The Instigator
pivot
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
djdipretoro
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

The Joshua statement, "...but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." is anti-Christian.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
djdipretoro
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/19/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 417 times Debate No: 63509
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

pivot

Pro

As Pro I will show that with this statement Joshua is attacking the Church.
djdipretoro

Con

I accept the debate. This should be very interesting.
Debate Round No. 1
pivot

Pro

Analysis of Joshua's identity:

1 Joshua was not a Jew.
Since Joshua was not Jewish he was at least one more step removed from Christianity.
Therefore
The words that Joshua used cannot mean the same thing that those words mean to Christians.

Analysis of the meaning of Joshua's words:

1 Service
Serving the LORD to Joshua meant exterminating every living being in the city of Jericho by butchering them.
This fact can only mean one thing-
When Joshua used the word "LORD" he did not mean the first person of the Holy Trinity. Or even the second person. Or even the third person.
Therefore
The word "LORD" as used by Joshua can only mean one thing. The word "LORD" as used by Joshua means-

SATAN

It has to be this way because it is illegal to butcher people just so that the butchers can have the property of the butchers' victims.
djdipretoro

Con

1 "Joshua was not a Jew.
Since Joshua was not Jewish he was at least one more step removed from Christianity.
Therefore
The words that Joshua used cannot mean the same thing that those words mean to Christians."

This is absurd. We can see that this argument leads to ridiculous conclusions. For one thing, within this contention is the genetic fallacy, or some weird version of it, in which my opponent says that because Joshua was not a Jew his words have a different meaning than it does for Christians. The ethnicity of someone does not validate or falsify, nor change the meaning of, any statement. To base your argument on the ethnicity of Joshua is fallacious.
Moreover, the Christian message of the Gospel transcends race and ethnicity. The good news of Jesus is for all who believe. Romans 10:12 says, "For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him." Galatians 3:27-28 says, "For as many were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek..."
Looking at the New Testament as a whole, the writers argue from the Old Testament. In Romans 4, Paul uses the story of Abraham to show that, just as Abraham was justified by faith, so are Christians. And Abraham was not a Jew.
However, all people who descended from Abraham, including Joshua, were Hebrews. The terms "Hebrew" and "Jew" are virtually synonyms in the Bible. Therefore, according to the Bible, Joshua was a Jew, and my opponents argument falls.
Simply put, this argument contradicts what Christians believe. Who cares if Joshua wasn't a Jew. If the author or speaker being a Jew is the criterion for interpreting the Christian message, then we must through out the books of Luke and Acts. That would be absurd. This contention is rubbish because it is based on a) false evidence b) fallacious logic and c) goes against what Christians actually believe.

1 "Service
Serving the LORD to Joshua meant exterminating every living being in the city of Jericho by butchering them.
This fact can only mean one thing-
When Joshua used the word "LORD" he did not mean the first person of the Holy Trinity. Or even the second person. Or even the third person.
Therefore
The word "LORD" as used by Joshua can only mean one thing. The word "LORD" as used by Joshua means-

SATAN

It has to be this way because it is illegal to butcher people just so that the butchers can have the property of the butchers' victims."

If I had to choose which contention was better, this would be it. However, it still has many faulty areas.
To say that for Joshua, to serve the LORD meant killing every living being, is ridiculous. This goes against what Joshua himself said. Furthermore, when the Bible says that the Hebrews killed all of the people in the land, hyperbolic language is being used. In the Ancient Near East, the language of total extermination of a people simply meant that there was a victory. It is like a football team saying, "We annihilated them." That of course, is not literal. It simply means that the football team won. So it was with Joshua and his armies.
Still, the word "serve" in the Bible is simply talking about loyalty to someone. When Joshua says that he will serve the LORD, he is saying that he is going to be loyal to Him. He will worship the Triune God of Scripture alone and obey his commandments.
Just a few quick notes on the claim that Joshua meant "Satan" when he said "LORD." The Hebrew words for Satan and LORD are totally different. The word "LORD" is the proper name for the God of the Hebrews, Yahweh. So, what my opponent is saying is that, when Joshua said he would serve Yahweh, he was actually calling Yahweh "Satan." Really?
Now, God promised the Hebrews the land of Canaan. God is faithful to fulfill his promises (Heb. 10:23). and he specifically told Abraham that the land would belong to his offspring (Gen. 15). God kept that promise by giving Israel the land. He did so by driving out the people who lived in the Promised Land, by the hand of Joshua. My opponent says it is illegal to butcher someone just to take their property. But we must remember, the land was ultimately God's property and he could give it to whomever he wanted by whatever means he wanted.

