Sorry it took so long to reply, I started a new job last week.
I've never read Mein Kampf. All I can say is that these tribes were no longer fully human.
Let's use this hypothetical analogy: suppose an alien race decided they wanted to conquer and settle earth, but due to the differences in the earth's ecology they could not survive as they were. So they created human/alien hybrids to allow them to survive on earth and began populating part of America, say Kansas, and were preparing to invade the neighboring states once they were numerous enough. Once their motives were discerned, don't you think genocide would be a reasonable response? They are part human after all...
On the one hand you say that my analogy of Hitler is not applicable because Hitler attempted genocide on humans whereas Joshua committed genocide on demon-human hybrids, but on the other hand you suggest that your analogy here does apply. But your analogy involves humans with limited power and resources fighting against a threat that could potentially eliminate the human race. This is a false analogy to the Joshua genocides because God, being omnipotent, could have resolved everything without violence. He could have created another planet like Earth and placed the nephilim there.
Furthermore, your "evidence" that these people were demon-human hybrids is based on what the Bible itself calls a "bad report."
On top of this, you have already stated that demon-human intercourse was punished severely several hundred years prior and that is the reason that nephilim no longer exist today. You have no explanation as to how these nephilim should have existed during the Joshua genocides.
So I would say that your argument here is in a dire state.
The LORD had multiple motives that I can discern in wiping out those tribes. Aside from what I have already mentioned regarding the demonic activity, there was also the need for retributive justice for all the wickedness that was going on in the land.
Again, we've covered this. There is no evidence that they were doing anything that the Jews would have even considered truly wicked. If the Jews were inclined to kill children who cursed their parents by throwing rocks at them until they die, and if these other people were inclined to sacrifice such children to their deity, how is one any worse than the other? While I freely admit we don't know this was the case, we surely don't know it wasn't the case. You can't definitively say that they actually were doing anything worse than what the Jews were doing, so to say that they deserved to be slaughtered is reckless and irresponsible.
Moreover, the LORD was trying to teach the Israelites to trust Him implicitly. One way He did that was thru using them, a people not trained in war and without true weapons (like swords and shields), to overthrow the people of the land. Finally, God wanted to teach Israel to obey Him implicitly. These are the motives I can discern, and I am sure there were many more that I cannot discern.
First, these are your inferences. Second, God took them out of slavery and into a land of flowing milk and honey. If that won't teach them to trust him, how will it help if he compels them to slaughter women and children?
Sadly, if you upped the prize enough, you would probably find a bunch of takers on that offer.
Talk is cheap.
If you say so.
The people didn't worship false gods in the wilderness,
I don't understand what you're talking about. Aaron built a golden calf and they worshiped it.
they failed to fully trust in God and tried to worship God in ways that God was not pleased with... also, those who refused to enter the promised land later repented and tried to go into the land (Numbers 14:39-45). The worship of false Gods came upon the later generations during the time of the Judges and after. It is part of human nature to doubt what seems to be too good to be true, right? Imagine being a people not trained in battle, with no swords or shields, being asked to trust that God would deliver a militarily strong people into their hands in battle... it takes faith to trust that God would not change His mind. They did not know God from the later prophets as we do. They knew the God who had destroyed the Egyptians, flooded the world, and chose them to be His people based upon the faith of Abraham. What if God was displeased with them in some way? They had grumbled enough already on the way to the promised land. He had reason to reject them already, yet they did not know that God was true to His promises yet.
None of this actually explains why they would bow down before a piece of wood or stone despite having witnessed miracles personally performed by God. You seem to be explaining why they were hesitant to believe in God with your "too good to be true" remark and the reasoning that followed, but I am talking about the actual worship of other gods. I'm saying that it makes no sense, and I am giving another view where it does make sense (where Jehovah is also a piece of wood or stone). All you've really done is write a paragraph where you tap dance around the issue.
That is probably at least partially true of later generations, but not of the generation of the exodus or the conquest.
Again, a lot of people worshiped the golden calf during the exodus. So my statement is true of the generation of the exodus. My statement is also true of the conquest because I said that they would worship warlord deities during times of war, and Jehovah was a warlord deity.
