The Instigator
popculturepooka
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
AeneasPhebe
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

There are good reasons to believe that God did not order the genocide of the Canaanites.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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 3 votes the winner is...
popculturepooka
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/4/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,304 times Debate No: 37320
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (3)

 

popculturepooka

Pro

I thank AeneasPhebe for agreeing to debate this contentious topic with me.

Definitions

God: is the creator and sustainer of the universe and is unlimited with regard to knowledge (omniscience), power (omnipotence), extension (omnipresence), and moral perfection. [1]

Genocide: ..any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. [2]

Canaanites: The part of the book of Genesis in the Hebrew Bible often called the Table of Nations describes the Canaanites as being descended from an ancestor called Canaan. The son of Ham, the Grandson of Noah, saying (Genesis 10:15-19):

Canaan is the father of Sidon, his firstborn; and of the Hittites , Jebusites, Amorites, Girgashites, Hivitites, Arkites, Sinites, Arvadites, Zermarites and Hamathites. Later the Canaanite clans scattered, and the borders of Canaan reached [across the Mediterranean coast] from Sidon toward Gerar as far as Gaza, and then [inland around the Jordan Valley] toward Sodom, Gommorah, Admah and Zeboiim, as far as Lasha. [3]


The sense in which I am using "good reasons" is that the reasons to believe that God did not order the genocide of the Canaanites are much stronger (i.e. they have more "weight") than the reasons Con might have to suppose that God did order the genocide.

Rules

Argue as best as you can. The burden of proof will be shared. It is up to Pro to argue that there are good reasons to believe that God did not order genocide and it is up to con to argue that there are good reasons to believe that God did order the genocide of the Canaanites. Round 1 is for acceptance and clarifications; Rounds 2 - 4 are for argumentation.


Sources

[1] http://www.iep.utm.edu...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
AeneasPhebe

Con

I agree to all definitions, terms, and Burden of proofs.

I accept. I await my opponents second round and opening argument.
Debate Round No. 1
popculturepooka

Pro

Just to refresh everyones mind here are the most relevant passages this debate is centered around:

"1 When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you" 2 and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally.[a] Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. " [Deut 7:1-2]

"16However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes.17Completely destroy[a]them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you." [Deut 20:16-18]

To reiterate, I aim to provide good reasons to think that God did not order the genocide of the Canaanites - biblical text notwithstanding. I draw much of my inspiration from Wes Morriston and Randal Rauser. [1][2][3]

The Argument

(1) God is the most perfect being there could be.
(2) Yahweh is God.
(3) Yahweh ordered people to commit genocide.
(4) Genocide is always a moral atrocity.
(5) A perfect being would not order people to commit a moral atrocity.
(6) Therefore, a perfect being would not order people to commit genocide (4,5).
(7) Therefore, Yahweh did not order people to commit genocide (1,2,6). [4]

Obviously, (7) contradicts (3). I will contend that (7) has much better reasons to be accepted than (3), and given the chain of reasoning in (4) - (6), that warrants accepting (7) and rejecting (3), thus fulfilling my burden of proof. A moral atrocity is defined as roughly equivalent to the philosopher Marilyn McCord Adams notion of horrendous evils - that is, "the participation in which (that is, the doing or suffering of which) constitutes prima facie reason to doubt whether the participant’s life could (given their inclusion in it) be a great good to him/her on the whole." [5] I anticipate that (1) and (2) will not be contested by opponent, so I will not waste time and space defending them. Obviously, (3) is in dispute, and Con may wish to challenge (4) and (5) because if he did not (6) and (7) flow logically from the other premises and the conclusion is guaranteed. I will thus focus my attention on defending (4) and (5).

Rationalizing Genocide

Why are we taking the testimony of the perpetrators of genocide so literally and at face value? Of course the perpetrators of genocide are going to make it seem as if their enemies are the most evil and malevolent and threatening people possible - it's simply a psychological fact that humans will often demonize each other in order to justify and rationalize committing moral atrocities on each other that they wouldn't do otherwise. Imagine if I read a tract by the Nazi's about the Jews. Of course they are going to make it sound as if Jews are the worst thing to ever grace this planet - that's how you justify treating other people like you did. I'm not going to go read Hutu propaganda to get an accurate depiction of what the Tutsi were like. It is no secret that history is written by the victors.

