How American Christians can stop being bullies and start winning converts

[JarlWolf]

As do I. Even if my views are somewhat extreme, I still enjoy the opinion of others and seeing how others think; it teaches me how to look at things, make assessments before actions... even though at this point the skill isn't going to be much used. Still, it can be refresh to hear others thoughts: But the case and point is hear, not be forced upon, especially if said ideas aren't something I agree to.

Which no one here is doing, were all adults who are compromising and understanding of that premises, so it no problem and its why this community is able to put past differences and embrace one another as comrades.
And to me that's because despite our ideological, spiritual and other belief differences we all have a common underlying belief here; consensus and community. We all have some things we agree upon, and we all share this ideological trait and grow respect from it.

Even though we have rather hardlined religious and ideological people here we all respect that. Which I can tell you, on the internet and in life is not easy to come by and no amount of make believe liberalist tolerance progressive minded propaganda is going to convince you otherwise. It takes real respect earned through years of experience and pain to acquire this and regardless of ideals, that's what "wins" converts to something. And its why this forum can house Communists, Legalists, Christians of various direction, Jews, Muslims, Militarists, Pacifists, Anarchists, Solidarists, Communitarians, Communalists, Individualists, Collectivists, Utilitarians, even Fascists/Nationalists to some degree, and somehow we aren't constantly at each others throat.

You win converts, from the experience and pain one receive and endure and the learning process that becomes of it. I've killed men and seen men die for what they believe in and seen people kill others for even lesser reasons, and seen how devolved people can become, seen human beings become inhuman because they convinced themselves they are right or their actions are of no consequence. And in one perspective, maybe they were in the right. The point is, regardless if there is an afterlife or not people died and suffered for it and at this point, we have to choose our actions carefully and be prepared to accept the consequences.

It's why I am so against a religious group acting like it has jurisdiction, Yitzi, over its "own people" and genocide in general. Its why I am typing this rant out right now because I am sharing my experience, my pain, to share another perspective to think about. Just as much as I am listening to others in here as well, and thinking on it.

[Yitzi]

Wait, wouldn't that make it relevant only to enlightenment-based systems, and completely irrelevant to service-based systems (whether theistic service-based systems such as Abrahamic religion, or humanistic service-based systems such as many secular approaches to morality)?

Maybe that was the wrong wording. Better wording would be "a free and responsible search for meaning/truth" that could apply to many religions.

But how can everyone have their own path to find the truth, when some methods are clearly more likely to give the right answer than others?  ("Meaning" is so vague that I'm not sure what to do with it, and still doesn't apply very well to service-based systems.)

If all you're looking for is a feel-good social venue, then universalism makes a lot of sense.  But if you're looking for actual truths, or ways to serve the Divine, or even information about how to be a good person, then it doesn't really seem like it'd work.

But some like the more hardline Abrahamic would need to cull some of the condemning things out of their teachings because some of the passages outright condemn, justify violence, or wish supernatural torture to opposing viewpoints which are harmless otherwise.

Culling out of teachings is, by and large, not an option.  If the teachings are true, then one cannot cull the truth simply because it is not convenient...

You must agree to basic principles. Simple stuff like recognizing every human has worth, not trashing the environment, etc.

Why should those principles be required by everyone, and others (such as belief in God) not be?

Which no one here is doing, were all adults who are compromising and understanding of that premises

I wouldn't describe myself so much as "compromising" as "able to understand that trying to force my beliefs on non-Jews is not a productive approach".  (I do still look forward to the day when everybody will recognize the truth of those beliefs, though; I just don't think I can convince you at this point.)

And to me that's because despite our ideological, spiritual and other belief differences we all have a common underlying belief here; consensus and community. We all have some things we agree upon, and we all share this ideological trait and grow respect from it.

Yes, I think our agreement that, whatever we may think about  and  , SMAC is an excellent game, is a large part of what helps us keep the discussion civilized.

And its why this forum can house Communists, Legalists, Christians of various direction, Jews, Muslims, Militarists, Pacifists, Anarchists, Solidarists, Communitarians, Communalists, Individualists, Collectivists, Utilitarians, even Fascists/Nationalists to some degree, and somehow we aren't constantly at each others throat.

We have that many members?        

It's why I am so against a religious group acting like it has jurisdiction, Yitzi, over its "own people" and genocide in general. Its why I am typing this rant out right now because I am sharing my experience, my pain, to share another perspective to think about. Just as much as I am listening to others in here as well, and thinking on it.