Clearly, the satanic thing for Joshua to do was to not trust that God would fulfill his promise and to disobey God. Because God promised the land to the offspring of Abraham, it would certainly belong to them.
Debate Round No. 2
pivot

Pro

Rebutal:

Absurd?

To connect the word 'Jew' to genetics is what is absurd there Con. Joshua was an Ephraimite. We are not talking about genetics we are talking about brother Joseph and brother Judah. By the first century after Christ the children of Joseph had been banished from Palestine for several hundred years. Actually the Ephraimites, whom the subject of this debate was one of, claimed a portion of the throne of all ancient Israel. Since the crown was meant for the tribe of Judah alone that made all of Ephraim suspect in the royal theater. The Ephraimites from a Jewish perspective were evil after they initiated the split in the kingdom. So yeah-

We are going to transcend genetics. But not yet-

Anyone who practices genocide must be declared evil, unless we are willing to say that the Nazi were not evil.

SATAN

Con, have you ever heard of the word Caesar? Just in case you have not-

The word Caesar is a title. And when the word Caesar is used it must be defined in context if it is not prefaced by another word such as Julius. This is because there were many Caesars with Julius being just the first. Here is another one-

Pharaoh

While we don't actually know as much about the title Pharaoh as we do Caesar one thing is certain. The word Pharaoh is a title that must be defined in some way or else it can only mean the leader of Egypt in general. Here is another one-

General

The word General must be defined by adding something to it such as-

U.S.

Now the word General is becoming clearer. But it is still vague. When we tag General with U.S. do we mean the nation The United States of America or do we mean Ulysses S. Grant?

That is going to be the end of the rebuttal.

Argument 3:

Defining the term LORD

If someone In the court system of the United States goes on trial for the crime of serial killer and uses exclusively the defense that The LORD of the Old Testament told him/her to go out and kill then that defendant will be found guilty of murder. Here is why-

I Chronicles 21:1 cross referenced with 2 Samuel 24:1

The word LORD is a title just like all those other titles in the rebuttal. So is the word God. There is a verse or two in the Bible that says "ye are gods". Anyone and anything can be a god. The word God/god is a title. Titles must be defined or they are just general.

So when someone who extinguished the lives of all the children in the city of Jericho uses the word LORD that person has no right to the God of the Christians. That person is Joshua. Joshua has no right to enter the Church. It is evil to quote a mass murderer during Mass.
djdipretoro

Con

I will be starting off with Pro's third argument, as it is probably the most important to this debate.

3. I agree with the first paragraph about using The LORD as an excuse for murder. However, I agree with it as it applies today. God would not have someone do that today, because his kingdom is not advanced by military conquest, it is advanced by the spread of the Gospel. But in the Mosaic and Abrahamic Covenants, God had promised the land to his people as well as set up a theocratic state. So it is not applicable to compare Joshua's context to the modern U.S. context, because the forms of government are fundamentally different. Even the most staunch atheists will agree to that.

The book of Joshua is about God fulfilling his land promise to his people. God commanded Joshua to take the land, because God said that the land belonged to his people.

Furthermore, we know that Joshua was in accordance with Abraham and Moses because a) Joshua was commanded by God to circumcise the new generation in the fifth chapter of Joshua, signifying that the covenant God made with Abraham was being renewed under Joshua's authority and leadership and b) In chapter 8, Joshua renews the covenant of Moses in the presence of the people, doing everything that Moses had commanded.

So it is very hard to separate Joshua from the same covenant group as Abraham and Moses.

