So happy to see you Jess -- Hope everything is good.

A rat's ass? How many rats asses do you have in stock? I believe I could find a market for them.

Jeannie

“Joshua 11:19 – There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel except for the Hivvite inhabitants of Gibeon…

The Canaanites lose the chance to repent and survive. Verse 19 implies that if a city had wished to make peace with Israel, its offer would have been accepted, provided it agreed to abide by the Seven Noahide Laws and to perform national service (Ralbag).”

They all had a choice to repent and be spared. But they were not worthy so G-d hardened the hearts of the majority of Canaanites to wage war and be destroyed.

Why is it so hard to imagine nations that were so corrupt beyond redemption. This was G-d’s judgment not mans. G-d knows how and when to show mercy and who is deserving of it. Imagine there were nation after nation of Nazis. How much mercy do they deserve? Can their sins be redeemed?

Does it bother you that G-d destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah? Do you think there were innocent people there? Abraham pleaded with G-d that if there are even a handful of innocent people He should spare Sodom and Gomorrah. G-d told Abraham that there were no innocent people there and destroyed those cities.

Evil is bad and has severe punishment. This is not innocent people. Keep in mind that this wasn’t a choice for Joshua. Clearly all the battles they won were miracles in nature and were directly by the command of G-d. (They were vastly outnumbered with a far greater arsenal of chariots and armies of the enemies.) Nobody but G-d knows who is evil and who is redeemable. No man can make that judgment but G-d.

So you can’t compare it to any situation today. You can’t think about that time period with all its blatant miracles and clear guidance from G-d with today’s confusing world.

It is not hard to imagine corrupt nations. Beyond redemption? I don't think Joshua should have stuck his nose into someone else's land and forced them to change their religion or else. No matter what he thought of it. God had nothing to do with this act of genocide. It was pure greed and conquest. I don't believe God had anything to do with it. Its simply common sense.



If that story is true.. it was either a natural disaster or some advanced being (pretending to be Gods) blasted that city with some kind of death ray or bomb. God does not go around killing people who are evil or "not innocent" If he did we would all be in a world of trouble. That's just common sense.

If there was someone back then with these kinds of controlling powers of destruction, with advanced technology, (I believe it is very probable) then they were pretending to be Gods(s) and the ignorant natives believed them after seeing a few magic tricks.

What I find mind-blowing are modern people of today who can't use their logical minds to figure these things out, via common sense, but who choose to believe the writings of either liars or the ignorant natives who were fooled, wrote what they thought was the truth.

Jeannie

Evil is a choice of action that is part of the WILL. It has to do with choosing either to do good acts (of love) or not such good acts (hate, greed, etc.) Joshua was evil.

Innocent people do not exist. We are all quite flawed and ignorant.

This wasn't a choice for Josuha? You should read my thread on Free Will. Everyone has a choice... no matter what. Clearly you say, that all the battles they won were "Miracles of God."
They could have been the work of a demon or a devil or just a nasty person who had a few tricks up his sleeve. Nothing is "clear" as you say, about this.

"No man can make that judgement.." you say.

What I say is a man did. It was Joshua.. and whoever was there with him pretending to be a God.





Miracles did not only happen back then. If they happen at all, they happen all the time. God did not die and stop doing Its work. God lives today. Time is nothing to an infinite being. It is like one second ago. It may seem like "a long time ago" to mere mortals, but it is Now to an infinite God.

So your starry eyed wonder still believes in all that, just like the people of the past who would believe a man to be a God and murder in his name. I don't buy those lies now and I wouldn't have back then. I would have been one of the people killed who dare defy Joshua. He was a murderer and a tyrant.

That is my opinion. You can still believe in Santa Clause if you please. And in the God of Joshua.

Jeannie

Jeannie,

You’re very funny. You can’t believe half a story and then say that the story doesn’t make sense. If you remove G-d from the picture then I agree the story doesn’t make any sense. However the story over and over is based on the fact that G-d was clearly in the picture and EVERYONE was aware of it at the time.

Either don’t accept the WHOLE story or do. You can’t pick and choose what you accept and then say – look how mean they were.