I think that such action is dangerous because it does violate the peace, and when done by a false religion (which we can all agree is at least the vast majority) is unjustified (unless justified by some other means).  However, that does not make it always unjustified or even net-harmful.

[JarlWolf]

The thing is, your religion may be truthful to you- but that doesn't mean its truthful to others. And I certainly don't agree to how Israelites are treating civilians on the Gaza strip, and how at points in recent history Muslims were gunned down on pure suspicion. It doesn't matter if the extremists are Jewish or Muslim or Christian, I do not think a religion has jurisdiction to do that sort of thing because quite frankly it does not apply to the real world. If a god is so weak and pitiful to ask of and rely on its followers to massacre and butcher people who don't believe in him, regardless if he exists or not he does not deserve to be worshiped in my eyes and he is a coward. That's just my personal opinion.

[Yitzi]

The thing is, your religion may be truthful to you- but that doesn't mean its truthful to others.

Wait, how can something be "truthful to" a particular group?  Either it is fact, or it is not.

And I certainly don't agree to how Israelites are treating civilians on the Gaza strip

That's an entirely different discussion that really has no more to do with religion than your own fights against Muslim extremists did, but...what do you think Israel could do better?

If a god is so weak and pitiful to ask of and rely on its followers to massacre and butcher people who don't believe in him, regardless if he exists or not he does not deserve to be worshiped in my eyes and he is a coward. That's just my personal opinion.

That does make sense*.  (This is, however, a completely different matter than apostasy, where someone who was one of said god's followers leaves to follow another religion; that has elements of treason to the religion, if you will, rather than mere disbelief, and so the discussions to be had about it are completely different, especially if it is done via a court system rather than massacre and butchery.)

*There are arguments made for why God doesn't overtly punish evildoers Himself, but they tend to also preclude "kill the unbelievers" approaches.

[Green1]

Yitzi, principles such as treating others with dignity has nothing to do with anything divine or any "truth". It is very possible to firmly serve something "divine" and be an utterly horrible influence on society but you can also not believe in anything divine and be a decent person.

I also do not believe the church or religion in general can survive as a "service" based organization to an invisible divine power except in places of ignorance and low education. The problem is when God says something, who is to question it? Also, who says that God said this? A book written and rewritten since the Bronze Ages or some dude who has a position of power of a large organization? Why can't things be questioned? When I mean question, I do not mean not understanding and getting it repeated to you in a different way. I mean truly held up to reason.

I think that questioning is why in areas where education is decent, churches are losing membership and the remaining followers grow increasingly hostile. No religious organization allows questioning. Very few evolve or change with technological and social advances. In fact, the only religions I know of that allow for the dogma or lack thereof to be changed/rewritten over time is Mormonism and Unitarian Universalism.

Some things that may have been practical in the Bronze Age  or in the Koran's case Dark Ages are not applicable now. Truth changes over time depending on perspective and where you are. If you are a member of a Jewish tribe in Abraham's time then yes, you want to marry as many as you have the position and resources to handle and plop out as many kids as you can. That is because having slaves or being a slave would depend on how many young boys and men you could arm with spears were necessary for your survival. You did not want any opposing ideas or "false idols" in your midst because it would mess up the power structure and may provide sympathy for foreign groups who may worship that idol. But these things are moot now. We have weapons that can level entire regions. We have aircraft without pilots. We have contraception and slavery, at least in the form of ownership, is rare. Why didn't the dogma evolve?

This is the reason the religious organizations SHOULD cull archaic concepts from teachings or at least relegate those things for historical context. The truth changes as new things are discovered and humanity evolves. Therefore, good advice and principles should evolve too. Questioning is what makes humanity badasses. Take that away, we are just talking apes that use tools.

You see, even if there is a god or not, no creator would give you a powerful tool like questioning and not expect you to use it. If we do not get folks to question these things and still run around adhering to things that are harmful to society we are going to destroy ourselves. Then again, how many centuries have the Abrahamic religions been wanting just that? It is almost like they want the end of the world to come and are secretly trying to bring it while the non-religious are trying to bring us to the stars!

[Yitzi]

Yitzi, principles such as treating others with dignity has nothing to do with anything divine or any "truth".

No, it has to do with moral truth.  What the relationship is between moral truth and theological truth is another matter entirely, but at the very least it has to do with moral truth.  (Otherwise it can have no force other than what people are able to impose, and no justification for said imposition.)

