Live Blogging the Bible: Deuteronomy 12:31
by Noah Lugeons
God loves a good genocide.
I can’t help but feel like they’re going out of their way to make this god character an asshole so that it’ll be more cathartic when he’s redeemed, but I’ve gotta be honest, even with 61 books to do it, I’m not sure if there’s any way they can make me like this guy.
So in chapter 12 god reminds us why we can’t realistically entertain the “moral guide” notion of the bible by spelling out all the good reasons to thoroughly destroy every member and memory of the cities they’re all about to ravage. This is late in the chapter after a thrilling and detailed reminiscence about proper meat-eating etiquette.
God’s explaining why you shouldn’t worship any other gods or even know about how other people worship, which he reminds us of no fewer than infinity times in the book of Deuteronomy. And in an apparent effort to soften the blow of killing women and children, livestock and slaves, then burning homes, buildings, temples, possessions, clothes and any remnant of a civilization to the ground, Moses takes a minute to remind us just how horrible these societies are:
You must not [worship their gods] because every abhorrent thing they have done for their gods. They would even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods.
My first thought was of Abraham taking ol’ Isaac for a midnight stroll so the actual depth of the irony of this passage took me a second to process. God’s in the middle of telling them to kill all of these heathens, even the children. Their god is telling them that they have to burn their enemy’s children because their enemies would burn their children for their god.
But it’s totally still divinely inspired, though…
Leave a Reply
Atheist Tithing Option:
Podcast RSS
- 528: Banned Wagon Edition March 30, 2023In this week’s episode, book banning bites the butts of the city of Brigham, God visits a town in Connecticut to serve unlimited breadsticks made of his son, and Don Ford visits a podcast in Jersey, Michigan, and Georgia and doesn’t bring any breadsticks at all. --- To make a per episode donation at Patreon.com, click here: http://www.patreon.com/ScathingAth […]Puzzle in a Thunderstorm, LLC
- 527: Marshtacular Edition March 23, 2023On this week’s episode: Virginia gives a whole new meaning to periodic investigation ... The religious zealots of the Taliban will find they’re not cut out for clerical work ... And Gwyneth Paltrow experiments with putting noxious gas INTO her butthole. --- To make a per episode donation at Patreon.com, click here: http://www.patreon.com/ScathingAtheist To b […]Puzzle in a Thunderstorm, LLC
- 526: Elevated Edition March 16, 2023In this week’s episode, we head to Seattle, so we leave you with a whole bunch of headlines we recorded over the last six weeks so you wouldn’t miss us. --- To make a per episode donation at Patreon.com, click here: http://www.patreon.com/ScathingAtheist To buy our book, click there: https://www.amazon.com/Outbreak-Crisis-Religion-Ruined-Pandemic/dp/B08L2HSV […]Puzzle in a Thunderstorm, LLC
The Scathing Atheist 
I guess if you would rather have a society that sacrifices children and does the things that the God of the Israelite’s hates, I’m sure you can find a place somewhere in the world today to practice those things. Probably on an Island somewhere after you slaughter all of the inhabitants.
Oh, and your argument is assuming that the practices of the people of Israel were commanded to annihilate would over time have changed to no longer practice sacrificing children to their gods, right? If you haven’t learned already there is plenty of research out there that shows the things we practice are the things we are taught growing up. So, it’s more likely that a society that sacrifices it’s children would become worse rather than better over time.
You brought up Abraham and Isaac, so I don’t know, but I would rather serve a God who stops me from sacrificing my son than one who has me carry through with it? To me it’s quite a big difference.
You also mention that because of this passage people can’t use God or the Bible as the “moral guide,” why is that?
If God chose the Israelite’s to be His moral guide for the world and there is another group of people that is amoral and threatens the morality of God’s chosen people, would it not be wiser to completely eliminate the amoral people group rather than to allow them to live among you?
As both groups were determined to live in close proximity to one another the result would have either been to live and allow both cultures to mingle and different religious practices to occur or for the two groups to go to war. The first was attempted and failed (if you don’t believe me re-read Deuteronomy). Now Moses and the Israelite’s face the second option of going to war and whether or not to allow survivors. Contrary to your argument that this proves lack of morality for the God of Israel, this was a very common practice of many cultures over the years. In fact, if the Israelite’s had lost they likely would have been slaughtered in the same way.
If you were to look at the passage again and consider that God’s command is for the good of the nation of Israel (and human kind) so that future generations would not suffer or face the negative consequence of destructive living, would you still consider God lacking morality? Or rather would you consider it as compassion from God to protect the world we live in?
I hope for your sake you realize you just spent 8 paragraphs attempting to justify genocide. Genocide… the murder of babies and children and innocent men and women; the wiping out of an entire civilization because you don’t like its gods.
Luckily for earth, your argument is incoherent bullshit. Otherwise genocide would be okay. And it isn’t. No matter how bad you want the bible to be right, genocide is still immoral.
So you are calling a group of people that sacrifice children innocent?
Does this mean that you believe the people (men, women, and the children they raise to continue after they die) who practice sex trafficking and infanticide are innocent?
Because like it or not this is what your argument is saying.
That God and Israel were immoral in the destruction of these wicked cultures and the wicked cultures were innocent and didn’t deserve the punishment.
What would the moral resolution be for a wicked people group by today’s standards, that is for a group of people that are amoral and do things like sacrifice children? A slap on the wrist and we tell them they are being naughty?
Also to clarify, the 8 paragraphs were not an attempt to justify genocide, those are your words being used to attempt to weaken my argument. The 8 paragraphs were to question your use of the term genocide and whether it actually applies to the passage or if it is just another logical fallacy being used: The idea that a strong emotional word such as genocide strengthens your argument.
Genocide includes killing all of the children, including the ones who wouldn’t have been sacrificed anyways (Also, the Inca civilization survived all the way up until the spanish invasion, and they did the exact same things.) So by the barometer of children killed, what God commanded was much worse. Also, why did God continuously harden the pharoah’s heart to the point God just had to kill all the first born males?
