God had the Israelites kill countless thousands, perhaps millions, of people throughout the land of Canaan. It was genocide in the sense that it was a planned, systematic, limited extermination of a number of nation states from a relatively small area in the Middle East.
It was a war, but not against a particular race or ethnic group. Nor were the Israelites commanded to pursue and kill the Canaanite nations if they fled from Israel’s Promised Land. The Israelites were to drive out and dispossess the nations of their land (killing all who resisted the dispossession), but they were not instructed to annihilate a particular race or ethnic group from the face of the Earth.
What facts should be taken into account that would explain this divine mandate?
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APConte … ticle=1630
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apconte … rticle=260
What facts? Now therein lies the issue. What are the facts? It would be very naive to think the bible provides a factual historical account of the events in question. Considering there is no evidence for the Exodus event; not a shard of pottery, a fragment of cloth, or an Egyptian account apparently, did any of this happen at all, or at least happen on the scale claimed? Or was it simply a case of the Israelites rewriting their own history to big themselves up much like Hollywood building up a mythology around Western movies?
True. Before discussing an historical event, participants must agree that it was historical. So why are you here?
Simple. What's the point in arguing over the nature of God when in all likely hood he had nothing to do with the events in question? Where can this argument go except for atheists to point out that God is an evil tyrant and the Christians to scrabble about looking for a get of gaol free card for God; some wishy washy apologetic that somehow includes the term 'free will'? I suspect that the truth is a case of a small number of Israelites wanted to kick the locals off their land and their leaders concocted a ruse that God told them to do it. This scenario has ever thus been repeated through the mists of time.
Agreed again, however I do find it disturbing that so many justify the murder babies in there effort to maintain their belief that the actions of the God of the bible are justified.
I find it sad that they try to justify why God would murder babies rather than questioning whether he actually would and then look for another explanation, such as the Israelite leaders or writers were lying.
Though the enemies of the God of the Bible are frequently heard criticizing Israel’s conquest of Canaan, the fact is, such a conquest was in complete harmony with God’s perfectly loving, holy, and righteous nature. After patiently waiting for hundreds of years, God eventually used the Israelites to bring judgment upon myriads of wicked Canaanites. Simultaneously, He spared their children a fate much worse than physical death—the horror of growing up in a reprehensible culture and becoming like their hedonistic parents—and immediately ushered them into a pain-free, marvelous place called Paradise
That's utterly disgusting and makes me want to vomit. Is this why every once in a while we here about some religious nut who kills her/his kids so they will go straight to heaven? How would any of you feel if it were your kids?
To all those who agree with the conclusion of the writer you may want to ask yourself why God didn't do his own killing of the children in at least a human and painless way. Imagine being hacked to death by a sword after you've watch your parents and sibling spew blood and brain all over the room. It's horrible and despicable and cowardly to justify killing babies and children. God didn't do his own killing because God doesn't exist, but once again people follow the horrendous acts of someone like Hitler because they want to be on the winning side at all costs.
Oh and did I mention Jews are not another race, but simple those that follow a particular religion.
The OP of this forum presupposes God's existence, sovereignty and moral right to act as he wills with his creation. It appears you have missed that. To start from the premise 'There is no God', will inevitably lead to a rejection of anything done in his name.
From reading your forum comments and your anti-God aimed hubs, it is evident you are adamantly against the concept of God and any message from Him. For me, the world makes sense only when viewed via the premise of a God. You believe the opposite. How can we then possibly come to agreement.
All of the arguments you raise have already been asked and answered (many times) by greater theologians and thinkers than myself. But they have been answered from the premise of there being a God, which, I'm guessing, you're not willing to consider.
We are at an impasse then.
OK it might be agreed that God can do what he wants with his creation but to read a biblical account and assume that what you read is a true and accurate word for word account is utter folly. Evidence? Christians simply fail to question what they read through fear of committing apostasy. Is not the more reasonable conclusion, one that would be in harmony with historical study, be one where the Israelites murdered and butchered their way through Canaan and claimed a moral superiority and a ruse that God told them to do it? It would save Christians from the difficulty of trying to reconcile opposing morality in their own minds. Indeed any Christian who blindly accepts the so called conquest of Canaan as a moral act has clearly a warped and sick view of morality.
No I'm not an atheist.
Thanks Disappearinghead. I agree. It's good to know people like you are out there.
This Christian can tell you, he questions what he reads a lot. But a difficult questions are hardly good enough reason to stop believing.