Not to mention that even if those principles have nothing to do with theological truth, there can still be other principles that are based in theological truth.

I also do not believe the church or religion in general can survive as a "service" based organization to an invisible divine power except in places of ignorance and low education.

Orthodox Judaism (the quintessential "service-to-God-based" religion, and extremely high in focus on education) seems to indicate otherwise.

The problem is when God says something, who is to question it?

I don't understand what you are saying here.

Also, who says that God said this? A book written and rewritten since the Bronze Ages or some dude who has a position of power of a large organization?

A book that, as an article of faith, is believed to not have been continually rewritten since the Bronze Ages, but rather transmitted intact (well, except for maybe some spelling) since that time.

Why can't things be questioned? When I mean question, I do not mean not understanding and getting it repeated to you in a different way. I mean truly held up to reason.

Because taking something as fact without questioning is the basic idea of faith.  So while some religions might not rely on faith and therefore accept such questioning, Abrahamic religion as a whole tends to have a few core beliefs that are not subject to questioning.

No religious organization allows questioning.

Judaism allows, and in fact encourages, questioning with a few exceptions.

Very few evolve or change with technological and social advances.

The implications of dogma can and do change; only dogma doesn't, and that's because dogma, by its essence, is unchanging and not subject to questioning.

Dogma need not be very extensive, though.

Some things that may have been practical in the Bronze Age  or in the Koran's case Dark Ages are not applicable now.

A proper set of dogma won't deal with such matters.  For instance, Judaism's dogma deals (in its most general terms) with:

-Facts about God.
-Facts having to do with the giving of the Pentateuch from God to Moses and its enduring nature.
-Facts about God's relationship with man.
-Facts about the future (the coming of the Messiah and the resurrection of the dead).

Nothing in there is applicable to only one particular time.  And anything outside of those is theoretically fair game.  (Practically, there is a strong sense of precedent that leads to not arguing with the authorities of previous centuries, and sometimes in the case of Rabbinic legislation even strict requirements that must be fulfilled before being able to do so, but IIRC nothing that could not in theory be surpassed by a group with enough qualifications.)

This is the reason the religious organizations SHOULD cull archaic concepts from teachings or at least relegate those things for historical context.

And for the sorts of concepts you describe, they do.  Judaism no longer considers polygamy acceptable outside some extreme circumstances (though IIRC the strict ban on it has expired, and was only accepted by Ashkenazi Jews anyway), there are substantial discussions about family planning (and the "anti" positions are based on problems related to contraception, with no assumption that more children is always better), and external ideas (so long as they are compatible with the religion) are accepted by a substantial portion of Judaism (with the remainder being a response to historical situations only a few centuries ago involving external ideas that were not compatible with the religion.)  False gods are still heavily prohibited, but that's because God said so and has nothing to do with a need to keep unity.

You see, even if there is a god or not, no creator would give you a powerful tool like questioning and not expect you to use it.

Clearly.  The only issue at hand is whether there are a handful of fundamentals that are off-limits to questioning.  (Actually, even if you're not religious, it's important that the system you use for your fundamental epistemology, i.e. resolving those questions, be off-limits to questioning, as otherwise you end up with a particularly nasty form of self-referentialism.)

[JarlWolf]

Could you please give us examples of this questioning in Judaism, and how you can prove the Torah/Bible was not re-wrote constantly over time? There is archeological evidence proving there was many more disciples then the 12 included in for Christian new testament, but they were destroyed by Peter's followers.

And the "moral" truth isn't a fact, its a matter of opinion. One person's morality may be different then another because they hold different values. One person's god may not be another's, as they may not believe in their god. And thus that makes the state of your god purely an opinion, as no god or higher entity has revealed themselves, provided evidence for themselves or even directly spoken for themselves: It has always been through "prophets" and "chosen ones" or "sons of god" throughout history. And we cannot take the accounts of an ever changing book as fact, especially one written by rather biased men who actively painted their enemies as demons in their history. Do I need to mention how Babylon and the Assyrians are mentioned in the Torah/Old Testament?

I don't think so. The thing is said holy book has so many different variations now that if you read different Jewish sects of the Torah or different Christian sect's and their version of the bible, there is differences between them. In some cases they may be subtle, slight: And then some are radically different.

