Collateral damage

According to Exbrainer:

***QUOTE***

Similarly, Steve justifies these actions because he believes that God is not "exacting judgment on the sins of each individual victim," but rather is engaging in an "indiscriminate" holy war.

First, this seems odd given the fact that God specifically orders his soldiers to target these non-combatants, so they are not merely "collateral damage."

Second, this seems not to provide any answer at all because it simply begs the question, "Well, is it okay to order any indiscriminant war?"

http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2006/08/exbeliever-on-problems-of-evil-part-i.html#comments

***END-QUOTE***

Exbrainer has a problem following an argument. I didn’t draw that distinction to justify God’s action. I never said that.

Rather, I simply drew that distinction because Exbrainer failed to draw that distinction himself. He is reading too much into the command. Drawing inferences beyond the content of the command.

It would be entirely just of God to order total war with the intention of exacting judgment on every victim, since every victim is complicit in sin—either original or actual.

Exbrainer is confusing ethics with exegesis. I take an interest in accurate exegesis irrespective of whether it “begs the question” or not.

Of course, I never classified the pagan noncombatants as collateral damage.

And even if I had, I’ve also clarified what is meant by collateral damage.