Tell me. If a group of people had become irretrievably depraved (by Gods standards, not ours; incest, bestiality, ritual prostitution, child sacrifice), and their influence was corrupting an ever widening circle of others. And if the only way to remove the cancer was to cut it out completely, so as to save the rest. Would God be justified in your mind to do so?
That some Canaanite cities practiced child sacrifice is known by historians. And I'm sure that Israelites would have been outraged by this. However it seems rather convenient to assume a higher morality in order to take their lands. How is child sacrifice any worse than Israelites murdering those same children or butchering an entire tribe?
You read the biblical account, assume it is true and try to get God off the hook. Why not question the validity of the account instead? Is it not more reasonable that the writers or leaders simply lied in order to stir up a mob?
I would add also that if the op truly believed in divine command theory, he wouldn't need to try to get God of of the hook or make excuses for him. Divine command theory would be enough - God said it, therefore it is good. The fact that he is trying to come up with excuses for God's orders implies that he's not as set on divine command theory as he thinks he is.
You are right, I believe the bible is true, a product of Gods influence. Would be no point doing so and then doubting every other passage.
You are not an atheist, therefore giving at least some credence to the possibility of there being a God. Do you believe such a God could communicate his will and demonstrate his influence?
Millions of Christians the World over claim that God communicates his will with them and yet time and time again the said Christians don't agree with each other. Is God conflicted, the people self deluded, or making this up? How would you ever know? I sat in churches for 25 years and if I had a penny for every time some minister or lay person stood at the front and said "God told me...." when clearly he hadn't......
So when a charismatic Israelite leader says "God told me that we need to ethnically cleanse this land from the indigenous people by means of committing crimes against humanity that are worse than the crimes they are committing..." why don't alarm bells start ringing in your head? If some modern church leader told you that you need to go to San Francisco and murder all those participating in a gay pride march, what would you think?
Agree with you. Seeking God and his will is a path strewn with challenges. And there is no shortage of people to tell us "God told me so..."
That's one of the reasons I believe God chose a written form of revelation. At least people have to have a book, chapter and verse before claiming God told them anything. Even so, people still become divided; such is the nature of man.
Does that mean God is impotent, or that the scriptures are false. No. It just means God and his dealings with man are not as easy to fathom as we might first hope. But its no reason to give up on God.
Although for me this period of biblical history is difficult, I wonder how the people of the day considered it in hindsight. What impact did it ultimately provide to all that experienced, witnessed or heard of it. Did they get hung up on the moral issues of what occurred and what that implied about God's goodness, or did other consideration dominate.
Violence and war were a fact of life for people living in the ancient Near East. Evidence of this fact is that the people who told these stories apparently thought nothing of what the Israeli soldiers were commanded to do.
Maybe the lessons God needs to communicate to one era of people are achieved through very different means than what is required to teach those same lessons to another era of humanity.
Of the brutality of ancient times there is no dispute; a brutality that existed in Medieval Europe, the American West, and still exists in the Middle East and Africa. A brutality that deems the value of human life as nothing, where a religious flag is used to rally a mob to murder a perceived enemy. I don't think the Israelites were somehow immune to this behaviour, or had some moral authority to ethnically cleans Canaan. It seems that 400 years under Egyptian brutality was soon convienently forgotten by them as they committed genocide. If God is who he is claimed to be, I cannot believe that their actions were ordered or sanctioned by him. But we'll never know what insanity went on in the minds of those Israelites as they stoked up a blood lust.
Why didn't you answer his question?
"If some modern church leader told you that you need to go to San Francisco and murder all those participating in a gay pride march, what would you think?"
Of course not, we as humans have the brains to figure out the moral and ethical implications of those activities and can deal with them in our own way. Murdering them is not the answer, obviously, yet that is exactly what you would agree to based on your religious beliefs.
And exquisite reason for genocide! Tell me, was Hitler your god's instrument?
So Hitler was acting for your god and killing of Jews were god's divine plan.
When such a god is here why do we need another Satan?
Are you a fervent supporter of bloodthirsty psychopathic fiends like your god and Hitler to justify such barbaric acts [for I have never seen anybody who say genocide is good and is god's wish] or are you a normal human being who say anything just to win an argument for I cannot believe that any educated person can justify such acts?
according to the Bible alone, Satan is responsible for the direct deaths of 10 people - Job's children - and he did it with god's direct permission.