For those of us who believe in G-d the story of Joshua is very powerful. There is no cruelty here only justice. G-d is a Lord of mercy. If He deems people irredeemable they must have been pretty bad. It’s kind of arrogant for you to pass judgment, when you weren’t there and have no idea who or what was involved. It’s not people who are making this judgment, but G-d. You might not like the notion – doesn’t make it less true.

Its one thing to say that you are an atheist or agnostic. It’s another thing to belittle other people’s religion. Have a little decency. If you want to ask questions, great. But don’t belittle and ridicule people for their beliefs. I think even pantheists and atheists are supposed to have common decency.

The Jews never forced anyone to worship God, pray to God, tithe to God, sacrifice to God or celebrate the Sabbath.

Non-Jews were allowed to live in Israel freely and when the Temple was built, there was a special courtyard just for Gentiles, incase they wanted to come learn about God.

I do not know if the story is true as far as the historical facts are concerned. If you want to assume that a man named Joshua conquered a land, killing its inhabitants, that might be a true story. The reasons given are what don't wash.

Remove the God impostor from the story and it makes perfect sense to me.



The story is not based on any fact that God was clearly in the picture. It is based on the fact that the people who were there and the people who wrote the story believe that lie. Nobody can prove there was any God involved at all. Joshua claimed there was, but he could have lied, or he could have been fooled completely by some magician.

Jeannie

I am not in the habit of accepting or rejecting information completely. You have no authority to ask or tell me what to accept or reject. I realize that truth is always mixed with lies and interpretations from various points of view and belief.

Jeannie

Facts, confirmed by Archeology
1) The walls around Jericho were made of stone, topped by a mud wall. The mud walls fell, making a ramp up and over the stone walls.
2) The mud walls fell everywhere except on the northern end of the city. The northern end of the city had houses built against the wall. Just like Rahab's house from Joshua.
3) The city was burned by invaders.
4) The invaders didn't take any of the huge amounts of food found within the ruins of Jericho. No army would pass up so much food, especially when grain was used as money in those days. Why would an invading army attack the city, destroy it and leave the weath to rot with the dead?

All four of those points are mentioned in Joshua.

To believe that Joshua conquered Jericho without the help of God, requires that you answer the following questions (to yourself, I don't need to know your answers).

1) What event happened that destroyed the walls everywhere except the northern wall?
2) Why would the invaders attack the city and leave it's wealth behind?
3) Why do the historical facts agree so closely with the Bible?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/jericho.asp

As I wrote, (if you read it again) I do not require proof that the event happened. It may or may not have, I don't know. But that is not the point of discussion here. What I said was in response to the statement that:



... that "God was "clearly" in the picture" cannot be called a fact, there is no believable proof of that.



If you have Facts, "confirmed by Archeology" about Jericho that you would like to give me,(names etc.) I would be interested to know who confirmed this and what facts, if any, do they feel they proved.

But that is not even my point of argument.

As for your other questions, I could come up with many other explanations, but that would be guessing. I would first have to determine if the event happened at all before trying to guess how it happened. Then I would look at the proof, or evidence and then I might be able to give you a decent theory of what may have happened without resorting to the "God did it" cop out.

If it happened, I am sure there are logical explanations for it without having to resort to the old back up "God must have done it." because we can't figure it out.

When I watch a magician perform his illusions, I don't assume he is God just because he walked on water or went through a glass window, or made an elephant disappear.

Maybe you do.


Jeannie

Jeannie,

Nobody is telling you that you have to believe anything, but your logical arguments just don’t make any sense if you are going to disbelieve half of a book and then say that the book doesn’t make sense according to you.

Take any book that you read and remove one character because you don’t believe he exists and then make fun of the story how it doesn’t make sense. It’s illogical.

If you read the cat in the hat but don’t believe that the hat exists, you can really attack the story and show how it doesn’t make sense. But the story is based on both characters the cat and the hat, so you can’t question one if you don’t accept the other.

If you have issues within the Bible that is very fair to question and ask how one is to understand what seemingly appears cruel. That fine and I would (and did) be happy to answer.

Otherwise this isn’t a logic discussion – it’s just a rant. What’s the point of those?