There seem to be elements in common that provide the rationale for genocide: (1.1) Divide: distinguish between an in and out-group while asserting the superiority of the in group and the inferiority of the out group. (2.) Demonize: accuse the out-group of promoting an injustice, inequality, or presenting a threat. (3.1) Destroy: implore the in-group to redress the perceived injustice, with divine/transcendent backing. [6] I think, Israel's reasons (rationalizations) given for the genocide clearly fit this pattern. WRT to (1.1) the Israelites clearly think they are divinely chosen and that God has given them the land that the Canaanites occupy thus giving them superiority (Gen 15:18-21). (2.1) The Canaanites have no right to the land for doing "unclean" things (Lev 18:24-27). (3.1) God gives the Israelites divine license to wipe out the Canaanites (Deut 20:16-18, as quoted above). Why should we accept this account of genocide as any different from an other obviously failed rationales for genocide such as those of the Nazis or Hutus?

Child Killers

I think this reason right here should be enough to affirm the resolution: even if we suppose that the adult Canaanites were irredeemably evil - and there's not really a reason we should concede that - why in the world should we suppose that the children are irredeemably evil and should be wiped out along with them? Children are the innocent ones, and nearly all recognize that losing children is one of wars greatest tragedies. But, in the Israelites' case, Canaanite children aren't just dying as "collateral damage" - the Israelites are specifically targeting the children as targets for death for the crimes of their elders. As if children could be held morally responsible for the sins of their fathers and mothers. If nothing else is unspeakably evil, that is. If nothing else is a moral atrocity, murdering innocent children surely is.

Soul-Destroying Effects

But setting those above reasons aside there are even more problematic points. Not only is genocide a moral atrocity to the victims, it is also a moral atrocity to the victimizer. We have numerous reports and ample evidence today that show the devastating effects of war on the soldiers who do the killing. It often scars these soldiers for the their entire lives (which gives rise to our concept of PTSD). War does horrible things to people and can turn normal people into ones who will either willingly or unwillingly commit moral atrocities. I would suggest that nothing could be more traumatizing than a solider having to kill children under divine sanction which would be done under more brutal conditions than most modern day analogues. As more than likely they'd be up close killing the children with short range weapons such as swords. Perhaps someone could say "Well, all that is technically true but times were much more brutal back then; killing children wouldn't be so hard on the Israelites because they'd be desensitized to it living in those hard times." That may very well be true, but that only highlights more problems. Don't we lament the fact that a normal person can be turned into someone who actually enjoys or is numb to the brutalizing effects of war (or, more specifically, murdering children)? That is an evil and a tragedy all in and of itself.

Present day genocide?

Supposing we accept the rationale for the Canaanite genocide, what, exactly, would rule out us using the underlying rationalizations to authorize modern day genocide? It's already been shown time and again that the genocides in the bible have been used to justify religious violence in the past. If one thinks their God had authorized genocide in the past, why not in the present or future? Imagine I said that God told me that killing all Muslims would be an excellent idea (including those "evil" Muslim children that had the misfortune to be born to the wrong family). Why would Christians reject my claim to a divine command? I maintain the reason would be a moral one. Other Christians would rightly recognize that such an evil act is incompatible with the nature of a perfectly good God and take it to mean that I did not receive a true divine command to exterminate all Muslims. Of course, if one does not accept that these genocide texts are being erroneously attributed to God then what reason has another Christian to reject my "divine" command?

I think, given all these reasons, that there are good reasons to believe God did NOT order the genocide of the Canaanites.

Sources

[1] http://www.colorado.edu...
[2] http://www.learningace.com...
[3] http://randalrauser.com...

[4] ibid, p 28 - 29
[5] ibid, p 30
[6] ibid, p 37
AeneasPhebe

Con

Thank you Popculturepooka for your enlightening and articulate storyline. Though Popculturepooka has given us a well designed round, his storyline fails the storyline and meaning of the Bible. See, it does not matter what we think is right and wrong here, what matters is, (1) what the Bible says, (2) who inspired the Bible, (3) and the intent of the inspirer of the Bible. So, let's establish those three things:

(1) What the Bible says

I will use the two verses supplied by Popculturepooka

Deut 7:2, " The LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy."

