User talk:SouthWriter/sandbox/An atheist's objections/@comment-1593341-20100707071616

SouthWriter: "The believing Israelites were neither "bloodthirsty" nor "bastards" (okay, maybe a few of the judges were actually bastards). In the case of Jericho, for example, they took the city after seven days of warning them. Everyone in Jericho knew the power of God from tales they heard from Egypt. But only one woman believed the stories enough to turn to Him and away from the orgies they called worship of statues they called gods. These people were "ripe for judgment" and God used the Israelites to administer that judgment. Mercy was shown to the faithful that stayed with Rahab. The act of total war has nothing to do with "bloodthirstiness." There is no indication that they enjoyed the task that they had to do. In fact, there is no indication that God enjoys the death of sinners. "
 * Oh Jericho wasn't the bloodthirsty bastards part, the killing or enslaving of every man woman and child that stood in their way of expelling the indigenous population of their promised homeland was the bloodthirsty bastards part. It was a tactically sound method, not leaving any potential enemies behind them to threaten them later, but I find it hard to justify the merciless slaughter of entire populations because god promised you a home. The neat thing about Jericho was how the bible used pretty imagery to describe its fall, and using newer translations and tactical analysis they described a militarily feasable plan that fits the bible description.