Ideas change and evolve, and religions do change and evolve; but their base nature stays relatively the same. They do 'evolve' but that doesn't mean they are beneficial or progressive. They may have been at one time; but in this day and age I see them as an impediment and my reasoning and evidence is the horrible things I have witnessed fighting against it, and the catastrophes it has caused over the ages when it comes to genocide, inquisitions and the widespread persecution it induced.

To me, god does not exist because he shows absolutely no evidence of himself good or bad in this world. And if were relying on our fellow human beings to act as the voice and words of a god, then we are not worshipping god we are worshipping ourselves, and that's a recipe for disaster.

[Yitzi]

Could you please give us examples of this questioning in Judaism

The Talmud is primarily about questioning possible understandings of the Torah to try to figure out what's actually going on.

and how you can prove the Torah/Bible was not re-wrote constantly over time?

I cannot prove that it wasn't edited at all (though have faith that it wasn't), but if you can't prove that it was, then that leaves it as an open question from a rational perspective, so having faith in one side isn't that big a deal.

And the "moral" truth isn't a fact, its a matter of opinion. One person's morality may be different then another because they hold different values.

If so, what gives you the right to impose your moral truth (even if it's something like basic respect for other people) on others?

And thus that makes the state of your god purely an opinion, as no god or higher entity has revealed themselves, provided evidence for themselves or even directly spoken for themselves: It has always been through "prophets" and "chosen ones" or "sons of god" throughout history.

Even if true (which is itself unproven; there are two cases that I know of where a religion claims that a god revealed himself to everybody, not only a few "chosen ones", and one of those cases does not have all the people experiencing said revelation conveniently die shortly thereafter), that would make the state of any god unknown, not an opinion.  It would still be objectively true of false, we simply would have no way of knowing which.

And we cannot take the accounts of an ever changing book as fact, especially one written by rather biased men who actively painted their enemies as demons in their history. Do I need to mention how Babylon and the Assyrians are mentioned in the Torah/Old Testament?

As conquerers who were not very nice to the people they conquered?  I think that's borne out by objective history as well.

I don't think so. The thing is said holy book has so many different variations now that if you read different Jewish sects of the Torah or different Christian sect's and their version of the bible, there is differences between them. In some cases they may be subtle, slight: And then some are radically different.

If you consider only sort-of-mainstream Jewish groups (i.e. pretty much everyone except the Samaritans) you don't have substantial differences.

They may have been at one time; but in this day and age I see them as an impediment and my reasoning and evidence is the horrible things I have witnessed fighting against it, and the catastrophes it has caused over the ages when it comes to genocide, inquisitions and the widespread persecution it induced.

How many sects of how many religions have you actually fought against?  How many religions have caused genocide, inquisitions, or widespread persecution and have not changed, at least in the aspects that led to such behavior, since then?

[Green1]

What exactly is wrong with "feel good" positions? There is no way a rational person would just agree to belong to an organization of unquestionably strict rules that have no place in reality unless they had been programmed as kids to do it under fear of some sort of hell.

Also, what kind of book could really give "truth" about god? Just because a book or anything else is ancient does not make it correct. Particularly if it can not be questioned. I think things along that line should be up to the individual as long as that "truth" doesn't wind up being harmful to others.

[Rusty Edge]

The thing is, your religion may be truthful to you- but that doesn't mean its truthful to others.

Quite true!    Now as it happens, my fundamentalist Christian perspective has me believing that all Jews are "God's chosen people" according to the Word of God, and as such I view all of them something like Hindus view cattle -  sacred. At the same time I realize that to any objective person, the whole Jewish religion probably comes across about as arrogant  as aristocracy, nobility or royalty  - It's kind of an I'm-better-than-you-because-my-ancestors-were-better-than-your-ancestors-thing.

Regardless of what may or may not be true, the search for eternal and universal truth is what drew me to religion. These days, I don't feel that strongly about religion, so please don't ask me to argue it.

 

And I certainly don't agree to how Israelites are treating civilians on the Gaza strip, and how at points in recent history Muslims were gunned down on pure suspicion. It doesn't matter if the extremists are Jewish or Muslim or Christian, I do not think a religion has jurisdiction to do that sort of thing because quite frankly it does not apply to the real world.

I too, have issues with the State of Israel. As near as I can tell, a lot of people within that nation have political differences, even though Judaism is used as a cloak for political purposes. I think that is an entire tangent to a religious discussion, let alone one about American Christianity.