Deut 20:16-17, "The cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes.17 Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you."

These verses in themselves have destroyed Popculturepooka's argument as the Israelites destroyed the Canaanites. The reason this is so is because Popculturepooka has failed to offer us reason to believe or accept that the Israelite God did not inspire the Bible. In fact he is Christian himself and therefore has to believe to a degree that the Bible is inspired by God and it has historical accuracy.

This debate is not about the existence of God, as I will assume both debaters believe that God does exist. What the debate is about is the Bible's true inspiration and God's intention. If the Bible is not inspired by God then it loses truth value as a whole and in fact we cannot even know if the Israelites were the people who destroyed the Canaanites in the first place. But the Bible and history have established that the Israelites did destroy the Canaanites.

(2) Who inspired the Bible

The Bible contains, "Thus says the Lord" over 400 times in the Old Testament. "God said" occurs 42 times in the Old Testament and four times in the New Testament. "God spoke" occurs 9 times in the Old Testament and 3 times in the New Testament.

So, the Bible gives us cause to believe that God said He inspired the Bible. In fact the very verses we are discussing here says, "For the Lord your God is he that goeth with you, to fight for you against your enemies, to save you." Deut 20:4. God Himself says that He went and fought against the Canaanites for Israel and caused the destruction of them personally.

Let's read what the scriptures say:

Acts 17:1, "searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."
Why would we search the scriptures daily seeing if they were true if in fact they are not directly inspired by God and accurate?

Romans 1:2, "(Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)".
Does Popculturepooka plan on telling us that the author of Deuteronomy is not a prophet of God and inspired?

2 Corinthians 6:7, "By the word of truth."
The Bible is the Word of truth according to God and His apostles.

Ephesians 6:17, "And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God."
How can we gain true salvation if the Bible is not fully the Word of truth?

Finally, 2 Timothy 3:16, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

The Bible makes no mistakes in its reporting of events, in its proclamation of truth, and in its revelation of God's will. Jesus acknowledged this when he said that the Word of God, the Scripture, cannot be broken. The Bible is the written form of the word of God, which is Scripture, is inspired; and because it is inspired, it cannot fail, it must be fulfilled and must be fully true.

(3) The Intent

God promises Abraham the land of Canaan and many of the other lands around Canaan- Gen. 15:18-21. The Israelites are sent to Egypt for their lack of faith in God and the other reason is also given by God, Genesis 15:16, "But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full." So, God knew and had a plan to destroy the people of Canaan long before it took place. The wages of sin and iniquity are death and the Israelites are the means of punishment by God for the Canaanites. It is clear that God inspired the Bible, knew the punishment of the Canaanites, and did order the destruction of them personally.

So, the existence of God is not at question here, that is given. If God is a given for the means of this debate then His inspiration of scripture(the Bible) is also a given. If God inspired the scriptures then it should be very clear He ordered the genocide of the Canaanites. The morality and right or wrong of the act at hand is not what this debate is about, only the order by God is the question at hand.

REBUTTAL

Popculturepooka uses Morriston and Rauser as his inspiration instead of the Bible itself. That is very odd. Seeing that we are debating the Bible and its intent and its inspiration, only it can verify those things.

Rationalizing Genocide

"Why are we taking the testimony of the perpetrators of genocide so literally and at face value?"

Why not? Is not the Bible fully inspired by God? Is it not a book of truth? By my opponents question he questions those things. He then needs to question his own salvation since the book he found it from contains untruths. I am not going to deny humans lie, exaggerate, and make themselves appear greater than they are or vice versa. My opponent is attempting to blanket the real debate with a illusional one. We are not debating if humans are all the things Popculturepooka claims, they are, we are debating if the Bible is inspired by God and if the words in the Bible in Deuteronomy are orders from God. We cannot look at this from a humans perspective but of one of God. God created all, owns all, and can punish all by any means He sees fit. God seen fit that His glory would show from His people taking their land and punishing the people of that land.

