, insofar as that person is a human being: “I’m sorry, but you can always be mistaken.”

You are not abiding by the premises of the situation. This does not depend upon your knowledge, This is clear, undeniable, extraordinary demonstration.

It is relevant to this conversation to mention that the 9/11 hijackers were, for all intents and purposes, certain that killing people (and themselves) was God’s will. They were absolutely certain, and would answer “yes” – unequivocally–to your hypothetical about having a duty to obey God’s commands, and not second-guessing or questioning the will of the divine. But “they” were most likely wrong.

Not really relevant because the “warrant” for their actions was subjective only (private voice, private interpretation or subjective revelation.) My case was publicly verifiable and undeniable.

The point I am trying to make is that the situation Moses found himself in was unique. It was not personal, it was intensely objective and verifiable to all of the Jewish people around him.

In reality, the question is asking, “Do you trust yourself more than the Creator of the Universe?” In other words, “Who is your God?”

Let’s be very clear about this, the evidence is not merely subjective, not mere personal revelation kind of stuff, but with objective, absolute certainty. I am not advocating listening to every whim or impulse because I don’t believe those are what moved Moses and the Jewish people. It is easy to be critical of the deplorable genocidal actions, but it needs to be placed in proper perspective, even one that is unbelievable to our modern ears.

 

[Portofino]

Again, in the presented situation the assumption is that the evidence is objectively certain. It is as verifiable as anything that can be known. Certainly, that level of objectivity would be stronger than your internal doubts, i.e., “I am only a human being.”

This is not a trick question. You are avoiding it. The evidence is external and certain, not internal and subjectively dependent. It is not God speaking to you, it is God proving without a shadow of possible doubt.

You are not abiding by the premises of the situation. This does not depend upon your knowledge, This is clear, undeniable, extraordinary demonstration.

Not really relevant because the “warrant” for their actions was subjective only (private voice, private interpretation or subjective revelation.) My case was publicly verifiable and undeniable.

The point I am trying to make is that the situation Moses found himself in was unique. It was not personal, it was intensely objective and verifiable to all of the Jewish people around him.

In reality, the question is asking, “Do you trust yourself more than the Creator of the Universe?” In other words, “Who is your God?”

Let’s be very clear about this, the evidence is not merely subjective, not mere personal revelation kind of stuff, but with objective, absolute certainty. I am not advocating listening to every whim or impulse because I don’t believe those are what moved Moses and the Jewish people. It is easy to be critical of the deplorable genocidal actions, but it needs to be placed in proper perspective, even one that is unbelievable to our modern ears.

OK, let’s pretends it’s fantasy land and absolute certainly is possible on this subject

God says, “kill all children in this kindergarten class. Don’t ask any questions; I won’t answer them. Just do it.”

I say, “I don’t want to do it. Can’t you get someone else?”

“God says, ‘No – you’re the man.’ This needs to be done.”

I ask, “'Why don’t you get someone else to do it, or do it yourself? You are all powerful.”

He says, “Nope – you’re the one who has to do it.”

This can go in one of two ways, depending on how much you are granting in your hypothetical.

Scenario 1 – I still don’t understand why God is asking it, even though I am certain that it is God. In that scenario, I probably don’t do it. I know that God grants free will and I will take my chances with the possibility of refusal."

Scenario 2 – not only do I know it’s God, but I understand exactly why he is asking it and I know it’s the right thing to do. In that scenario, I might say yes – but that is an impossible hypothetical.

Make no mistake – I do not grant that any human being, since the dawn of humanity, has ever had that certainty. Not Moses; not the Pope.

I’m assuming that, if you knew it was God telling you, “'Jesus was not really my son; the Catholic church is evil; I want you to kill every Catholic you see, burn the Bible, desecrate the crucifix and the Holy Sacrament. Don’t stop killing, until there are no Catholics left; I will protect you; I am the Lord your God.”

IF this were the case, I assume you would do it. But this is a BIG “if.”

And if this is an impossible hypothetical–as I believe it is–then what could this question be – except dangerous to human life?

 

[Peter_Plato]

It’s called free will The all-powerful could condemn you to hell for your refusal or say, “I understand. In fact, I’m so truly God, that I knew you would say no, before I even asked the question. Don’t even try to fathom why I asked”

That assumes a characterization of free will that may not in fact be true.

For example, a possibility is this:

What if your will is not known by God, not “realized” until you actually make choices? You become what you choose, so God does not actually know what you will do, not because he is not omniscient, but simply because you are nothing, are not actualized, not made real, until you make yourself through your choices. God cannot know what does not exist until it actually does exist. Your choices make you, so your will, your identity is not a predetermined entity. You “become” through your actions and choices.

 

[ThePuppyTurtle]

Deuteronomy 20

10 When thou drawest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it.

11 And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that are found therein shall become tributary unto thee, and shall serve thee.

12 And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it.

13 And when the LORD thy God delivereth it into thy hand, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword;

14 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 for a prey unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.

15 Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations.

16 Howbeit of the cities of these peoples, that the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth,

17 but thou shalt utterly destroy them: the Hittite, and the Amorite, the Canaanite, and the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee;

18 that they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods, and so ye sin against the LORD your God.

===

First, our enemies were given the opportunity to choose peace. Joshua sent 3 such letters to the Canaanites. At first, he sent them: ‘Whoever desires to flee, should flee.’

According to Jewish law, we are not allowed to beseige a city from all 4 sides; only 3, because they must be given the opportunity to flee.

Afterwards, he sent a second message: ‘Whoever desires to accept a peaceful settlement, should make peace.’

Those who chose peace (the Gibeonites) lived. In fact, even though they employed a ruse, they were allowed to live.

Then, he sent again: ‘Whoever desires war, should do battle.’ The others chose war.

The alternative is to leave some in the land and face an unending war and even more deaths in the long-run (sound familiar?). Also, these people were immoral and practiced things like child-sacrifice and idolatry. Leaving them in place would lead to them influencing the nation of Israel to do such things. G-d didn’t want that.

So the alternative to being exterminated was being enslaved? Clarify, were the other tribes besides the six or so that they were not to offer peace to also bad enough to make that a just punishment.