Was Joshua’s Slaughter of Thousands of Men, Women, Children, and Babies Morally Justified? – Part 1

In the view of at least one reader of my posts, Joshua’s MERCILESS SLAUGHTER of thousands of adult men, adult women, teenage boys, teenage girls, elderly men and women, young children, and infants was MORALLY JUSTIFIED because:

(a) they were given the chance to flee, and

(b) they belonged to a culture where some people did “some pretty disgusting things” like burning children to death, and

(c) the culture they belonged to engaged in “some pretty disgusting things” for a period of 400 years.

This is an important issue, because one reason for my claim that Jesus was a morally flawed person, is that Jesus was named after Joshua, the very famous warrior of Israel, and yet Jesus did NOT reject his own name and give himself a new name.

In my view, Joshua’s leading the army of Israel to intentionally slaughter men, women, teenagers, boys, girls, and babies is on the same moral level with Hitler leading the nation of Germany to slaughter millions of Jewish men, women, teenagers, boys, and girls (I’m not sure if the Nazi’s killed Jewish babies, but seems like something they would do).

Joshua Burns the Town of Ai – Gustave Doré (1866)

If Joshua was of similar morally depraved character as Hitler, then a perfectly morally good person who was named in honor of Joshua would (as soon as learning about the horrible actions of Joshua) reject that name and come up with a new name.  Because Jesus never renounced his given name, that shows that Jesus was a morally flawed person.  It shows that Jesus uncritically accepted the morally flawed culture in which he was raised, and specifically that Jesus had no moral revulsion to the idea of being named after a mass-killer of men, women, teenagers, children, and babies.  Honoring a mass-killer was just fine with Jesus, because that mass-killer was admired by his parents and by his Jewish culture.

Furthermore,  Joshua learned to be a bloodthirsty mass-killer from Moses.  And Jesus was a fan of Moses.  But if Jesus was a perfectly morally good person, he would have criticized Moses for being a bloodthirsty mass-killer and for turning Joshua into a bloodthirsty mass-killer, particularly as part of a series of wars of aggression to steal the land of Palestine from the people who were already living there.

But honoring Moses as a great prophet and a noble leader was a part of Jewish culture and religion, so the horrible actions pf Moses were just fine with Jesus.  There was not even a hint of criticism of Moses from Jesus; instead, Jesus consistently held Moses up as an admirable leader, as a great prophet, as a great man of God.  Therefore, it is clear that Jesus was a morally flawed person.

So, if the MERCILESS SLAUGHTER of elderly men and women, adult men and women, teenagers, children, and babies was morally justified, then Jesus cannot be faulted for keeping his given name (in honor of Joshua, the famous warrior and leader of Israel), nor for being an admirer of Moses (the famous leader and prophet of Israel).  But if the MERCILESS SLAUGHTER of elderly men and women, adult men and women, teenagers, children, and babies by Israel (under the leadership of Moses and Joshua) was NOT morally justified, then we should conclude that Jesus was a morally flawed person, and thus that Jesus was NOT the divine Son of God.

In this series of posts I will argue for the view that the MERCILESS SLAUGHTER of elderly men and women, adult men and women, teenagers, children, and babies by the army of Israel under the leadership of Moses, and later under the leadership of Joshua, was NOT morally justified, and that this shows that Jesus was a morally flawed person, given that Jesus did not reject his given name, and given that Jesus was openly and publicly an admirer of Moses.