Child Killers

Again my opponent must resort in denying the inspired Bible. He again plays at the human thought and moral decision and ignores God's sovern morality and Law. He needs to establish that the Bible is not fully inspired by God because he has not to date. Since Popculturepooka has not addressed the Bible and its content at all, I will ask a few questions here:

Is it unjust for God to kill children?
Is it unjust for God to kill the Canaanites?
Is it unjust for God kill men, women, and children, who He knows is never going to be redeemed? Since He is God and created them and knows their hearts.

This debate is not about what we think as humans but what God has established in His Word and what He thinks. How do we know that? The Bible!

Soul-Destroying Effects

Again my opponent takes modern acts of war. War without God's consent and compares them to Israel destroying Canaan thousands of years ago. It does not fly nor does it compare. I have no doubt nor deny that war causes problems to the victim and victimizer. But we are talking about then and with the approval of the God they morally answer too.
Present day genocide?

Popculturepooka has really just strategically trolled this entire debate to this point. Not once has he offered any Biblical support and has flat-out denied the inspiration of the Bible itself. Anything present day has no comparison to Israel then, sorry it doesn't. Next round try and stay on topic, with God and His will and the Bible's inspiration, because you have not addressed any of those things and they are essential for you in this debate.

I send it back to Pro!
Debate Round No. 2
popculturepooka

Pro

Thanks to Con for his response. However, I find his accusation of 'trolling' a bit perplexing and his response remarkably weak as it doesn't really deal with the issue(s) at hand.

(1) What the Bible says

Con misses the point by saying that by me just quoting the verses I have hamstrung myself. Because 1) I'm granting, for the sake of argument, that the conquests happened in the bible as depicted 2) Conceding that the conquest happened for the sake of argument is not the same as conceding that God ordered it. I have no doubt the author(s) believed that God ordered them to commit genocide; I just think they mistakenly attributed and projected their own viscous and genocidal attitudes onto God, as a perfectly good God would never order such heinous moral atrocities. And I supplied reasons as to why a perfectly good God wouldn't order genocide; those reasons in and of themselves constitutes strong reasons to think that the Israelite God did not order genocide. Con does not just get to assert the the truth of his position by denying my position by fiat and appealing to his own idiosyncratic understanding of the divine inspiration of the bible.

(2) Who inspired the Bible

This debate really isn't about inspiration in the first place. This is about Con coming up with some good reasons why God allegedly ordered genocide (and what do you know - the Bible offers some reasons!). But I will make some brief remarks. I'll be charitable and assume that Con holds on to a specific view of biblical inspiration that is typical among more conservative Christians (in North America at least). Probably something like verbal plenary theory (which, incidentally, necessitates inerrancy). [1] It's all well and good that Con believes this theory of inspiration although I believe it to be utterly mistaken for various reasons including it's commitment to inerrancy but Con is not allowed to just assume it is the correct theory of inspiration. Con can argue for it's truth, but just posting proof texts of verses than can be understood different ways depending on which theory of divine inspiration one holds to won't cut it. Speaking for myself, I hold to a theory of divine inspiration that does not necessitate that the Bible be inerrant.

As Eric Reitan puts it:

"According to the progressive Christian understanding, the Bible is an important authority in the Christian’s life but not an inerrant one. The progressive Christian does not accept the Doctrine of Plenary Verbal Inspiration (the doctrine which holds that the Bible says exactly what God wants it to say from cover to cover). Rather than viewing the Bible as the very Word of God, the progressive Christian views the Bible as a seminal human testament to divine revelation....Put more simply, the Bible collects both first-hand and second-hand (and sometimes third- or fourth-hand) human testaments to divine revelation. On this progressive Christian view, the testaments themselves do not bear the stamp of divine inerrancy, since they are human testaments and as such are subject to the fallibility of their human authors. And this means that approached on a verse-by-verse basis, one cannot confidently say, simply because the passage appears in the Bible, that it truly expresses the will of God or offers us an accurate understanding God’s nature." [2]

So Con's repeated brute appeals all throughout the debate to the inspiration of scripture are really moot and irrelevant points that attempt to distract from the main issues at hand.