Using "The Cat in a Hat" as an example does not fly, because nobody is out there claiming that it is the word of God or that it is a true account of what happened, or that it is an accurate history book. So let's skip that example, it is silly and does not apply.

You did not tell me to believe something, but you did tell me that I should either believe it completely or not at all.

That sounds like George Bush saying "You are either with me or against me." Things are not that black and white.

I did not say that the book "didn't make sense to me." Think of me as an investigator trying to interpret what really happened after listening to (or reading) an account of it by a witness. You never take a witnesses account of an incident as the gospel truth. Witnesses are not all that reliable.

But if a person were to force me to either accept those accounts (The Bible) as literal truth or throw them out completely, I believe I would throw them out completely.

The reason I don't, as I told you before, I am not in the habit of rejecting or "throwing out" information as "invalid" just because it is difficult to make any sense of. I like to consider all facts, and all possibilities, and I do give them serious consideration, which is more than most Christians will usually do to the information I present to them.

But since you seem to be an all or nothing kind of guy, I will just conclude that the story is faulty if not totally fiction.

Thank you
Jeannie

"There is no cruelty here, only justice."

Genocide is not cruelty? War, conquest, plunder is not cruelty?

Oh that's right! You said it was justice and they got what they rightly deserved. I do believe in the laws of cause and effect.
But this was simply war and conquest and had nothing to do with God. That is the point I want to make.

You can believe otherwise. I just think that using God to justify war and conquest is getting a little old and frankly it makes me sad.

Do you really believe that Joshua talked to God? How did this happen? Did God speak to him in a dream? A burning bush?
Or the Ark?

(Perhaps the ark was a technical device built by an alien race?) You do not know what really occurred, you only know what the person who wrote the story believes took place.

If you think I am "ranting" (as you said) you don't know me at all. I am speaking very seriously and as simply, clearly and as logically as possible.

According to your belief I could not have possibly been there during that time. According to my belief in reincarnation, I could have been there.

Arrogant to pass judgment? On war and genocide? Well excuse me for having an opinion.

Jeannie

No investigator can come to a situations with a bias. You can't honestly investigate the Bible when you start with an attitude of not believing that G-d exists. In fact in any type of investigation you would have to recuse yourself if you had a bias against the principle issue that you are investigating.

That's why I say that you can't believe half a story. Lets say you were agnostic - then you can investigate because you are open to both possibilities. If you are not open to both possibilities then how can you call yourself an investigator?

Jeannie,

Whats arrogant is to pass judgment on a situation that you have very little understanding about. This is an event that happened 3,000 years ago and you have no idea who the Cannanites were. Try explaining to people 3,000 years from now who the NAZIS were. Oh yeah, we don't have video and newspapers from 3,000 years ago. So to pass judgement and call it genocide is arrogant.

Why is it hard to believe that G-d communicated with man? Do you think an Omnipotent Being is not capable of making sure a person knows that he is communicating with G-d? Before you respond about people "who hear voices" etc, it wasn't JUST G-d speaking to the leaders of Israel, it also was backed up by constant miracles that went along with everything G-d said. Miracles that were public to ALL the people on a daily basis. (Manna from heaven, splitting of the sea in Egypt and Jordan, constant victories against far superior forces (except when they violated G-d's word) etc.)

I understand that you don't believe these things. As I was saying before, you can't honestly investigate or ridicule a story if you don't believe the motivation and content of what was happening at the time. If you remove all the aspects that you don't believe of course the story makes no sense.

Its like saying that I don't believe the NAZIS were cruel. The Americans just wanted to dominate the world that's why they attacked and obliterated the Germans. Americans are genocidal conquerors that just want to plunder for oil, money, and power. That's what you are saying and that's why I said it sounds arrogant and faulty when you skip half the details of a story and then try to pass judgment.

I do believe that "God" exists. My concept of "God" is based on different evidence and is different than yours, but I am not an atheist.

If anyone is bias it is you, because you assume too much. You assume that God somehow talked to people like Joshua and you do not present any evidence at all for that assertion other than it is written in a book. A investigator does not assume such outlandish things.



Of course I can. The part of the story that has not been proven in the slightest is that Joshua was talking to God and that God was a war monger and conquerer leading him to victory. The story was just told that way.