 

If a god is so weak and pitiful to ask of and rely on its followers to massacre and butcher people who don't believe in him, regardless if he exists or not he does not deserve to be worshiped in my eyes and he is a coward. That's just my personal opinion.

 

Actually, you very much sound like Gideon's father from The Book of Judges.  I thought he was rather wise. An Angel convinced Gideon to tear down his father's altar to Baal, and replace it with one for Jehovah. Gideon did this overnight.

The next day the outraged neighbors noticed, and came looking for Gideon and demanding his blood for insulting their god.  Gideon's father responded with - "Let Baal take care of himself!" You are the ones who are an insult to a god.

[Yitzi]

What exactly is wrong with "feel good" positions?

Nothing, unless they take the place of actual morality/ethics, intellectual integrity, or similar important things.

There is no way a rational person would just agree to belong to an organization of unquestionably strict rules that have no place in reality unless they had been programmed as kids to do it under fear of some sort of hell.

If said person knows that those rules have no place in reality, then even said programming will likely be ineffective on a rational person.

If said person thinks that said rules do have a place in reality, then that's why they'd belong even without programming.

Also, what kind of book could really give "truth" about god?

Could give truth about God?  Theoretically any sort, if it was right by random chance, but for a decent chance of being right you'd need something authored (at least in the sense of beginning a nonwritten tradition that eventually resulted in that book) by God.

Of course, to be rationally knowable that it gives truth about God would be somewhat harder...

I think things along that line should be up to the individual as long as that "truth" doesn't wind up being harmful to others.

Well, ideally everybody would believe in everything that is true and disbelieve in everything that is not true.  The tricky part is that we don't always have clear ways of knowing what's true.  And when you know something is true, but someone else doesn't and for whatever reason you can't prove it to them but can force them to act on it anyway...that's where things get really tricky really quickly.

Quite true!    Now as it happens, my fundamentalist Christian perspective has me believing that all Jews are "God's chosen people" according to the Word of God, and as such I view all of them something like Hindus view cattle -  sacred. At the same time I realize that to any objective person, the whole Jewish religion probably comes across about as arrogant  as aristocracy, nobility or royalty  - It's kind of an I'm-better-than-you-because-my-ancestors-were-better-than-your-ancestors-thing.

Not really, as it is something that anyone can join if they're willing to follow the rules...

But in any case, that's a question of what is believed true by a person, not what is "true to a person"; it is a property of belief, not of truth.

[Rusty Edge]

Quite true!    Now as it happens, my fundamentalist Christian perspective has me believing that all Jews are "God's chosen people" according to the Word of God, and as such I view all of them something like Hindus view cattle -  sacred. At the same time I realize that to any objective person, the whole Jewish religion probably comes across about as arrogant  as aristocracy, nobility or royalty  - It's kind of an I'm-better-than-you-because-my-ancestors-were-better-than-your-ancestors-thing.

Not really, as it is something that anyone can join if they're willing to follow the rules...

That's cool. I had no idea. I thought one could only marry in, and would still have lesser status, again, not unlike nobles. I stand corrected.
Could someone born outside the faith become a Rabbi ? Or would no-one much attend his or her  temple, practically speaking?

[Yitzi]

That's cool. I had no idea. I thought one could only marry in, and would still have lesser status, again, not unlike nobles.

No; in fact, joining for the sake of marriage is actually strongly discouraged.  (Joining at all is mildly discouraged, but that's really just that we don't want people joining unless they're really serious about it and know full well what they're getting into.)

As for lesser status, while there are a few authorities that believe converts to have lesser status than born Jews, they are clearly a minority, and in fact there are strong injunctions to be nice to converts.

There is a restriction that cohanim (members of the priestly caste) are not permitted to marry converts or people with no non-convert ancestry, but that's more a restriction on cohanim (who have other restrictions also) than on converts.

Could someone born outside the faith become a Rabbi ? Or would no-one much attend his or her  temple, practically speaking?

Properly speaking, they're called synagogues; the only proper temple in Judaism is the one in Jerusalem (not currently standing).

As for your question: Definitely.  Generally, if you're an observant Jew and know the material (and there's a lot of material to know), you can become a rabbi.  (You need to be recognized by an existing rabbi, but if you fulfill the other requirements that shouldn't be too hard.)  Being able to get hired by a synagogue (or found your own and get sufficient membership) is another issue entirely, which has the same uncertainties as any job, but being a convert should not be a problem.

[JarlWolf]

Proof that the bible and Torah was edited by other groups? The fact different sects exist of different religions with different words is proof enough.

