Rather, the author of life has the just prerogative to take life, which would be immoral if that was not a just thing to do, which an almighty omniscient God can know and do, regardless of the railings of self-righteous atheists who must presume they are omniscient, and that the objectively baseless moral reasoning of atheism precludes moral wickedness, or can even define it.
In killing the terminally degenerate Canaanites wholesale for instance, rather than taxing Israel with being a giant adoption agency, or leaving the innocent homeless and parent-less, God mercifully saved the innocent from becoming like their fathers, and took them to be with Himself.
In a different scenario, He saved women from being without husband and home, and provided both for them and their children, after a proper time of mourning. And culture could be rough in the ANE.
The critical difference btwn the Bible and Islam etc., is that the people did not enter into a covenant of obedience with God, and receive the directive of Joshua's conquests, until after God made it abundantly unmistakably supernaturally manifest that God was speaking to and leading them. This was not just some dream in the night.
In addition, also unlike the Qur'an, these were limited in scope, and in specific situations, with a historical narrative which provides the context necessary for interpretation.
And finally, these commands for warfare were superseded by the New Covenant in which the kingdom is spiritual, and thus its means of warfare, (Jn. 18:36; Eph. 6:12; 2Cor. 10:3,4) and the church is not constituted to use the sword of men to deal with theological dissent, or to be a physical theocracy and raise armies.
The fight against Islam which Crusades engaged in which had necessity were not to be done by the church raising up armies to fight a holy war, while the torturous bloody means of the Inquisitions were unScriptural out of hand.
Excellent explanation.
I should remember to read all of the posts! You said it much better than I did in 43.
In Deuteronomy 7:1-2 and 20:10-17, every man, woman and child was to be killed without mercy and no one that breathed was to be left alive.
Some radicals today say that their god allows them to do the same thing today that happened back then. Others may retort that their god is the true god, whereas the god of the Koran is false. In reply, these radicals could say that their god is the true god and on and on it goes. No God is blood thirsty or would ever condone or be behind what is said in those chapters in Deut. or in the Koran. God does not go by “might makes right.” Yes, the people living in the Promised land were degenerate, but God would never say kill the babies that lay in their mothers arms or condone it. Only a cruel god would say that. Thankfully, Moses did not write what was said in those verses in Deut. .
Truth be told, what was written down in those chapters in Deuteronomy came at a much later time by the hands of scribes through the JEDP format. God is not a blood thirsty god. Yes, there was an exodus, but it was no where near as large a multitude as the account in Exodus was have us believe, and the scribes who show us their handiwork through the Pentateuch as their are verses that follow right after others that show huge differences in syntax, style, format, content and so on.
Moses wrote much of the Pentateuch, but not all of it, scribes wrote parts later to justify the taking of the Promised land through a “by whatever means necessary” theology - and even most evangelical theological seminaries readily agree with this.