Abe and Isaac, so you’re glad you have a God who would ask you to kill your kid, and just at the point of actually doing it stops. What about the hundreds of thousands of times it’s occurred since where God hasn’t stopped it, but allegedly told the parents to do it? If you say we now know they have a paranoid mental disorder, why doesn’t that excuse work for Abraham as well? He lived at a time when none of this was known, so perhaps he was a person who made grandiose claims out of a mental delusion, and because his conviction was so high, he was able to persevere and gain followers. The makes more sense than he talked to a God.
To your point about war being a common practice, you’re right, and typically it was assumed that a God was on the side of whomever won, except the Israelites lost quite a few times, and they just assumed that they had done something to displease God. Sounds like excuses. It sounds like a star winning an award, or a sports star winning a game, thank God, but when you lose, it’s all down to personal inadequacies, not that the other God was stronger.
Well, if it was God’s will so that future generations would not suffer this way, it didn’t work, because there are many other cultures which practiced this afterwards, also God would later demand the sacrifice of children, so what makes him so noble regarding stopping the sacrifice of some children by slaughtering them all, when he could have just as easily said slaughter the adults and assimilate them into your tribes, or better yet soften the hearts of the other tribe so they couldn’t bring themselves to harm their children.
In my opinion, every alleged action in the Bible can be rationalized by assuming undiagnosed mental disorders and that we’re listening to the stories of a side that won it’s fair share of the important battles.
I would say that if you looked at all the cultures that have performed child sacrifice vs. Deuteronomy and the cultures God has Israel wipe out, the barometer is against the cultures of child sacrifice. That the number of children killed as a result of these cultures is far greater than in the case of the God of Israel’s command.
As for Pharaoh, I wonder if God’s hardening of his heart was not so much God’s direct interaction with Pharaoh but rather the result of God’s acts performed through Moses. You must understand that all of the plagues of Egypt was the God of Israel destroying the god’s of Egypt. The blotting out Ra the sun god and ultimately killing the first born of all the males of Egypt (that Pharaoh was a god).
As for my comment about serving a God who would ask me to sacrifice my son but at the last second provide an alternative sacrifice (a ram) vs. a god that would have me carry through with the act of sacrificing my child. Abraham believed even if he sacrificed Isaac that God would raise Isaac from the dead as Isaac was God’s promise to Abraham of becoming a great nation. It like many of the passage of the Bible have a deeper meaning once context is understood.
I am unaware of God commanding that children be sacrificed in the Bible to Him? A little confused as to where this comes from.
It is plausible that many of the things we can attribute as mental illness or a result of our psychology where present in Biblical times as well and referred to in a different way. As for the thousands of people who claim god told them to kill their children and they’ve gone through with it the evidence must be examined. Where in the Bible does God ever tell someone to sacrifice their child and allow them to carry through with it? As it is not found anywhere in the Bible than it is not from the God of the Bible but rather something other than the God of the Bible, correct?
As for the cultures afterward continuing similar practices. I count this as a result of the world being prone to evil. If left unchecked every person alive today would choose evil over good, as it is easier and gives the false impression that it will meet the desires of our hearts. Now it is true that people can be held in check by laws and a moral code in today’s world, this has not always been the case and doesn’t completely eradicate the evil that still occurs.
I attempted to explain the assimilation effect. That both cultures would rub elbows and the Israelite’s would have become wicked in God’s eyes just as the people that were told to wipe out. Like I said, it is easier to fall into bad habits rather than to develop good ones.
Mr. Genocide is okay says: “I am unaware of God commanding that children be sacrificed in the Bible to Him? A little confused as to where this comes from.”
Really? You can’t think of a single passage where god demands that children be slaughtered? You can’t think of a single one? Not one?
How about Deuteronomy 12:31 you moron? It’s the goddamn passage we’re talking about in the first place. God is in the middle of commanding Moses’ army to murder children. And he justifies it by saying that they murder children. This is, of course, not the only time God demands the murder of children. He makes something of a habit of it.
I’d suggest that before defending god’s genocidal ways on a blog you (a) read the bible and (b) read the fucking post you’re commenting on.
Oh, as for the comparison you draw on Israel’s results of war being like stars or athletes who praise God when the win but claim personal inadequacies. And that Israel simply won their fair share of important battles.
You must consider that in my estimate at least 90% or more of history is written by the winner. Who wants to hear about the losing side or better who would have wanted to write about the losing side. The interesting thing is that the Bible writes about Israel losing, why would they write about their own loses, doesn’t that make them look weak to have lost battles? Did the Romans or Greeks ever record the history of their loses or was it recorded by the side that was victorious?
Last year the Chiefs won the first pick of the NFL draft as a result of being the worst team in the NFL. They didn’t win the super bowl but they won something didn’t they? Hopefully, their pick in April won’t be a complete bust and that he develops to be a productive player for them, otherwise they would kind have lost the draft too.
I would hope stars and athletes who praise God in victory also praise Him in defeat. Perhaps to provide an explanation of what I mean is that in victory an athlete gives credit to God giving them the talent and dedication to hard work that led to their victory. When they lose, the are not discrediting God or crediting a different god for the defeat but rather understanding their own limitations as human beings.
Okay, so you’ve moved on from the child murder thing? That bit was settled? And its on to tortured football analogies?
Seems to me the Noah’s ark experiment failed dismally. Where did all these people needing to be annihilated come from? Did another god create them?
Great point! God made those people so that he could later have Moses murder their children and their livestock. And he knew it was going to happen as well. What a jerk.
Are we really discussing imaginary things written by senile people a few thousand years ago?
Wow, you completely missed the point. And now you’ve resulted to name calling, how big of you?
My comment was that no where in the Bible does God command a child be sacrificed to Him, even you point out that He commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac but stops him at the last moment and provides a ram in Isaac’s place.
Did God command Israel to wipe out the nations that did detestable things, yes. But this was a consequence of their actions not Israel sacrificing these people to their God.
Perhaps you should not assume you have all the answers. (A) I have read the Bible and (B) Maybe you need to re-read my comments
It’s funny you didn’t answer these questions I had for you:
–So you are calling a group of people that sacrifice children innocent?
–Does this mean that you believe the people (men, women, and the children they raise to continue after they die) who practice sex trafficking and infanticide are innocent?