According to that same bible, God is responsible for the death of 2,476,636 (and that's a combination of real numbers that the bible gives as well as estimates when no numbers were provided giving the cultural growth of the time, since no one knows exactly how many people were killed in the "flood").
Aside from what the bible tells you about god and Satan, looking at those numbers - how did you decide that Satan was evil, and god was good?
Good and evil cannot established by man, especially using such ambiguous comparisons as who killed more. Rather, biblically, evil is understood as being the antithesis of Gods will (the creator. Not satan, the created). Good, then, is that which accords with the creators will. In creating beings with free-will, the potential for evil came into existence. Not because it was created, but because God has a will that can be disobeyed.
Often God or his decisions are put on trial by men; the sovereign creator, having his authority questioned by those whom, in their own words, are "insignificant specks" in the immense breadth of the natural universe. As sovereign, God has every right to demand of us whatever he will; and who are we to say he shouldn't or can't. That said, we have the free-will to say so; it's just not good-sense.
'But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" [Romans 9:20]
Yes, whatever God commands to be done is moral, he is sovereign. Call it murder if you like, but the creator taking the life of his creation because of their sin is hardly "immoral". In fact, by way of analogy, many today say it is the "moral right" of a woman to take the life of their unborn (if for no other reason than they don't want it), how much more-so is it the right of God to take life from those he gave it to. And he never does it lightly.
Yes. The bible frequently leaves me wondering at Gods behaviour. But when wonder turns to blame, I have to remind myself that my perspective is infinitesimally small compared to Gods. Romans 9:20-21.
Again, God is Sovereign, you may not like the way he made things or the way he chooses to resolve the problems; but, you have little choice.
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things."
Knew someone was going to bring that up. If you really want to throw bible verses around, at least filter them through reputable sites that have biblical scholars to explain them.
Read the links below for the easy answer to your NOPE.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apconte … ticle=1157
And by reputable source you mean a source that agrees with you and spin doctors Bible verses as a profession to make them say things they don't actually say? Why would an atheist find that reputable? About as much as you would find a secular counter apologetics source reputable, I imagine.
Oh, please. You can explain it away all you want, but the scripture says it right there, in black and white, clear as crystal: "I make peace, and create evil."
There is no metaphor at work, there is no elusive allusion, there is no preceding obfuscation--it is a simple, self-explanatory sentence. You can pull at your hair to try to obfuscate it all you want, but your holy book says that its chief deity creates evil. You. Can't. Change. It.
Evil is not a necessary consequence of free will. For example, I'm assuming that you believe that you will have free will in heaven. Yet there is no evil in heaven. Therefore, free will can exist without evil. Removing one of the options (evil) does not mean that there are no options left. If I walk up to a dog, I can choose to pet the dog, feed the dog or kick the dog. If you remove the option to kick the dog, you have not infringed on my free will. I can still make choices.
You raise some good points. And I agree, transgressing God's will (moral evil) was not necessary in the beginning, it was simply a choice. However, since the fall, it is something the bible says we will all eventually choose to do; 'Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—' Romans 5:12
Biblically, moral evil can only occur if we know God's will, either through divine revelation or inherent conscience (there are some things we just know are wrong). [Romans 2:14-15; Romans 7:7-8]
In the beginning the bible says there was but one command of God (Divine revelation) - Don't eat this. When the first people chose to disobey, a promised transition occurred within them; they came to know good and evil inherently. What this exactly means is not perfectly clear. Some believe it is a merism; The idea is that we now have more knowledge than we can morally handle. To quote one writer, "Human beings, unlike hamsters and June bugs, have enormous capacity for choices; taking skills that they could use and should use for good and employing them for evil. That is part of the human dilemma. We are in trouble because we are so good at doing bad."
https://www.biblicaltraining.org/blog/c … d-and-evil
but is death really the consequence for all humanity based on a choice that two people who may or may not have existed made? Do you ever wonder why the command was not to eat from the tree of KNOWLEDGE of good and evil? Since they had no knowledge of good and evil before eating the fruit, could they truly comprehend the consequences of their actions? How would they know that disobedience is evil? How would they understand the concept of punishment? How could they possibly know that one choice would spell a death sentence for the rest of humanity?
Can you name one thing that is inherently wrong in every circumstance? Certainly not lying. For example - if a neighbor came to your house bloody and broken saying that her husband had just beat her and she was fearful for her life and you gave her refuge, what would you say if her husband came to the door? Would you tell him that she was there, or would you lie and tell him that you hadn't seen her? If telling the truth would put her - and you - and your family in jeopardy, would the lie be just? Killing is equally ambiguous based on circumstance. Self-defense is justified in many instances. Taking a life in order to preserve another is considered just.