Now to talk about the word "LORD." In the Bible, when "LORD" is spelled with all capital letters, it is not a title, but rather a name. It is the name of "Yahweh." When it appears as "Lord," with only the first letter capitalized, then it is a title. "Lord" is "adonai" and "LORD" is "Yahweh." This is specifically clear because when the Bible uses the phrase "Lord GOD" to show that Yahweh (GOD) is the Lord, the ruler in control. Look at Psalm 68:20, where David says "and to GOD, the Lord." He is saying "to Yahweh, the Lord." So "LORD" is not a title, it is a name. But "Lord" is a title.
(Note: The word "God" (with only the first capital letter) is a title. It means "Elohim." That is a title that is given to more people than just the LORD. But the name of the one true God, Yahweh/LORD, is his and his alone.)

Answering the rebuttals:

"To connect the word 'Jew' to genetics is what is absurd there Con. Joshua was an Ephraimite. We are not talking about genetics we are talking about brother Joseph and brother Judah. By the first century after Christ the children of Joseph had been banished from Palestine for several hundred years. Actually the Ephraimites, whom the subject of this debate was one of, claimed a portion of the throne of all ancient Israel. Since the crown was meant for the tribe of Judah alone that made all of Ephraim suspect in the royal theater. The Ephraimites from a Jewish perspective were evil after they initiated the split in the kingdom. So yeah-"

What happened with the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh do not have any claim on who Joshua was and if he was evil or not. That is like if someone in a thousand years claimed that Pro was evil because there was a mass murderer in his family many generations after him. Clearly, that would be outrageous. In order to see if Joshua was evil, we must look at Joshua himself. His descendants and family members are rather irrelevant. In fact, to bring that up is sneaky, using a red herring. We are debating Joshua and his specific statement.

Moreover, I did not use the word "Jew" in a genetic sense. I used it to denote ethnicity.

"Anyone who practices genocide must be declared evil, unless we are willing to say that the Nazi were not evil."

This is circular logic. Where have you shown that Joshua did in fact commit genocide? You assume that he did without providing any reasonable evidence, in order to try to catch me in a trap. However, until you can prove that Joshua did in fact commit genocide, this is a non-issue. I have shown above how what Joshua did was sanctioned by God, in accordance with the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants, and was in fact service to the LORD.

Moreover, the entire section about Caesar, Pharaoh, and General is, just like most of Pro's case, a non-issue. Of course "Caesar" needs a name by it so we know who it is. But "LORD" doesn't because "LORD" is a name, not a title. This goes for "Pharaoh" and "General" as well.

Lastly, let us look at the irony of my opponent's last paragraph.

"So when someone who extinguished the lives of all the children in the city of Jericho uses the word LORD that person has no right to the God of the Christians. That person is Joshua. Joshua has no right to enter the Church. It is evil to quote a mass murderer during Mass."

Tell me, is Saint Paul quoted in Mass? Indeed he was a mass murderer, killing and persecuting many Christians. You say that Joshua has no right to enter the church.

But, what about the good news of Jesus? Does not God call weary sinners to himself? Is not God gracious is giving to men the right to become children of God? You seem to have missed a bigger point than simply Joshua's service. God saves sinners. And we we all have sinned.

"For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another. But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life." (Titus 3:3-7 ESV)
Debate Round No. 3
pivot

Pro

As with most modern students of the Bible, Con is making the mistake that one of the components of the crime of murder is time. What these modern students of the Bible think is that today the crime of murder is wrong even if committed under the guise of religion. But in Joshua's time the Bible students think that the crime of murder committed under the guise of religion was justifiable homicide. The question is-

Why do the Bible students think that time is a component of the crime of murder?

Answer: It is because the Bible students have attended Sunday/Saturday school.

If for instance, Con had never heard of the Bible then Con would accept the fact that there is no statute of limitations for the crime of murder. That Joshua is just like everyone else. That Joshua was and is subject to the LAW. And that we can convict Joshua for murder anytime we want to. Because Joshua is guilty and there is no statute of limitations that will get him off no matter what the Bible students think.
djdipretoro

Con

"As with most modern students of the Bible, Con is making the mistake that one of the components of the crime of murder is time. What these modern students of the Bible think is that today the crime of murder is wrong even if committed under the guise of religion. But in Joshua's time the Bible students think that the crime of murder committed under the guise of religion was justifiable homicide. The question is-"

First of all, this representation of my argument is completely misconstrued. No where did I say that "time" was a factor in determining the morality of killing. I said that the covenants of God give us direction into these matters, and that is a much more important.