Or respond to my comment, rather jumped to a different comment I made and started attacking me like you are absolutely 100% right in your interpretation of the Biblical passage. And that if someone has an alternative understanding of it than you, all you have to do is act like a child throwing a tempter tantrum and start calling them names. Fundamental Atheists are so predictable.
You, Mr. Scathing Atheist lack wisdom and understanding.
You arguments are based on assumptions. You are using a word that is found in today’s language that was not present at the time the passage was written. What this does is attribute a word in our language that has a strong emotional attachment to something that was done thousands of years ago in a culture that “genocide” as we understand it was not a part of the vocabulary.
You are also assuming that the women and children of the cultures destroyed were innocent. Yes, it is easy to think of children as innocent but you were never a part of their culture or know how they were being raised to determine their innocence. Recently, I read an article on ESPN about a 15, 16, and 17 year old kids that shot and killed a 22 year old college baseball player as a random act of violence because they were bored. Are these 3 kids innocent?
You also ignore the point of what was being done in the culture that God commanded Israel to eliminate. Would you rather see a punishment fit the crime? Or for a criminal to continue in the same way because they were not punished adequately?
Yes, the women and children that were massacred had it coming. That’s a justifiable excuse for genocide. It turns out you were correct the whole time. How blind of me not to see how much better the world is because of child murder. I thanks you for opening my eyes to the crucial benefits that genocide provides the world.
What a horrible world we would live in if nobody had ever massacred women and children.
(End sarcasm here)
When one sets out to justify genocide, one rescinds one’s entitlement to respect. You’re on my blog saying that it’s okay to kill women and children if you don’t like their religion. You are a piece of intellectual shit that doesn’t deserve the slightest modicum of courtesy.
You are still arguing that if there are women and children today that do heinous acts against society that they are still innocent and do not deserve punishment?
If a mother kills her children by pushing her car into a lake she is innocent of murder? Shouldn’t even go to trial, huh?
If a 12 year old beheads his 5 year old sister during her birthday, he should not face the consequences of his actions because he is a child and therefore innocent?
(Sarcasm Begin) Please Mr. All-knowing Scathing Atheist provide a better alternative to Deuteronmy 12:31 considering the culture of that time and the practices of the people that were eliminated? Enlighten my poor uneducated soul. (Sarcasm End)
So the toddlers were all murderers? All the Amalekite kids were sinners deserving of death? And the Midianites? And the Jebusites? And the Canaanites? Even the infants? All the women were child-drowning monsters?
The arguments you are making (I feel the need to point this out again) are in an effort to JUSTIFY GENOCIDE, you malignant rectal tumor. Your vapid attempts to equate being anti-genocide and anti-any form of justice whatsoever are painfully misguided and almost too stupid to respond to. I say “indiscriminately murdering babies is immoral” and you come back with “so nobody should ever be punished for anything?” You might as well say “well then why isn’t it okay for Batman to rape aliens?”
And leave the sarcasm to the professionals. You fucked it up. It’s not sarcasm if you’re actually asking me to do something you want me to do.
At least you live up to the reputation you so desire to provide the world. Scathing Atheist is an accurate description to give yourself.
It’s clear you don’t give a crap about the world you live in. And that you do not desire to see it changed for the better. That you would rather be known for spitting insults and profanities at things you know nothing about. It leaves me no pleasure in meeting people like you, who are destitute and hopeless as a result of their own doing.
If you want to have a civilized debate over our differing beliefs I would be game. But if you would rather continue in your scathing ways, than be it and I will bid thee farewell.
A civilized debate where you justify genocide? Did you really just say that?
I will ask another question to you.
If you were a soldier in Afghanistan or Africa and there was a child soldier that would not hesitate to shoot you and you met him on the road and he began shooting at you, would you knowing that it’s just a child return fire?
You can ask all the stupid questions you like. I’m not going to answer them because your a fucking idiot.
Now let me reword that question so that it is remotely applicable to the actual conversation:
If you were a soldier in Afghanistan and a child soldier started shooting at you, would it be okay to murder him, his family, his entire tribe including the babies and infants, all of their livestock and then burn their village to the ground?
There’s a difference between killing a person and committing genocide. It’s scary as hell that you don’t seem to realize that.
You claim that this passage is about God’s genocide? Where exactly are the Israelite’s being commanded to murder babies and children and women in it? Have you even read the chapter?
To expand on the chapter that you pull the whole “genocide” from:
Deuteronomy 12:29-31 The Lord your God will cut off before you the nations you are about to invade and dispossess. But when you have driven them out and settled in their land, and after they have been destroyed before you, be careful not to be ensnared by inquiring about their gods, saying, “How do these nations serve their gods? We will do the same.” You must not worship the Lord your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the Lord hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods.
Why would it say, “driven them out,” if they were commanded to kill every man, woman, and child?
Yes, Moses states that the people the Israelite’s are about to “dispossess” burn their sons and daughters in fire as sacrifices, but I don’t see where he tells them to kill the babies and children???
But no, we should not question the Scathing Atheist claims that the God of the Bible is a genocidal maniac…
Or do I go back to Deuteronomy 7 to find your genocidal command from God?
All it says there is that Israel is to not make a treaty with them or intermarry with the people’s sons or daughters or worship the other peoples gods. It does say that the kings of the people will be given into their hands and that the names of those kings will be blotted out from under heaven.
Still not seeing anything about God commanding Israel to commit genocide against these nations? It still hasn’t made mention of killing the women or children either like you claim.
All I see here is God commanding them to invade the land (kinda like when settlers took the land from the Native Americans?) and not practice what the people they invaded practiced.
Come on, if you are making this claim that Deuteronomy 12:31 is a good ol fashioned God’s genocide you gotta give me something to work with?
Now, please defend your claim that God loves a good genocide from the passage you’ve referenced?
Interesting bullshit attempt at a paraphrase there. Do you think I actually don’t have access to a bible? Do you think you can just pretend that the passage you just brought up doesn’t actually read:
Thous shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them.
Utterly destroy = genocide.
Or how about Deut 20:16 and 17? After saying that it’s okay to leave the women and children alive after murdering all the men, god offers the following exceptions:
“Thou shalt save alive nothing that breathes: But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely the Hittites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites.”