The concept of justice by necessity needs full disclosure. God told them that the day that they ate of the tree, they would surely die - but how would Adam and Eve know what death was? furthermore - they didn't die. They didn't die for another 900-ish years. Apologists say that god "meant" spiritual death - but that's not what the text says, does it? If you have to spin-doctor the actual words that are written to make it fit, that's inherent intellectual dishonesty to the book that you claim to revere. Morality comes from evolution and society. Even animals practice forms of morality in certain species. Apes care for old/infirm members of the tribe - even feeding them and pre-chewing the food in some cases for tribe-mates that have lost their teeth or sustained injury. They defend the tribe from invaders. Morality and social justice is a necessity for societies. Once humanity learned that working together is more beneficial than working alone, certain laws/rules/guidelines became necessary for survival.
The question here is whether or not it's just or moral to punish all of humanity for an act of disobedience - when the people who disobeyed did not know what disobedience WAS or understand the punishment of their simple action. We do not send mentally unstable people to the electric chair if they kill someone. We send them to mental hospitals where they can receive treatment - often lifelong treatment. Is it moral or just to execute someone who does not understand the difference between right and wrong and cannot fathom or accept the consequence for their actions? Do you kill a child for disobeying you and touching the hot stove when they have no concept of "hot" or "don't do this or you'll be punished? Telling a child NOT to do something is one of the best ways to ensure that they will try - not because they're attempting to be willfully disobedient, but because they don't understand the meaning behind what you're saying until they actually touch a hot stove and get burned by it. If the genesis story is true, Adam and Eve were mere toddlers. God was a parent. The punishment for their action was abjectly immoral and unjust if you think about it in those terms, especially since they had no working concept of what evil (in this case, disobeying an order) meant.
Of course, Adam and Eve were not culpable erring toddlers. They did not lack rationale. They had the full capacity of adult reasoning and an uniquely intimate connection with God. They may have lacked the full range of moral comprehension, but they knew enough to make a wise decision. Any analogy with children can only serve to emphasise the child-like foolishness of trusting our understanding over God's.
I don't believe that they could fully comprehend the consequences of their actions. They simply knew that God said "don't eat" and His reason. It was a trust what I'm telling you, or don't and find out for yourselves scenario. They knew that they had recently come into existence at the hand of God, and that death was in some sense the opposite of what they currently experienced.
NOTE: the English bible is a translation. The Hebrew is, literally, die-die (muwth-muwth) with two different verb tenses (dying and die), which can be translated as “surely die” or “dying you shall die.” This indicates the beginning of dying, an ingressive sense, which finally culminates with death.
As you say, people often act contrary to their better nature for good reasons. Just as people often pretend being better natured for bad reasons. It is the heart of man God ultimately sees. And the heart can be inherently wrong in its aims, regardless of behaviour; selfish, spiteful, licentious, adulterous, idolatrous, murderous, hateful, etc.
Consequences don't necessarily have to be punishments. Often consequences are simply the natural (created) outcome of an action. Mankind now lives within a world a long way down the line of natural consequence.
That is most definitely a contradiction. Not only that, it doesn't say anywhere in Genesis that Adam and Eve "had the full capacity of adult reasoning", so you those words must be your own interpretation.
Full adult reasoning would fully understand death.
Well articulated. Bound to be rejected and railed against in this venue, but well stated nevertheless.
It matter not wether I'm willing to admit God is real or not, what matters here is wether you are willing to justify the brutal murder of countless babies as proposed by that link. Do you think it's a valid argument to suggest all infants would have to die like there already dead parents because somehow they would grow up having the same hedonistic lifestyle?
Do you think it's reasonable to that we should round up all the people who like to drink and party and brutally murder them all and then do the same to the children and do you justify that by saying they would grow up the same as their now dead parents anyway?
It's a yes or no. Never mind well you don't believe in God so I won't discuss it with you.
Seeking yes or no answers to biblical morality while dismissing God from the process is nonsensical, for biblical morality is constituted by the commands of God.
However, God is certainly not subject to the same moral obligations and prohibitions that we are. Though I have no right to take an innocent life, God has no such prohibition. He can give and take life as He chooses. We recognize this when we accuse another(s) who presumes to take life as “playing God.”