(3) The Intent

Finally, Con gets around to offering some putative reasons why God would have ordered genocide. Unfortunately, they fail badly - a few probing questions show this. Con points to alleged fact that God knew and had a plan to destroy the Canaanites for their sins ("punishment"). To quote myself from an earlier debate (with a few modifications):

"If God knew that the sin of the Canaanites would reach a level at which the only action to take is order genocide, why, exactly did he not do something about it before they reached that level? There is strong biblical precedent for allowing great sinners chances to repent before drastic measures are taken...God tells Jonah 'Go to the great city of Nineveh and preach against it, because its wickedness has come up before me.' (Jonah 1:2) He was planning to destroy the city if they did not repent. The sin was so bad that children there couldn't tell 'their right and from their left hand'.(Jonah 4:11) The denizens of Nineveh end up repenting. Why, exactly, did God not send a prophet to help the Canaanites repent, thus avoiding genocide?

This, again, brings up the problem of children being sentenced to die for the sins of their elders. This is very clearly morally wrong. Bringing in the concept of 'original sin' doesn't help at all either. Because if the children were already depraved enough to deserve death the moment they entered the world then, why, exactly, did God have to wait for the Canaanites' sins to reach "full measure"?

Take a look at Deut 20:10-18. "When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies.... 16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes..." God makes a clear distinction between how those Canaanites who are in Israel's land are to be treated as opposed to those who are not on Israel's land. If imposing this genocide on the Canaanites is really a form of divine punishment it seems like an convenient rationalization that the Canaanites on Israel's' land are just wicked enough to endorse genocide yet the ones outside of the promised land are suitable to be taken as the spoils of war." [3]

And, again, Con utterly misses the point. The morality and right or wrong of the act is EXACTLY WHAT IS AT ISSUE. As I have argued, God would not order such things because he is perfectly good and such acts are utterly evil. Con hasn't even attempted how to show these acts aren't evil or that God had good reasons for ordering (apparently) evil acts.

Rationalizing Genocide

Con ignores the point. The conquest narratives fit a very general pattern of illegitimate rationalizations for genocide so there is strong reason to believe that the conquest narratives themselves employ illegitimate rationalizations for genocide. I showed that. Con has nothing to say to that point.

Con makes some other spurious points such as we can't look at this from a human perspective but God's one - but that just ignores the point that as humans we will necessarily have a human perspective on things. This includes God. And Con ignores the point that I have offered reasons as to why God would not have ordered genocide as punishment. Con has not rebutted them other than question begging appeals to his theory of divine inspiration of the bible.

Child Killers

Again, a moot appeal to inspiration as I have detailed. Even if I granted that's okay for God to kill children it doesn't follow that it's okay to order other humans to kill children. I have already made this point. And there is no reason given in the text to think that the Canaanites were "irredeemable".

Soul-Destroying Effects

Again, begging the question. Why isn't war in the modern era relevantly similar to war in the ancient era? Did people not get PTSD back then because they didn't know modern psychology? Of course not.

Present day genocide?

Saying "sorry it doesn't compare" isn't a rebuttal. It's an ungrounded assertion. Con needs to prove it.


Sources

[1] http://www.gotquestions.org...
[2] http://thepietythatliesbetween.blogspot.com...
[3] http://www.debate.org...
AeneasPhebe

Con

AeneasPhebe forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
popculturepooka

Pro

Unfortunately, Pro did not respond. Extend my arguments.

I'll end with what I think is a relevant quote C.S. Lewis on this subject (Joshua and his orchestration of the slaughter of Canaanites):

"Dear Mr. Beversluis,

Yes. On my view one must apply something of the same sort of explanation to, say, the atrocities (and treacheries) of Joshua. I see the grave danger we run by doing so; but the dangers of believing in a God whom we cannot but regard as evil, and then, in mere terrified flattery calling Him "good" and worshiping Him, is still greater danger. The ultimate question is whether the doctrine of the goodness of God or that of the inerrancy of Scriptures is to prevail when they conflict. I think the doctrine of the goodness of God is the more certain of the two. Indeed, only that doctrine renders this worship of Him obligatory or even permissible.