Again, utterly destroy = genocide
Would you like to continue to defend genocide by shifting your argument and failing to defend any points that you’ve made after they’ve been refuted?
Look up the Hebrew word being translated into English as “utterly destroy,” I’ll help you out:
Chāram – to ban, devote, dedicate; to curse; to destroy utterly; to be doomed; to be exterminated. As used in Deuteronomy 7:2-6 and Deut 20:16-17, Canaanite cities were treated like contraband. The lure toward idolatry was removed by devastating the sources. If people were included (Lev. 27:28, 29, 1 Sam. 15:3) they were executed.
Funny how the Hebrew word can be translated as utterly destroy yet mean something completely different than “genocide.” If you don’t believe me use a lexical aid to look up the original word used, to help you it’s Strongs word #2763. Might even be able to find it online?
AGAIN, I HAVE NOT BEEN DEFENDING GENOCIDE. You can say it a thousand more times and still you would be wrong. TI have shifted the argument to the real issue as you made the claim that God loves a good genocide, but now you are refusing to defended your position adequately?
Just so it’s clear to you: UTTERLY DESTROY DOES NOT MEAN THE SAME THING AS GENOCIDE. You are making a false claim.
At the very least you’re justifying genocide when a “good” (Omnipotent) God could have interfered in another way as to save these people who were his “children” (since God created all people, even though some were more chosen than others).
I am more moral than your deity since I can say I would not justify Genocide in any situation. Before you made excuses that in your mind if the children had been assimilated by the Hebrews it would have polluted their lines. I point out people are easily assimilated into other cultures and it is culture, not hereditary lines from you parents which influences choices. Also, polluting the genetic lines sounds more like a eugenics argument. It’s no wonder Hitler was a catholic.
You also asked about a God who would ask of you to sacrifice your own child, here are some examples of Christians who claim God told them to sacrifice their children:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/29/children.slain/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1367239/Mother-told-God-stick-rose-throat-rid-daughter-demons.html
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/9758632/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/san-francisco-mom-pleads-innocent-murder/#.UhPY-JK1FOg
God did not interfere in these cases, so why do each of the women claim that he requested it of them? If you judge them to be mentally unstable as many of the courts did, then why do you not extend the same level of skepticism towards Abraham, since he did exist in a time when mental disorders (such as thinking you are a famous historical figure such as napoleon, or thinking you hear voices) were completely unknown, and likely given more credence than they deserve based on the person’s convictions?
Lastly, as for the imaginary barometer of children being killed, the fact that other culture’s Gods told them to sacrifice children vs. God telling many of the Jewish leaders to kill children in their wars inJoshua 6:20-21, Deuteronomy 2:32-35, Deuteronomy 3:3-7, Numbers 31:7-18, and 1 Samuel 15:1-9, just because one may conceivably fall a little further on the imaginary scale, it doesn’t negate the fact that they both fall heavily on the immoral side of the scale. That’s like saying the baptist church protected fewer pedophiles than the catholic church, it doesn’t matter that one is worse than the other, they’re both fucking bad.
You’re making excuses for an evil book because you can’t move past it’s what you’ve always been trained to believe. You’re more moral than the book you hold up, at least look at it and realize it reflected a reality that wasn’t even true when it was first conceived.
Disclaimer: I apparently need to put a disclaimer before I comment on this site…My comments in regards to the Catholic Church are in no way in support of any actions or decisions they have made or will make in the present or future.
As for your argument against the Catholic Church protecting pedophiles (which we both agree pedophiles are bad) If you had a child who stole a car and was arrested would you not instinctively want to do everything in your power to protect your child? What if you child was accused of molesting another child, would you still protect them?
The question I asked about parents killing their children is whether or not it was a mis-belief in regards to the God of the Bible. Is there a place in the Bible where God asks an individual to kill their own child as a sacrifice to Him and actually have the individual carry through with it?
Please do not think you know anything about what I believe or why I believe it.
The evil book you are referring to; whether you like it or not is highly responsible for the laws and morality of the cultures you and I live in. I can assure you that I am more moral as a result of that book. As are you whether you believe all that is in it or not. To say otherwise is foolish.
The real evil is what is inside human hearts and minds. Look at human history and see the destruction and devastation throughout.
You believe that because you are an Atheist you are enlightened or intelligent, because you don’t believe in an antiquated god or gods. That humanity is better off without belief in some silly fabrication of people who didn’t have the scientific knowledge of today.
Look at the world today; are we really much different from our predecessors? Have you seen the atrocities in the world today? Did you know there are hundreds of thousands of Christians working in area’s to bring hope and healing to places that have been devastated by the culture of that area or natural disasters. That there are many Christians that are more socially aware than atheists of the domestic and international problems we face today and doing something to improve them?
Oh, gotcha. Exterminate. That’s much better.
Jump through more hoops. It amuses me.
It is quite remarkable how often you miss the point. I guess for a feeble mind such as yours I shouldn’t be too surprised.
Maybe, if you keep telling yourself that you are right, dodge questions pertaining to your claims, and use logical fallacies in your arguments others won’t realize how little you know. Wisdom and understanding Mr. Lugeons, it would serve you well to learn them.
Good day sir.
Without understanding his own twisted logic, he made the case constantly for Yaweh to kill men, and women, deserving and passive, as well as children, whom the majority of the world agree to be innocent, and unable to act maliciously. Killing off an entire people is exactly genocide, and because you were constantly trying to rationalize why it could happen, and how your own prophet, religion and deity could still come across as innocent in the endeavour is why you were constantly accused of defending the act of genocide.
It’s the same excuses made in Nazi Germany, and during the Rwandan genocide, and it doesn’t matter who is committing it or why.
We are now more moral than your god (Jehovah, or Yaweh, since they’re just an amalgamation of two different gods from early jewish polytheism). I hope you are too.
Sorry, switched between talking past him, then talking to him, lol.
That’s why this stupid crap matters. Here you see a nincompoop who has managed to justify genocide in his/her own mind by twisting a little logic here, a little logic there. But the problem is that when somebody wants to commit real genocide, they do the same damn thing. “Just look what God told Moses to do. Just look what God told Joshua to do…”
And the saddest part is that he/she walks away without ever even admitting to him/herself that they were engaged in the defense of genocide. Because it’s not genocide when their god demands it.