God deals harshly with the wicked, but the child had done nothing wrong... my belief is an inference from the passages that speak of God goodness and mercy.
But ultimately it's based on no evidence, seeing as how you present none here. Like I said, the default position is to believe that if one is stricken with illness that eventually causes death, then one will suffer. Evidence is required to sway us from this neutral position.
Why did God make it so that a fetus has the capacity to feel pain, knowing that there would one day be abortions performed on a mass scale? Pain is only useful to those who can avoid danger.
The fact is that if your God is real, then he's made a world wherein most living things with a nervous system end up dying in terror and agony. And yet I'm supposed to believe, on absolutely no evidence at all, that when God was slowly killing an infant in order to punish the father, that this was an exception to the rule. This couldn't be further from the truth. God was making an example, not an exception.
The text says nothing about what the child experienced. You can choose to believe that God caused the child to suffer intensely, or you can choose to believe that the child was in a coma or something, and experienced no pain. Either belief is possible, based just upon the text.
I have no choice in what I believe. If I did, my "world" would be amazing.
Yes, the child could have been in a coma. But does it mention anything about the infant sleeping?
I was just stating what I felt, I had an idea that there would be opposition to God being viewed as I view Him. I do think this conversation is going nowhere, as we are both set in our beliefs about God, but I don't want to abandon it yet.
Hmm, interesting remarks.
Consider Acts 5:38-39,
38 Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. 39 But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.
Apply that to this conversation. If you see me say something you can't answer, take the question to an elder in your church and see what they say. If Christianity is the one true religion, there should be a reasonable answer. If not, there might not be a reasonable answer. If you repeatedly see your genuine questions met with tap dances, you should know there is a problem. If you genuinely don't care that there is a problem with your religion, I simply can't help you.
OK. Call it speculation. Well, at least call it informed speculation because of our knowledge of how people normally take their faith very seriously, regardless of it's veracity.
This contradicts what you said above:
NV: Let me put it this way. Suppose I made the standing offer to anyone on this site:
Make a video of yourself bowing down and touching your head to the ground before a statue of a non-Christian god; in return, I will wire $100 to your bank account.
Do you think I'd have any takers? I don't think I would.
f4t: Sadly, if you upped the prize enough, you would probably find a bunch of takers on that offer.
NV: In fact, many Christians, without prompt, will say, "I wouldn't worship another god if you had a gun at my head."
f4t: Talk is cheap.
There are other examples in history of people undoubtedly taking their human sacrifice rituals very seriously, and wanting everything to be just right.
Yes, such as all of Christianity.
It is speculation, but based upon the information we have from historical sources, it is highly likely that the sacrifices were not dead and ill and maimed. Think about it, from your perspective, YHWH worship arose out of pagan worship practices of the time, and YHWH was extremely specific in how He wanted the sacrifices to be offered... so even if you are right about that, then the worship of Molech would probably be similar in that aspect.
My understanding is that deities are ultimately based on the behavior of rivers.
Most civilizations settled near rivers for obvious reasons, and most rivers will flood for various reasons. Some rivers flooded with predictability, and the people of those regions worshiped dying and rising gods. Other rivers flooded sporadically and unpredictably, and the people of those regions worshiped wrathful gods. Jehovah was the latter, and Jesus was eventually the Jewish version inspired by religions of the former.
Anyway, your argument seems to be the following:
The Jews were extremely specific in that they offered only the best of their flock to their deity. Therefore, it is likely that this other group which is supposedly of the same origin offered only their best children to their deity.
I hope I'm faithfully representing you here. The problem is that you're not faithfully representing the situation on your end. The Jews detested the idea of sacrificing their own children to their deity. You completely left out that detail. Let's look at it again:
The Jews detested the idea of sacrificing their children to their deity. They also detested the idea of substandard offerings. Therefore, another group of similar origin likely shared the latter preference but did not share the former preference.
The reality here is that your argument is just a clear case of cherry picking.
I find no problem with the vast majority of the Bible, there are only a relative few passages that give me problems. I do not find the majority of the laws to be detestable... they are not always "humane" to our modern sensibilities, but not detestable in my mind.
From this I'd conclude you simply have not read the Bible.