But is God allowed to command others to take life? Isn't that like commanding someone to commit murder? No. since our moral duties are determined by God’s commands. In the absence of a divine command, it would have been murder. The act was morally obligatory for the Israeli soldiers in virtue of God’s command, even though, had they undertaken it on their own initiative, it would have been wrong.
In Gods view, the depth of depravity throughout Canaan had become intolerable. The scriptures reveal that God stayed his judgement for 400 years because their wickedness had not reached the point of intolerability!
By the time of their destruction, Canaanite culture was, in fact, debauched and cruel, embracing such practices as ritual prostitution and child sacrifice. The Canaanites are to be destroyed “that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices that they have done for their gods, and so you sin against the Lord your God” (Deut. 20.18). God had morally sufficient reasons for His judgement upon Canaan, and Israel was merely the instrument of His justice, just as centuries later God would use the pagan nations of Assyria and Babylon to judge Israel.
So, following the same train of thought. .. under divine command theory, you cannot speak out against Muslims who choose to obey their God's manatees and fly airplanes into buildings or strap bombs to their chests except to assert that they are following the wrong god. You can't speak out against parents who drown their children in the name of God. Under divine command, everything is fair Game, and true morality goes flying out of the Window.
You speak of Islamic jihad. Islam sees violence as a means of propagating the Muslim faith. Islam divides the world into two camps: the dar al-Islam (House of Submission) and the dar al-harb (House of War). The former are those lands which have been brought into submission to Islam; the latter are those nations which have not yet been brought into submission. This is how Islam actually views the world!
By contrast, the conquest of Canaan represented God’s just judgement upon those peoples. The purpose was not at all to get them to convert to Judaism! War was not being used as an instrument of propagating the Jewish faith. Moreover, the slaughter of the Canaanites represented an unusual historical circumstance, not a regular means of behavior.
God now speaks through Jesus Christ, and no where in Jesus's will can be found justification for drowning one's own children or forcing others to faith.
True morality, is submitting to Jesus' will.
Ref: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/slaughte … z2mAH2zqha
What sin had the unborn children committed when God supposedly ordered his people to rip open the wombs of pregnant women? What sin did their animals and livestock commit to deserve slaughter alongside their owners? Were the Virgin women alone sinless to justify their rape and sexual enslavement?
There is no difference between Christians, Jews, Muslims or people of any other faith if you subscribe to divine command. If God commands it, it is necessarily good. Which means you can justify anything you like. I find that justification innately immoral in and of itself.
Whenever God is pressed to curb the consequences of evil, its messy, because evil by nature creates a chaos impossible to contain. The fact the bible tells us God waited so long before acting so finally, indicates it was not something he chose to do lightly. He would have known the raw tragedy of his choice, but he saw it the lesser of two evils.
The evil had to be eradicated. Innocents would be affected, so God took them to be with him.
No Christian I know of uses this as justification for the same. These stories offend our moral sensibilities as much as anyones. Ironically, however, our moral sensibilities in the West have been largely, and for many people unconsciously, shaped by our Judaeo-Christian heritage, which has taught us the intrinsic value of human beings, the importance of dealing justly rather than capriciously, and the necessity of the punishment’s fitting the crime. The Bible itself instils the values which these stories seem to violate. The command to kill all the Canaanite peoples is jarring precisely because it seems so at odds with the portrait of Yahweh, Israel’s God, which is painted in the Hebrew Scriptures.
But, the circumstances were unique and the people extremely at odds with God's patience (similar to Sodom and Gomorrah).
No, it is not at odds with the God yahweh of the old testament at all. He was not a god of love, he was a god of war. El was known as a war god to many peoples of the time period, and the god El was derived from other peoples.
El was the name of a God as well as a generic name for the people of the area. He was thought to have a wide named ashera (also named in the old testament) and at times was said to be the father of baal and/or molech.
Furthermore, you don't know that God took the babies or innocents to heaven with him. If they were going to be evil if allowed to live, why would he? Is a later Christian spin doctoring to make such a claim. The Bible certainly doesn't say so. I also noticed in your answer that you didn't even attempt to answer the charges of rape and sexual slavery that the Virgin women were subjected to.
A very good reason why the religious beliefs you hold are so dangerous to society. A believer decides there is evil and it therefore must be eradicated. These type of folks are the ones only to eager to wield a sword during the Crusades and operate torture machines during the Inquisitions.
And, so goes the justification of any atrocity committed in the name of God, how much patience the followers of God have before committing them. Not much patience, evidently.
Another wonderful contradiction. Keep em comin'.
The questions must be asked.