Perhaps a different approach on my part is needed.
God is commanding Israel to commit genocide.
But Why is He?
I mean genocide is a horrible act against humanity?
Isn’t God supposed to love all people?
Why would God destroy the people He created like that?
What is really going on in this Bible where God would command Israel to do such horrible things?
Why would God send people to Hell, that is a place of eternal conscious punishment?
Does the God of the Bible truly desire that all people be destroyed and sent to Hell?
Who could really believe in something like that?
But what is morality? Who is to say that what we believe is moral today is in fact moral? Is it something we can bring to vote where every person in the world could agree on? Or is it something beyond what we know and believe and have the capability to discover as time goes on?
What do we do with the people who don’t believe the same things as the majority?
How do we created a better judicial system so criminals don’t get off the hook as easily as they do? I mean locking up innocent people while criminals go free, really? Something should be done about this?
Genocide is wrong. But is adultery, stealing, drunkenness, pornography, lying really any more moral for society?
It’s pointeless to argue with an apologist., Noah. They are master tap dancers and display all type of mental gymastics to justify the brutality of their imgaginary friend. The next tool who says that God does not advocate child murder should have this passage tatooed on his forehead. Isaiah 13:15-18 ” Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children.”
In no context can this be justified.
Sadly I agree… arguing with them is pointless. Insulting them can be fun.
Can’t believe he’s comparing porn, stealing, drunkeness and adultery with genocide!
Never heard such an arrogant self righteous cunt bag! My brain is coming out of my ears!
Why not? They are all bad for society. Why is it you believe them to be better or worse than one another? Is it not your attempt to justify your beliefs? So a thief can say I can steal this but at least I’m not as bad as a murderer? Or I can look at porn but at least I’m not as bad as a drug dealer? Or it’s okay if I get drunk this weekend but I’m not as bad as a child molester?
This is what we human beings do. Justify and compare. Consider for a moment if lying was just as bad as committing genocide, would you ever want to tell a lie?
So you’re honestly arguing that pornography and genocide are equivalent crimes?
You’re fucked up even for a believer. Holy shit. You can do more to spread atheism than I can ever hope to. Keep up the good work.
No I am not arguing that they they are equivalent crimes.
Your argument is that genocide is immoral. My argument is what about other immoral acts such as pornography, drunkenness, stealing, adultery, lying, anger, profanity, etc?
Do you agree with me that these other acts are immoral as well?
No, but that’s a pretty tangential point. I notice you once again avoid defending your genocide-instructing god by brushing past the numerous examples of him demanding genocide that we’ve brought up. Instead you’d like to cling to some half-ass point that has nothing to do with anything. And I don’t blame you. Defending genocide is thirsty work.
You are honestly telling me that you don’t think lying, stealing, adultery, drunkenness, doing illegal drugs, pornography, etc are immoral acts?
You are going to sit there and defend these issues that plague many societies today and say that the devastation they bring is not that of immorality?
You can argue that these acts are beneficial for human societies?
No. I’m not going to defend them. I don’t want to assist you in your desperate attempt to change the subject at risk of facing the fact that you’ve spent the last 3 days defending genocide. I’m not letting you off the hook that easy.
The only hook I’ve been on was the immoral life I lived before Jesus set me free from it. So don’t be offended when I tell you that I was never on any hook of yours nor do you have the authority to let me off of it.
I didn’t come here to defend genocide, since you can’t see that and won’t even bother to listen to anything I do say, I’ll leave you alone.
Remember this. This is what it feels like to have your ass handed to you in an argument. Pretending that you’re walking away because you’re too good for the conversation isn’t even fooling you. You came in here to defend a passage of the bible and for your last dozen comments you refuse to talk about that passage of the bible. You try to steer the conversation a dozen ways because the alternative is admitting that you worship a book that endorses and celebrates genocide.
Read back over your own posts. You said it was okay to murder babies because they weren’t innocent and would spread the evil religion they were born into. Read back over it. When your rationality kicked in enough for you to realize you were taking the side in favor of murdering babies, you tried to pretend that was never what it was about. You tried to change the subject to whether pornography was immoral or whether punishment is ever justified or whether or not you were on my hook, but every time I steered you back to the truth: YOU WORSHIP A BOOK THAT ENDORSES THE INDISCRIMINATE MURDER OF BABIES.
I made you deal with that and I’ve made you deal with it for days. You walk away, but you walk away smaller than you walked in. You think twice before trying to defend that demonic book. You walk away knowing you were wrong.
It’s been fun.
There is no god.
Wow, you are wrong on so many levels. But if that’s what you need to make yourself feel good, who am I to judge?
You have no idea what I’m thinking as I walk away. You can use as many words you want to rationalize it, but you will still be wrong.
Wow, you were even wrong about you shutting the fuck up and going away? You’ve managed to lose the argument and lose the concession. Well done.
What if your understanding of the Isaiah passage or the Deuteronomy passage is inaccurate? Would you even consider to listen?
God’s command to utterly destroy anyone who tries to stay in the promised land and fight…while it is a command it is also a warning to the inhabitants, don’t you think?
If the Canaanites or Amalakites or whoever want to stay with their wives and children and fight, Israel is going to wipe them out. If however, they choose to surrender and leave the land they would be spared. Israel was to take control over the land, not run around the entire world killing those who wouldn’t worship their God. Israel was not commanded to deliberately and systematically kill everyone who didn’t believe what they believed. If you look at the command in Deuteronomy it’s only to utterly destroy any who would stay and fight, to rid the promised land of the wickedness of the people that lived their…either by surrender or sword.
Whose fault then would it be if knowing their women and children would be killed by Israel if the men of the land choose to stay and fight?
You quote Isaiah, what about Ezekiel 18:25-32?
25 “Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ Hear now, O house of Israel: Is my way not just? Is it not your ways that are not just? 26 When a righteous person turns away from his righteousness and does injustice, he shall die for it; for the injustice that he has done he shall die. 27 Again, when a wicked person turns away from the wickedness he has committed and does what is just and right, he shall save his life. 28 Because he considered and turned away from all the transgressions that he had committed, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 29 Yet the house of Israel says, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ O house of Israel, are my ways not just? Is it not your ways that are not just?