To this some will reply "ah, but we are fallen and don"t recognize good when we see it." But God Himself does not say that we are as fallen as all that. He constantly, in Scripture, appeals to our conscience: "Why do ye not of yourselves judge what is right?" " "What fault hath my people found in me?" And so on. Socrates" answer to Euthyphro is used in Christian form by Hooker. Things are not good because God commands them; God commands certain things because he sees them to be good. (In other words, the Divine Will is the obedient servant to the Divine Reason.) The opposite view (Ockham"s, Paley"s) leads to an absurdity. If "good" means "what God wills" then to say "God is good" can mean only "God wills what he wills." Which is equally true of you or me or Judas or Satan.

But of course having said all this, we must apply it with fear and trembling. Some things which seem to us bad may be good. But we must not insult our consciences by trying to feel a thing good when it seems to us totally evil. We can only pray that if there is an invisible goodness hidden in such things, God, in His own good time will enable us to see it. If we need to. For perhaps sometimes God"s answer might be "What is that to thee?" The passage may not be "addressed to our (your or my) condition" at all.

I think we are v. much in agreement, aren"t we?" [1]

Sources

[1] http://www.davidbergan.com...
AeneasPhebe

Con

AeneasPhebe forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by popculturepooka 3 years ago
popculturepooka
Are you aware that there are differing moral perspectives offered throughout the bible? On one hand we have the genocidal Joshua; on the other hand we have a God who chastises Jonah for not caring about his enemies' imminent annihlation and being selfish and petty. It's clear who's side Jesus "love your neighbors as yourself" Christ would be on. *Scripture* even supports the idea that we need to use our own moral judgement as best we can to discern matters (i.e. distinguish "good" fruit from the "bad" fruit). It's pretty clear we are meant to be separating the wheat from the chaff; or else would be defending the absurd conclusion that a PERFECTLY GOOD God could order such a heinously evil act like the genocide of an entire people.

It's hard to even fathom how this point even needs defense, but apparently it does. And I already answered all your latter points in the debate. They don't hold up at all.
Posted by Rabid.Penguin 3 years ago
Rabid.Penguin
But you seem to be picking and choosing what to believe based on your idea of what is moral. Why do you think you're idea of morals is correct? God never committed a random act of genocide. If we are all guilty and deserving of death, God is within his moral right to deliver judgement. And there are generally some reasons listed for why God carries out his judgements. Its never willy nilly. He never had Israel kill a peaceful fun living people. God punishes the wicked.
Posted by popculturepooka 3 years ago
popculturepooka
False dichotomy. You don't have to treat a source text as incapable of error in order to treat it as authoritative. Do you do that with any other thing besides the bible? I don't regard it as all that speculative anyways; a morally decent person wouldn't order genocide...much less a perfectly good person. It's really that straightforward, imo.
Posted by Rabid.Penguin 3 years ago
Rabid.Penguin
Because if we do not concede that the Bible is inerrant, then on what authority do you have to say God does something for one reason or another? If you're using the Bible and trusting what it is saying about the defeat of the Canaanites then why can we not trust what it says about God? At the point of throwing out the Bible and it's authority this whole debate is speculative and subjective, and there is no point to it. Basically if we are going to use the Bible as the authority then we must trust it to be accurate (whether you truly believe it to be so or not). Correct?
Posted by popculturepooka 3 years ago
popculturepooka
Why would I concede that the bible is inerrant when this very problem calls that into question? You're more than welcome to argue for it but me using it as a framework for the debate? Nah....
Posted by Rabid.Penguin 3 years ago
Rabid.Penguin
I wouldn't mind attempting to debate this. If we also work under the presupposition that there is a God. That this God is the God of the Bible, and that the Bible is the inerrant word of God.
Posted by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
@AeneasPhebe, Someday you may actually complete a debate.
Posted by AeneasPhebe 3 years ago
AeneasPhebe
It works now. Haha. I will go over it now.
Posted by AeneasPhebe 3 years ago
AeneasPhebe
It works now. Haha. I will go over it now.
Posted by popculturepooka 3 years ago
popculturepooka
I reissued the debate...see if it works now.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by TheAntidoter 3 years ago
TheAntidoter
popculturepookaAeneasPhebeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con FF
Vote Placed by Orangatang 3 years ago
Orangatang
popculturepookaAeneasPhebeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con FF
Vote Placed by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
popculturepookaAeneasPhebeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: A no show.