Did the direction to kill come to each man directly from God or did one man pass down the information? What if that one man lied? Would you trust a man who says he spoke to God and God demanded you murder thousands of children?
Why didn't God do his own killing? Is he impotent?
Mohammad gave similar directions he said he got directly from Allah, if you think he lied, then others could have done the same. If you think Mohammad told the truth you should be a Muslim.
Sorry, the slaughter of innocent children is inexcusable as is the justification for it.
Again, all your objections stem from the resolute conviction that their is no God... if there is no God then there is no divine will... if no divine will, then someone is lying in claiming there is... if others are acting upon the lies then they are fools...
I get it. I just don't start from the same premise as you. For me, God is, and the world makes sense through Him.
Biblically, God has in the past chosen to eliminate intolerable evil without using the medium of other people. But he is still criticised as being immoral for doing so; ironically, often by those who don't believe in him. Therefore whether he chooses to use people to accomplish his will or not, how will that change your attitude toward him?
Another question for you Rad man.
You are an atheist (I assume this from your posts). Are humans more valuable in your world view than any other creature? Are human babies/children of greater worth than the babies/children of other creatures?
Right, but wether there is a God or not is irrelevant. You don't know what God wants or wanted, you were only told by people what your God wants. That's why we have so many different faiths. A few years back a man had a schizophrenic episode on a bus and thought God was telling him to murder the person beside him, so he pulled out his pocket knife and beheaded the 20 year old beside him.
It makes sense to slaughter innocent babies rather than God just taking them with a snap of his fingers?
Correction, there are stories in the bible that depict God eliminating intolerable evil. It would show that he was at the very least compassionate if he eliminated them without a painful bloodbath.
All human life is valuable to me because I'm human. I would imagine all whale life would be valuable to me if I were a whale. I only understand what it's like to be human, so because I value my life I value all human life. Don't you?
You provide little more than contradictions to support the "sense" you make through God, so it's not at all dependent on what premise one uses, whether it is from a position of belief or non-belief, contradictions don't support either one.
Beautiful contradiction, and so well said, it almost appears deliberate.
If you believe a God can conduct genocide and make people commit the act, and that makes perfect sense to you, then there can never be agreement between you and a moral, reasonable, rational human being.
That said, you would then be one of the first to pick up that sword and happily involve yourself in the slaughter while the moral, reasonable, rational human being would not.
You would be the one who would kill in the name of a god. You would be considered extremely dangerous to society.
From a medical standpoint, they are kind of another race, or at least a quasi-race. It is quite possible to be genetically Jewish and there are several medical conditions that are specific to those of Jewish decent.
So there really is an argument to a "Jewish Race"
It was my understanding that the Jews and today's Palestinians are actually the same people from a genetic studies. The difference is down to a choice of adherence to religion.
I'm not a fan of the word race as it divides us up needlessly, but it's my understanding that if one is to categorize people then the Israelites fall into the Caucasian group. If one is to argue that the Israelites are an ethnic group, I'd be forced to agree.
Well don't use the word race then. We'll go with: A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
Does that work?
The division is not needless and there is a point where the desire to be color-blind goes so far to the extreme that it's detrimental. We get it, you aren't a racist. Cool. I'm not either.
But that's neither here nor there... The original point was that Jews were simply people that follow another religion. That's not entirely true. Catholic isn't an "ethic group" Baptist isn't an "ethic group"
Being Jewish is more than a faith. You can't identify a Buddhist by looking at their DNA, you can identify a Jewish person that way.
What if you or I become Jewish? We'd be Jewish, but not Israelites. I've know a few people who became Jewish, are they not Jewish? Last I read our genetics can be looked at and a determination of where our ancestors came from can be found. If I became Jews would my genetics change as well? They can determine an Italian from a Spaniard, sometimes even from village to village. Are the Palestinians different from the Israelis? Are all Jews Israelis? Are all Israelis Jews? One of my best friends is a Jew, the only way one would know he's Jewish is because of him name. His skin is the same colour as mine and his eyes are much more blue.
If you or I chose to follow the faith, we would be converted Jews. We would not be physical Jews.
I know you are railing against this. Injustice and inequality bad... I get it.
However it is short-sighted and destructive to ignore racial traits when one can have children that die from genetic conditions that affect people of Jewish ancestry only.
Do you know of a disease that kills Baptists only?
I think Melissa is correct.