30 “Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, declares the Lord God. Repent and turn from all your transgressions, lest iniquity be your ruin.[d] 31 Cast away from you all the transgressions that you have committed, and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! Why will you die, O house of Israel? 32 For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord God; so turn, and live.”
Verse 32 kinda sums it up. God finds no pleasure in the death of anyone. But yet you say God is an advocate of genocide and child murder? God is an advocate of death?
Why would the Bible also say that God wants to save all people from death?
Somethings not right here. Are we capable of forgoing our pride and able to have an actual discussion of beliefs? Or are you too set in your ways and thinking you are right about your understanding of God and the Bible to even open your ears and listen?
The argument you are making is this:
Genocide is wrong.
God commanded Israel to utterly destroy another nation(s).
Therefore God has committed genocide
Therefore God is wrong.
Let’s interchange parts of this logical argument for entertainment purposes:
A liar is someone who cannot be trusted.
Noah Lugeons has lied numerous times during his lifetime.
Therefore Noah is a liar.
Therefore Noah is someone who cannot be trusted.
“Noah Lugeons has lied numerous times during his lifetime.”
Are you fucking stalking him or something!?
Yet another person to miss the point entirely. Good gracious. And supposedly I’m the one twisting logic???
Yes, when everybody misses your point and thinks you’re wrong about something, that’s probably the fault of everybody, huh?
You keep drawing the argument back to genocide is wrong and that I am trying to defend genocide. This statement is not true. I believe genocide to be wrong.
My arguments have been against your claim that God loves genocide.
For you or others to have missed this point is on you.
Your claim is that the following passage and others like it in the Bible is proof that God loves genocide. We can all agree that genocide is wrong, so to keep bringing that up or that I am defending genocide is pointless. If you want to debate whether your interpretation of the passage is proof that God LOVES genocide vs my interpretation that this passage does not show God loves genocide we can have that debate.
But again, all you’ve done to dismiss that passage is quibble with the translation of one word. Even if you’re right (which means that you trump all the translators that translate biblical texts for a living), you’re ignoring the preceding line, where god commands them to leave nothing alive that breathes. Killing all living things is genocide.
And of course, you didn’t even acknowledge the other passages Kevin and I brought up.
Read the bible. It’s full of god endorsing genocide. The overwhelming majority of biblical scholars admit this freely. You know less about your holy book than I do and I’m only on the 6th book. And if you knew more, you’d be an atheist.
And yet somehow this ninny seems to think that there is a magical combination of words that will make us all say, “Yeah, I guess murdering babies isn’t that bad after all.”
Your argument is that in the phrase “Thou shalt save alive nothing that breathes: But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely the Hittites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites” might have a slightly different interpretation that “utterly destroy”. But you don’t argue with the translation of “save alive nothing that breathes.”
So there’s a way to murder all living things (this includes animals) that is quantitatively different than genocide?
Note that earlier in the thread he was happy to admit that babies were murdered (you’re assuming those babies were innocent!) and has since gone on to argue that no babies were murdered.
Good luck with your justification of mass-murder…
Why are you called an apologetic again?
Well, everybody else has completely destroyed this apologetic’s arguments, but I figured I might have a go as well. Woo, walls of text! Also, I aplogise for not using the ‘quote function, but I wrote this all put somewhere else first so I’ve just put the apologetic’s arguments in quotation marks instead. Anyway…*takes deep breath*
“I guess if you would rather have a society that sacrifices children and does the things that the God of the Israelites hates, I’m sure you can find a place somewhere in the world today to practice those things. Probably on an island somewhere after you slaughter all of the inhabitants.
Oh, and your argument is assuming that the practices of the people of Israel were commanded to annihilate would over time have changed to no longer practice sacrificing children to their gods, right? If you haven’t learned already there is plenty of research out there that shows the things we practice are the things we are taught growing up. So, it’s more likely that a society that sacrifices its children would become worse rather than better over time.”
Point 1: So your argument is that the Israelites created today’s society (with no child sacrifice, apart from that island you mentioned) by wiping out every culture that practised it? Pretty sure the Aztecs etc. did all that, and that was going on for a long time after the dealings of Deuteronomy.
Point 2: Right, so Noah’s argument was definitely that we should all set up a new country on a remote island where we can kill loads of children.
Point 3: You argue that society wouldn’t change unless something drastic happened, so why are we not still prohibiting the wearing of mixed fabrics, or stoning teenagers for bad-mouthing their parents…because that’s how Israelite society was, and you wouldn’t think that would change unless they all got killed by another race for their beliefs.
“So you are calling a group of people that sacrifice children innocent?
Does this mean that you believe the people (men, women, and the children they raise to continue after they die) who practice sex trafficking and infanticide are innocent?”
“As for the cultures afterward continuing similar practices. I count this as a result of the world being prone to evil. If left unchecked every person alive today would choose evil over good, as it is easier and gives the false impression that it will meet the desires of our hearts.”
Point 1: No, but THEIR children are. They wouldn’t know what their society is doing. You remove them from that environment and teach them moral things instead, and they won’t also grow up to kill children. It’s not like you need to kill them!
Oh yeah, and God had the Israelites kill all their livestock too. What did the poor cows ever do?
Point 2: So if those cultures in the Middle East thousands of years ago weren’t utterly destroyed, we would all be killing babies? I find it incredibly hard to believe that this would happen, as humans have a sense of empathy that makes it very hard to just go and kill other people, more so with small children. But of course, it’s part of your religion to believe that morality comes from God, not ourselves, which is why so many theists think that atheists will happily do anything they want because they have no morals. (Please note, I am not necessarily saying you believe this, but incidentally if you do…that’s a ridiculous notion.)
“At least you live up to the reputation you so desire to provide the world. Scathing Atheist is an accurate description to give yourself.”
Probably because people like you, trying to refute the obvious evidence of mass child murder in your holy book, make him mad. And me, and all the other people who are slowly demolishing their way through your massive wall of incoherent arguments.