Where you are stuck is that you assume the "God" or "The Lord" spoken about in the Bible is the one and only God in all of the Universe. There is no proof at all for that assumption. I am sorry. There just isn't.



I am open to the possibility that either Joshua was a lair, or he was hearing voices in his head, or he was listening to a person or entity that was impersonating a God.

Until someone can prove to me that God walked the earth back then, or that people hearing voices are talking to God, then I have to look for some other possibility.

Jeannie

Jeannie,

Why do you believe that Joshua existed? Why do you believe that the Israelites actually killed anyone? What are you basing those beliefs on?

Based on the Bible saying so. Yet you don't believe 75% of the Bible which talks about G-d talking to Moses and the laws and miracles He bestowed on the nation of Israel.

Like I said. It makes no sense to believe part but not all. It is all or nothing when it comes to the (Original (old) testament) Bible. I don't see how anyone can logically split it or pick and choose what to believe from it.

If one has questions or difficulties with parts - that's fair to question and to seek to understand. But to deny 75% and then say its cruel or other negative judgments is not logical.

Here's how I'm picturing history...

Moses comes out of a tent with a bunch of scrolls and says "Hey, do you guys remember that big pillar of fire that led us out of Eqypt?" The Israelites say "No...." and then stop following Moses. The Israelites are then destroyed by a larger nation and they ceased to exist.

If you take God out of the Bible, the Bible falls apart completely. Joshua and his band of Israelites attacking Jericho and taking it within seven days would have been impossible without God's help. If you haven't seen what Jericho looked like, you really should.

http://biblicalstudies.qldwide.net.au/cs-walls_of_jericho.html

There were two walls. The first at the bottom of a hill and the second at the top. The only way for invaders to get to the city was to climb the outer wall and then cross a the embankment to the inner wall. The Israelites wouldn't have made it to the inner wall, if not for the fact that the walls did collapse. This has been confirmed several times by archeologists. The invaders did burn the city, while leaving the wealth (freshly harvested grain) untouched. That makes NO sense. An army marches on it's stomach, right? So by leaving the grain untouched, the invaders not only were rejecting food, but wealth. Who would choose to be hungry and broke?

Okay, lets assume, for argument sake, the Cannanites were evil and deserved to be destroyed and Joshua destroyed them. Well, okay, good for him.

I don't have to know anything about the Cannanites to have an opinion on the manner in which Joshua's men conquered and destroyed a city and took the land for themselves, as stated in the Bible.

I do have a problem with the "God helped them do it and told them how to do it. etc. part of the story."

The other problem with this conversation is that you believe that your Biblical God is the one true God and that anyone who does not believe that is an "atheist" or is worshiping some other God. That is a typical reaction of most Christians, but it is very closed off (limited) for the receiving of any other or new information. (A limited belief system.)



My concept of God differs from yours, therein lies the problem. (God communicates with me on a daily basis via my connection to the universal being.)

You would have to understand my concept of God to understand my viewpoint on Joshua. ( Point: If Joshua's God was "all powerful," he would not have needed to enlist mere mortals to do the killing for "him." )




Please read this carefully, as I think you are not hearing what I am trying to say. An investigator does not assume things or go into an investigation "believing" such things. He or she looks for evidence and uses common sense.

Also, I am not "ridiculing" anything. You may feel ridiculed because the things I say conflict with your core beliefs.

If stating things as clearly as I can is misconstrued as "ridicule" to you simply because I "do not believe" in your concept of God, then you appear to me to be a person who is simply defending his core belief system and who cannot think (consider alternative things) outside of that. This I do understand, and I can see that further discussion is probably pointless.



You give extremely poor examples and I see that you have a twisted view of my point and are probably taking offense and are simply attempting to defend your core belief system.

Besides:
Hitler claimed to have been "speaking to God" too, and claimed to be Christian. History reveals that he was even supported in the early stages by Americans. It also reveals the the Catholic Church supported him and may have been involved in smuggling the Nazi leaders out of Germany to other places to include America where they were given new identities, and jobs by our government etc. These are accepted facts, although not well known!

So as you see, history is hardly ever accurate.

Jeannie