"The medical genetics of Jews is the study, screening and treatment of genetic disorders that are more common in particular Jewish populations than in the population as a whole. The genetics of Ashkenazi Jews have been particularly well-studied, resulting in the discovery of many genetic disorders that are associated with this ethnic group. In contrast, the medical genetics of Sephardic Jews and Oriental Jews are more complicated, since they are more genetically diverse and there are consequently no genetic disorders that are more common in these groups as a whole; instead they tend to have the genetic diseases that are common in their various countries of origin."
Right, Ethnic group. But that ethnic group doesn't include all jews.
Not all Jews, especially today. However, if someone wants, they can trace back their genealogy and find out if they were part of that particular gene pool.
An 'ethnic group' is defined as people of the same race or nationality who share a distinctive culture.
Ethnicity or ethnic group is a socially defined category of people who identify with each other based on a shared social experience or ancestry.
From that link:
"Ethnicity is often assumed to be the cultural identity of a group from a nation state, while race is assumed to be biological and/or cultural essentialization of a group hierarchy of superiority/inferiority related to their biological constitution. It is assumed that, based on power relations, there exist 'racialized ethnicities' and 'ethnicized races'. "
Right, since being Jewish is not always biological and most certainly a cultural identity we can say they are of a particular ethnic group and or religion. We have Palestinians more closely related genetically to Israelis than Western European Jews are related to Russian Jews.
I would agree, and I don't think anyone disagrees that it's not always biological, but most certainly can be biological.
Most Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists originate from specific regions and may be genetically similar but we don't identify them as being a specific race. One can argue that the Israelis are a sub group of Caucasians if one needs to divide people up, but saying that Jews are a separate race on there own is like saying Sikhs are a separate race.
"In the Ashkenazi Jewish population (those of Eastern European descent), it has been estimated that one in four individuals is a carrier of one of several genetic conditions. These diseases include Tay-Sachs Disease, Canavan, Niemann-Pick, Gaucher, Familial Dysautonomia, Bloom Syndrome, Fanconi anemia, Cystic Fibrosis and Mucolipidosis IV."
"In recent years, many genetic studies have demonstrated that, at least paternally, most of the various Jewish ethnic divisions and the Palestinians – and in some cases other Levantines – are genetically closer to each other than the Palestinians or European Jews to non-Jewish Europeans."
Too black and white, Rad. Judaism is a religion-no way around that. And over history, men and women from Caucasian races have converted to that religion. It does not take away from the fact that Judaism is also a racial identification among Semitic people-who incidentally include Arabs, and others. You may be a Muslim with blind hair and blue eyes. It's a religious identification. Same with Judaism. But it also includes a racial element if you originated from a Semitic area.
Something written in stone, perhaps an earthquake or something in character with witnesses.
So would you be more inclined to believe God commissioned it if he only used 'natural' events; earthquakes, floods, pestilence, famine? But disinclined to believe God commissioned it if through the medium of other people.
I am pressed for time but could enjoy this subject. When I wrote in regards to valid Divine mandates: Is it written in stone? Is it in character with witnesses etc. what I mean is, for instance, there is a Commandment from a Creator who created all life, not to kill or murder. Now in that context and from a possible context of who Jesus was and what He said, it would seem to me that divine mandates, that tell people to go and kill other people is suspect. On guessing or speculating from your original premise- does God have a moral right to interact in some way that pertains to morality, His Will etc, my question would be what is not God's Will? Whether a creator of reality makes a divine mandate or does not make a divine mandate at all, I see no difference. Atheists have no basis for objective or absolute morality. Survival of the fittest or cannibalism is just as valid as anything, morality-wise. Now if the premise is: There is a whole population of charley manson people, back in history and it was the right thing to fire and brimstone them for the safety of humanity for thousands of years I can see that. It just does not seem in character with 'thou shalt not kill". Finally the last question would be: How can we know the scribes, priests and prophets were always truthful and never lied or wrote falsely? Jer 8
For the sake of clarification (and any sort of justification on the part of the OP, and anyone wishing to argue with it), what does determine a separate "race" of people? Science does (and has for decades or more) point to Jews and other Semitic peoples as belonging to their own race.
I just think it's important when discussing the issue to know for sure.
Ethnic group, yes.