Right, I think that’s enough demolishing of this apologetic’s wall of incoherent arguments for today.
…”What did the poor cows ever do?”
Priceless.
Thank you for a rather civilized response. And you bring up some very good points.These were some of my earlier comments of which were ill-attempts to provide an explanation for why, in my belief, a perfectly good God character would command genocide. As opposed to the author of the posts belief that the bible and it’s god are evil because of this command.
The beliefs of everyone else who has posted on this wall is that there is no god and the bible is evil. The arguments of the post are that the bible cannot be used as a moral guide based off of the immoral act committed in Deuteronomy 12:31. Realizing that any attempts to provide an alternative interpretation to the text than the one in the post and a deeper understanding of why such a terrible command would be given, would fail, I turned to nullifying the logic of the arguments found in the post and comments section.
In identifying whether the author of the post is qualified to be a moral guide. That is to be able to teach what is moral and what is immoral. If the author of the post is an immoral person than by the same argument he cannot be a moral guide. (This is similar to your morality is relative, that it “comes from ourselves.”)
My second argument, which again was poorly understood was based of the comment section arguments of you cannot justify genocide. In which, asking morality based questions to determine if those who made the comments justify some immoral acts but say others cannot be justified. Thus rendering a contradiction in their argument.
To Mr. Noah Lugeons:
My arguments have yet a deeper meaning as well. You say genocide is immoral and you are correct. But why do you commit genocide in your heart?
While you do not commit the act of murder, the anger and hate you feel towards people of different beliefs than you is detrimental to society. The fact that you sit there and justify making scathing comments towards those who believe in the Bible or in God, breeds all kinds of evil in our world today and in the world of tomorrow.
But you do not see it. You do not understand.
The genocide you commit is with your words; the out-casting, the demoralizing, the subjection that people who believe in the bible or god deserve to be treated in such a way irregardless of who they are or even if they are working to make the world a better place for everyone to live. Instead of condemning individuals you condemn an entire group based off of what you believe the bible to teach. You don’t even take the time to consider you have a wrong belief about what the bible teaches.
This is the same kind of thinking that is found in the Ku Klux Klan but redirected towards theists.
You say that because I believe in the Bible that I endorse genocide, that I defend genocide, and you are wrong. What I believe the Bible to teach is love towards God and love towards others (even if they believe something different from me). This belief is quite different from what you believe. As you believe it is right and okay to treat people with disrespect and disdain.
So perhaps my previous comments lost an argument that I cannot justify genocide. I don’t care about justifying genocide as I’ve tried to explain that a number of times already.
I only ask myself why I bother commenting as you will likely only take it as drivel or make some off the wall comment twisting what point I am trying to make. Take a long look in the mirror and ask if the way you treat people is something you want to teach innocent children. Ask if you truly believe that what you are preaching will be beneficial to our nation and the world or if it will breed something worse over time? Is the message of anger and hate towards another people group what you want to give to the world?
Yes, pointing out that the bible is a bullshit collection of barbaric parables is exactly the same as lynching people based on race. Again, your powers of stupidity amaze me.
You started off justifying genocide, you revisionist asshole. You have posts ON THIS THREAD where you attempt to justify murdering babies. They’re right there for everyone to see. The fact that you keep saying “I never did that!!!!” is pretty worthless when we can all read your first two posts (the ones where you attempted to justify murdering babies). That IS an attempt to justify genocide. I see why you refuse to admit it, but it doesn’t change the fact that when you showed up on the post your opening salvo was a defense of baby murder.
Here is the admission you have so been looking forward to. I believe that anyone who interprets this passage along with others found in the Bible to justify the act of genocide in the world today has grossly misinterpreted the Bible.
Now, Noah, you can ask me Did God command Israel to commit genocide? Or you can ask me, Do I believe this passage to mean that God has justified the act of genocide and is in fact commanding His followers today to practice this against non-believers (i.e., Do I believe genocide to be okay based off of the passage)?
These are two very different questions. Just as you concluded my comment on the thought processes behind our actions means that I believe the actions to be exactly the same. You can have different actions that result from the same thought process. It’s the idea that anger can lead someone to murder or that lust can lead someone to commit rape. For one person, anger might only lead to hateful words or lust might only lead to viewing pornography. But it is a demoralization effect that occurs over time that leads to worse actions based off of the same thought process.
How do you know that the words you speak today will not tomorrow cause someone to take violent action against people who believe in the Bible?
If you would like a relevant topic to discuss on baby murder that affects our society today let’s talk about abortion. Do you support the woman’s right to choose? Or do you support the babies right to life? Do you justify that it is okay for a woman to take the morning after pill because there is a possibility that she isn’t even pregnant to begin with?
This is the current issue of morality in which I believe anyone who says abortion or the morning after pill is okay is defending baby murder. Would you not be outraged if I simply categorized you as a baby murderer even if you do not support abortion based off you being an atheist and the fact that so many other atheists believe abortion to be okay?
So when Susan asks, “Is it so bad for speaking out against those who use the guise of religion, the bible, and God to cause abuse and damage in the world? No, those issues need to be raised against the ones committing the abuse and damage. However, to extend that to people not committing the abuse and damage based off of belief in the Bible or God is what is wrong.
Is that admission enough for you of all my comments on this thread for the world to see?
If you’re admitting that you’re a jackass that can’t complete a thought, then yes, this will suffice.
I believe anyone who interprets this passage too be justification to commit genocide in our world today to have grossly misinterpreted it. Please explain to me why this is not a complete thought?
Yes. I believe that yellow is a color. And while this is technically a “complete” thought, since nobody is arguing that yellow isn’t a color, it fails to be sufficiently “complete” for argumentative purposes.
And if you took 1000 words to make that point, you suffer from a serious inability to complete a thought.
He’s not preaching. It’s a podcast you have the choice to listen to and a blog you don’t have to read. Have you listened to the podcast? Noah is always talking about the abuse and damage religion causes to people. How can that be a bad message?
I did not begin commenting on the post to defend or justify genocide or to say that genocide is okay. Like your “yellow is a color” example, no one is arguing that.