As for the whole disciples argument... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_apocrypha

I am aware that is link to wikipedia- but the thing is, there is even a science article on this forum of old manuscripts and scrolls written of both Jewish records and of lost apostles of Jesus... I will have to look around for it, Dead Sea scrolls or some such..

The fact is religious texts differed even back then, were destroyed, omitted and distorted. If you compare a Catholic and a Protestant bible, there is distinct differences.

As for my morality to be imposed on others? I never stated my morality needs to be opposed on others. The only time I'd intervene with another society in my eyes is if they are committing genocide or harmful practices that endangers the stability of the region which in turn causes danger for me and other neighbours, is a direct threat to me, etc.

And even if I did want to: I am going off of fairly universally accepted moralities established by the UN humanitarian code and Geneva convention, as well as some regarding to my ideals. The former two are INTERNATIONAL LAW agreed upon by hundreds of nations. If that is not jurisdiction enough done by consensus of nations where many of these religions make home, then one is an extremist who is rogue.

As for myself, how many religious groups I've fought against, or have been alive to witness? I've known of militant christian extremists in Uganda and Congo; the Lords Resistance Army. I've known of Christian and Muslim deathsquads both of Bosnian civil war, where people killed each other in massive droves and swarms, the Croatian and Bosnian, and Serbian led genocides of each other using religion and ethnicity as their reasons.

Afghani Mujahideen who I have fought against personally, who persistently wiped out other rival Islamic sects and constantly gunned down Christian and Jewish minorities and did other things that frankly hurts me to talk about. It was that bad.

I've dealt with Christian missionaries while under the status of a POW in a South Vietnamese camp, who used to order us to be beaten and slapped if they deemed us out of order/sinning, and I witnessed them many times sexually harassing female prisoners and I wouldn't put it past those specific priests having done worse then that to some of the prisoners.

I've known men who fought against Israeli forces, and know full well that HAMAS and other fanatical Islamic groups are killing Israeli citizens as much as Israeli soldiers are butchering/butchered Palestinian civilians and people systematically at times.

And this is in the MODERN world. As in, the last 40 years... some of this stuff is still ongoing, may I mention ISIS in Syria? May I mention the LRA is still active and at large? How about all those Congolese Christian pogromists? Tribal religions in Africa, like in Sierra Leone at one point or Liberia who cannibalized people, wiped out villages and towns and butchered several thousands?

And if were going back to early 20th century, what about all the Orthodox Christians who killed Jews for being sinners and betrayers to Christ? Who killed Communists for being heathens? What of the residential schools and other religious institutions run by Christian churches who converted through brainwashing and torture or even killed young children in many European colonies? (and this was going on in nations such as Australia and Canada up until the late 90's, though the worst of it was prior 1960.)

Or how about the conflict between Protestant Christian and Catholics in Northern Ireland? Which is still tense and venturing into sections where you don't belong results in beatens so bad you bleed to death?
This is just in the last 40 year and last century. The amount of religious wars fought over the last thousands of years, hundreds even, is staggering. The Spanish Inquisition, the Noche Triste of the Aztecs, the Aztecs themselves on a monthly basis, the countless jihads and crusades against other religions and "heretics," the Hussite wars, the numerous Jewish revolts where they tried to kill all Roman sympathizers and their communities. The Martin Lutheran reformation itself brought years of warfare, especially in England where a theocracy under Oliver Cromwell and other puritans like himself reigned and stifled culture for years, imprisoning and torturing those who disagreed with the faith?

Too many to count, most wars in history have been caused or propagated/continued under the premise of religion.


As for Jews painting other groups outside their own as bad, what of the city of Jericho? A rather small walled town in reality that simply did not have the means to support nor want  to support such a large group of nomads and play host to them, and tried to defend itself and its families? Marching around the "sinners" walls 3 days and 3 nights, beating drums to terrify them and then rushing in to slaughter them all? Are they sinners because they fought against the chosen people? Archeological records and skeletons prove that the city of Jericho was exterminated by the invading Israelites, and the local populaces enslaved. Even your own Torah/Bible indicates this.

Just some fuel to the fire... you asked for instances of genocide, harm and other things:
Note, just providing information on my end. I am not angry mind, I just find it curious that one has to even ask these days that religion is such a huge cause of conflict.

[Buster's Uncle]

South Vietnam?

Have you been in any "clean" conflicts?