Where do the Jewish people fit in?
http://blog.world-mysteries.com/science … the-world/
I'm sincere in actually asking what determines "race." It isn't simply the color of one's skin. There are genetically identifiable racial characteristics. As a person of Mediterranean descent, for example, I have a genetic predisposition for heart disease. It's been proven that sickle cell anemia is more prevalent among those of African descent. Genetics, and that alone, determines race. Everything else that people use to make the designation is born of ignorance, IMO. I'm American. Born in a country filled with umpteen million opportunities and with access (with the proper resources anyway) to top notch medical care. Doesn't change my genes. Race is a determining factor as far as health issues are concerned. Everything else that people want to attach to it is simply bull.
And my point is that, yes, Hitler was after racial purity, not simply religious persecution. Otherwise, exterminating the mentally ill, the homosexuals, and those religious leaders (from the very Christian churches that have repeatedly been mistakenly accused of sanctioning his actions) would have been superfluous. At the end of the day, no matter the justification, genocide is absolutely and without a doubt, appallingly evil.
Yes Hitler broke the Caucasion race down to subgroups. If you looked at the link you'd see that the descriptions of the different races doesn't include skin colour. However, The United Nations, in a 1950 statement, opted to “drop the term ‘race’ altogether and speak of “ethnic groups”. Are the Israelites and ethnic group, sure, but if we have to categories them as a race, they be as Caucasian as the Swiss and those of Indian decent.
"Justification, genocide is absolutely and without a doubt, appallingly evil."
Then why do they do it?
Because people do evil things, and to justify them, they latch into those things about others that are different, and therefore frightening to the uneducated and ignorant. Knowing why doesn't make it any more right or wrong. And, btw, having made my opinion perfectly clear-that it is evil no matter the reason- leads me to believe you're arguing with the wrong person.
Doesn't matter why. Wrong is wrong. We can argue motivation till the cows come amblin by, but it doesn't change the wrongness of it.
And the Israelites are not Caucasian. They are a Semitic people-which is an entirely different racial designation.
Oh, I wasn't arguing with you. Sorry if it came across that way. I will however argue with anyone who justifies the killing of babies by saying they were put in a better place.
And have you ever seen me do that or justify it? Of course not. So, posing the question to me should be moot, since you know entirely what my response would be.
I know you weren't really arguing. I think it's more like hoping to get some sort of reasonable answer to a question that has no real suitable one. It's wrong. So why in hell do people do it? And worse, try to justify it? I get what you're saying, my friend.
Sorry, I didn't mean to ask you why you do it. I was asking why others do it.
I got it.
Sadly, I can only say it's because people can and will use anything as an excuse for committing any evil act that benefits them personally. That's anything but an acceptable answer, but it's the only one I've ever found any peace with.
I take it from this variation of the old cliché that the cows don't live at your house, but you are on their commute.
I suppose you can take something from it, but it was simply a figure of speech. The only point to the statement is that it's wrong, no matter what justification one uses for it.
*Edit: If you meant that simply as a joke, it was cute.
It was simply an attempt to interject some levity, Mo. I had never heard that spin on the cliche. Nothing more to it then that.
No, you can't compare them at all.
Hitler found no joy or glory in killing--it was simply a duty that he believed had to be carried out. And his total body count was around 12 million.
According to the Bible, however, God finds all kinds of joy and glory--as well as self-satisfaction and self-righteousness--in killing, and his body count is everyone who has ever died because he cursed humanity with the capacity for death in the first place. And he was far more successful in wiping out races of people he deemed unworthy to live.
So yeah, the two aren't comparable at all.
by Claire Evans3 years ago
Jews were delivered from Egypt by God in the Old Testament but weren't delivered from Hitler. Why? Why did God suddenly go silent after Jesus?
by schoolgirlforreal4 years ago
It is a fact that (if) being gay is a sin, it is no greater a sin than fornication.SoI myself feel no right to judge anyone being gay especially when they are truly in love-I'm a bit perplexed because-It's wrong to...
by aka-dj3 years ago
It has been alleged in several forum threads that Hitler was a Christian.This then, is used as an argument to intimate that his actions in the Wars, and the Holocaust were as a direct result of his Christian faith.The...
by Paul Swendson6 years ago
Is it possible for pro-life and pro-choice people to find any common ground? Too often, the argument becomes fixated on the morality and legality of abortion, which are both worthwhile topics. But in the end, I think...
by Chasuk4 years ago
If self-identified Christians who do evil things aren't REALLY Christians, what about self-identified non-believers who do good things? Are they secretly believers?My question explores the "No true Scotsman"...
by Mark Knowles7 years ago
I see a lot of religionists trying to argue that their faith is not really faith. It is either "proven" because god found their car keys or whatever. Or the same as having faith that evolution happens because...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.