Noah, I am sorry that my pride has gotten in the way from expressing my belief that the Bible is an expression of God’s love to all humankind.
You attempted to justify the murder of babies. You said that it was okay to murder those babies because they would have grown up to believe in the wrong gods. Again, you can’t simply pretend that none of that happened. It’s still on this thread for all to see. It doesn’t really matter how many times you pretend not to have done it.
And as to a message of god’s love, I’d like to think if I was sending a message of “love”, I’d have the sense not to chock it full of genocide. I’m reading the book of Joshua and that book has a solid 4 chapter block that is nothing but one genocide after another. God hasn’t done a single moral thing in 5 and a half books. Anybody who believes that this horrible record of murderous barbarism is a “message of love” is deluding themselves or hasn’t read it.
Are you not capable of misinterpreting the Bible?
Yes.
Wow, that’s impressive. Your the only person I’ve ever met who can never be wrong about what the bible says. Is it just with the bible or are you right about everything?
It’s actually a byproduct of the stupidity of your question. Look back at the phrasing you nincompoop. Yes or No could mean No or Yes. You phrased the question with a double negative. So when I said yes you could have taken it either way. You took it the way you wanted to.
So you are capable of misinterpreting the bible?
Are you capable of misunderstanding what others are trying to say?
Do you not respond to comments based off your interpretation or understanding of what is said and make statements as if they are fact even when you may be wrong?
Are you still trying to change the subject from your explicit endorsement of baby-murder?
Sorry, I probably used more than 1000 words to complete a thought.
To answer your question: No, as I do not explicitly endorse baby murder. I am pro-life, I believe abortion to be murdering babies and I believe that the morning after pill should be banned.
You continue to bring up irrelevant comments, this time you happened to ask it in the form of a question. Good for you, you might actually be learning something. You are better at communicating than I am, don’t worry with practice I will get better. But you are not a very good listener.
If you would open your ears (or eyes), my argument has and will continue to be that you have wrongly interpreted the passage. That you are concluding something that it is not intending.
And in there somewhere a little bit, is that you are very black and white in your thinking. While it is needed for current issues of abuse and damage caused by people who claim they are justified for whatever reason needs to be examined. But you cannot extend that distaste to everyone who believes in God or the Bible.
You know how powerful words are, you are a communicator. I bet it’s number one or number two if you took the Gallop Strength Finders test. Uncle Ben teaches us that “with great power comes great responsibility” (hope you’ve watched Spider-Man). I encourage you instead of reading the words on the pages of the Bible; to study it, and find out what theists have to say about it. Choose your words wisely to create positive change in the world we live in today rather than words that will negatively affect the world we will live in tomorrow.
You say I’m bringing up “irrelevant” comments… they were you’re comments! How am I to know which of your own comments you consider relevant? None of them are relevant to me, so I’ve got no way to judge, you see?
And for the record, on occasion, I’m a really good listener. I pay good money to go listen to people all the time. But prerequisite to that is me giving the slightest inkling of a fuck what that person has to say. When that person opens up a conversation with claims that there was a time in history when wiping out entire civilizations was okay because of the evil gods they might bring into the future if they’re allowed to live, I make no effort to learn from them.
Finally, I do choose my words wisely. Every insult raised against religion; every effort made to marginalize faith; every word uttered or written to belittle the vestigial cancer of supernaturalism is a word well chosen.
Do you believe the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan during WWII to have been justified?
Do you consider the action taken by the United States to use nuclear weapons during WWII immoral?
What if Japan never surrendered and was utterly destroyed?
Although this is not exactly the same as the Deuteronomy passage, it is the closest comparison I could come up with.
No, it was not remotely justified. The bombing of civilian cities is a war crime and the use of nukes against Japan is one of the most immoral acts of the 20th century. Again, indiscriminately murdering babies is ALWAYS wrong. It’s one of the few absolutes in ethics.
Are you pro-choice or pro-life?
Perhaps a better question: Are you the final authority over what the Bible says and how it should be interpreted?
“Thank you for a rather civilized response.”
You are welcome, but all I was really doing was compiling arguments that other people used within a relatively small space.
“The beliefs of everyone else who has posted on this wall is that there is no god and the bible is evil. The arguments of the post are that the bible cannot be used as a moral guide based off of the immoral act committed in Deuteronomy 12:31”
We’re not saying that the entire Bible is evil. Just that bits of it are. And other bits of it are contradictory, and other bits are just basically pointless (can anyone claim to care who begat who?)
“In identifying whether the author of the post is qualified to be a moral guide. That is to be able to teach what is moral and what is immoral. If the author of the post is an immoral person than by the same argument he cannot be a moral guide. (This is similar to your morality is relative, that it “comes from ourselves.”)”
Perhaps so, but you can’t say that somebody can’t be a judge of what’s moral if they’ve done something immoral. I don’t have exact numbers, but I would imagine that almost all burglars know that breaking into somebody’s house and stealing things is wrong. They would also know that killing people is wrong, etc. Just because they committed a crime doesn’t mean they won’t know what is a crime. I also fail to see how the author of this is immoral. He expressed his opinion on the internet, which is his right in accordance with free speech. That’s not immoral.
“The fact that you sit there and justify making scathing comments towards those who believe in the Bible or in God, breeds all kinds of evil in our world today and in the world of tomorrow.”
Care to specify these evils?
“The genocide you commit is with your words; the out-casting, the demoralizing, the subjection that people who believe in the bible or god deserve to be treated in such a way irregardless of who they are or even if they are working to make the world a better place for everyone to live. Instead of condemning individuals you condemn an entire group based off of what you believe the bible to teach. You don’t even take the time to consider you have a wrong belief about what the bible teaches.
This is the same kind of thinking that is found in the Ku Klux Klan but redirected towards theists.”
*Cough*persecutioncomplex*cough*
But anyway, I’d be interested to see the Google results for “word-genocide”.
Your comparison to the Ku Klux Klan is…interesting. I fail to see how saying that religion is bad on the internets can in any way be similar to actually, physically attacking people because of the group they belong to. I mean, it’s not even as if Noah is forcing his opinions on you or anyone else, this blog and the podcast that goes with it are voluntary reading/listening material. Again, it’s a matter of free speech.