Furthermore, modern students of the Bible would not say that time matters when it comes to the nature of killing. In fact, the more liberal scholars influenced by postmodernism (even the atheists) would say any murder done under the guise of religion or in the name of God is wrong. But that is exactly what Pro is saying. He is taking the side of the postmodernists and liberals by assuming that our own cultural context is to be the judge of what the Bible says. His position is modern because he uses an eisegetical method of reading the Bible (which means that he shapes the Bible by his own opinions and preferences) instead of an exegetical method (which means that the Bible shapes our opinions and understanding).

Now, I would like to address Pro's use of "guise of religion." First, there is a difference between doing something under the guise of religion and doing something because God has commanded it. Indeed, we can both agree that just because someone SAYS they are doing it in the name of God does not mean that they actually are. However, in the case of Joshua, we have no reason to believe that he was not commissioned by God and not commanded to take the land by force (see my argument above).

On this point, I would like to make one final comment. Pro builds a wonderful stawman when he says "the Bible students think that the crime of murder committed under the guise of religion was justifiable homicide." The Bible students do not think it was the crime of murder, so to say that we do is badly misrepresenting us. Also, as noted above, we do not think that just because something done under the guise of religion that makes it automatically justified. Nor do we think it was "murder" or "homicide" ("Justifiable homicide" is an oxymoron). Indeed, if God commanded it to be done, then it would be morally right to do so and therefore not murder or homicide.

"Why do the Bible students think that time is a component of the crime of murder?

Answer: It is because the Bible students have attended Sunday/Saturday school."

This is just fluff. It does not matter where someone learned something. What matters is if what they learned was true. And, by the way, I have learned only a very small amount about God and the Bible in a Sunday school class.
This statement by Con is therefore irrelevant and not an issue for this debate.

"If for instance, Con had never heard of the Bible then Con would accept the fact that there is no statute of limitations for the crime of murder. That Joshua is just like everyone else. That Joshua was and is subject to the LAW. And that we can convict Joshua for murder anytime we want to. Because Joshua is guilty and there is no statute of limitations that will get him off no matter what the Bible students think."

Actually, there are statutes of limitation to murder, even in the United States. For instance, the U.S. law makes a distinction between murder and manslaughter. More philosophically speaking, there must be limitations to what constitutes murder, for if there are no limitations, then eating pie could be considered murder. To know what murder is, we need the definition of murder, and that definition limits murder to only to what the definition says murder is.

To say that Joshua is subject to the law requires a question: what law? The United States law? Well, that did not exist in his time nor did any current legal system that exists today. The only type of law that both us and Joshua could be subject to is a transcendent law that time has no hold on, i.e. the law of God. So we must look at Joshua in light of the what God has commanded in his law. That is the only law that we could rightly hold up to Joshua. Of course, we could put Joshua on trial against modern legal systems. But, that does not necessarily mean he was wrong in what he did. For the law of man can go against the law of God. If God told Joshua to take the land by force, he for sure would be charged with crimes by our own systems. But God would not find fault with him.

All of that said, Pro basically conceded to all of my arguments and resorted to fallacious reasoning (I believe I counted a total of 4 or 5) to argue against me. In the last round, he dropped all of his arguments and turned to how "modern students of the Bible" interpret Scripture. But this has nothing to do with the debate. Pro has failed to show that he was right, and conceded to all of my arguments. Therefore, I urge the voters to vote Con.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Zanomi3 2 years ago
Zanomi3
pivotdjdipretoroTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Tough debate to vote on, as both sides seemed to pose valid arguments. My vote ultimately goes to Con because he was able to refute basically everything Pro stated. My arguments also go this way because Pro failed to prove that Joshua unjustifiably killed an outlandish number of individuals.