bookmark_borderThe Slaughter of the Canaanites – Principles of Justice

Clay Jones argues that Jehovah commanded the Israelites to slaughter the Canaanites (men, women, and children), but that this command and the obedience of the Israelites to the command was morally justified because the Canaanites deserved the death penalty for various serious crimes or sins which were violations of the laws of Jehovah (see his article “Killing the Canaanites”). Jones provides a list of the crimes or sins allegedly committed by the Canaanites which were (supposedly) deserving of the death penalty: idolatry, incest, adultery, child sacrifice, homosexuality, and bestiality.
I have argued for sixty different objections against Clay Jones’s moral justification of Jehovah’s command to the Israelites to slaughter the Canaanites (men, women, and children).  You can read a summary of those sixty objections in a previous post.
Even that summary, however, is a bit long for most people to read through, so I’m going to boil my objections down further here, with a focus on the principles of justice that Jehovah violated (or that Jehovah encouraged the Israelites to violate), based on Clay Jones’s “defense” of Jehovah’s command to slaughter the Canaanites (men, women, and children).
If one becomes familiarized with the following twenty-one principles of justice, one can generate most of the sixty objections that I came up with, just by closely examining the laws of Jehovah (found in the following books ascribed to Moses: Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy) that relate to the list of alleged sins or crimes of the Canaanites that Clay Jones uses as a justification for the slaughter of the Canaanites (men, women, and children).

Principles of Justice Involved in Objections 1-20:

(POJ1) It is unjust to severely punish a person (for a sin or crime) who is not capable of understanding the difference between right and wrong.

(POJ2) It is unjust to punish a child for the sins or crimes of their parents (or other adults).

(POJ3) It is unjust to severely punish a person (for a sin or crime) who is not capable of fully understanding the difference between right and wrong or fully understanding the negative consequences of their wrong actions.

(POJ4) It is unjust to impose the death penalty for a sin or crime that is significantly less serious than the sin or crime of premeditated murder.

(POJ5)  It is unjust to impose a more severe punishment on a particular sin or crime than the punishment that one imposes for greater sins or crimes.

(POJ6) It is unjust to impose a severe punishment on a person on the basis of an alleged “law” which has not been published and clearly communicated to the people in the area in which that person lives.

(POJ7) It is unjust to impose the death penalty on a person for allegedly committing a sin or crime without first charging that person with a particular sin or crime and having a public trial to determine whether that person is in fact guilty of that sin or crime.

(POJ8) It is unjust to impose the death penalty on a person for allegedly committing a particular sin or crime without first providing powerful evidence (to a judge or jury) that shows beyond a reasonable doubt that this person is in fact guilty of that sin or crime.

Principles of Justice Involved in Objections 21-28:

(POJ9) When one tribe or nation has settled in a certain geographic area and has been living on that land for a century (or for a number of centuries), it is unjust for another tribe or nation to take that land away from the tribe or nation that had previously settled there. 

(POJ10) It is unjust to wage a war of aggression for the purpose of expanding the territory or dominion of one tribe or nation.

(POJ11)  It is unjust to distribute serious punishments (such as the death penalty) to people for certain crimes based on their geographic location.  

This is also the basis for a powerful objection to the death penalty in the U.S.   Different states have widely divergent policies and practices concerning the death penalty.  In some states there is no death penalty at all; in some states the death penalty is used only rarely; and in other states the death penalty is used quite often:

  • GEOGRAPHIC ARBITRARINESS: Since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976, 82% of all executions have taken place in the South. The Northeast accounts for less than 1% of executions.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-and-arbitrariness

(POJ12) It is unjust to distribute serious punishments (such as the death penalty) for certain crimes to people based on their racial or ethnic group.  

This is also the basis for a powerful objection to the death penalty in the U.S. :

  • A report sponsored by the American Bar Association in 2007 concluded that one-third of African-American death row inmates in Philadelphia would have received sentences of life imprisonment if they had not been African-American.
  • A 2007 study of death sentences in Connecticut conducted by Yale University School of Law revealed that African-American defendants receive the death penalty at three times the rate of white defendants in cases where the victims are white. 

http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-and-race
(POJ13) It is unjust to punish some people with the death penalty for certain sins or crimes when one does NOT apply the same severe punishment to certain other people whom one likes or favors.

(POJ14) It is unjust to impose the death penalty on women for violation of a law that is clearly sexist and biased against women (e.g. where men are excluded from having to follow the law or are excluded from receiving the death penalty for violating the law, or are given some other advantage over women in the law concerning violations of that law).

(POJ15)  It is unjust for a person accused of a capital crime to be condemned to death by a judge or jury who have an obvious and significant vested interest in the accused person being found to be guilty.

(POJ16) It is unjust to encourage a tribe or nation to engage in SOCIOCENTRIC thinking, blaming the victim, and dehumanizing the enemy, and to fail to try to discourage such thinking by a tribe or nation when one has a close connection to that tribe or nation (and thus the potential to influence the thinking of people in that tribe or nation).

Principles of Justice Involved in Objections 29-60:

Most of the remaining objections are based on principles of justice that derive from the legal concept of “Void for Vagueness”.  But there are a few exceptions.  So, I will first specify the principles of justice that are involved in the exceptions, and then will specify the principles of justice that derive from “Void for Vagueness”.
Objections 39 and 45 are based on (POJ14).
Objection 41 is based on a similar principle, but where the sexism in the law is a bias against men:
(POJ17) It is unjust to impose the death penalty on men for violation of a law that is clearly sexist and biased against men (e.g. where women are excluded from having to follow the law or are excluded from receiving the death penalty for violating the law, or are given some other advantage over men in the law concerning violations of that law).
Objection 50 is based on this principle:
(POJ18)  It is unjust to engage in child sacrifice as a means for punishing the sin or crime of child sacrifice.
Objection 51 is based on (POJ13).
VOID FOR VAGUENESS
The twenty-seven remaining objections are all based on few principles of justice that derive from the legal concept of “Void for Vagueness”.  See the Wikipedia article called Vagueness Doctrine.
(POJ19)  It is unjust to inflict a punishment on a person for violating a law, when that law does not clearly specify that punishment as an appropriate one for violation of that law.
NOTE: It is a GREAT injustice to impose a SEVERE punishment (such as the death penalty) on a person for violating a law, when that law does not clearly specify that severe punishment (e.g. the death penalty) as an appropriate one for violation of that law.
(POJ20) It is unjust to punish a person for violation of a law, when that law does not clearly specify what conduct constitutes a violation of that law.

NOTE: It is a GREAT injustice to impose a SEVERE punishment (such as the death penalty) on a person for violating a law, when that law does not clearly specify what conduct constitutes a violation of that law.

(POJ21) It is unjust to punish a person for violation of a law, when that law does not clearly specify the scope of people to whom that law applies.

NOTE: It is a GREAT injustice to impose a SEVERE punishment (such as the death penalty) on a person for violating a law, when that law does not clearly specify the scope of people to whom that law applies.  It is also a GREAT injustice to impose a SEVERE punishment (such as the death penalty) on a person for violating a law, when the law appears to specify the scope of people to whom that law applies, and the person in question falls outside of that scope.

bookmark_borderThe Slaughter of the Canaanites – Part 10

Clay Jones argues that Jehovah commanded the Israelites to slaughter the Canaanites (men, women, and children), but that this command and the obedience of the Israelites to the command was morally justified because the Canaanites deserved the death penalty for various serious crimes or sins which were violations of the laws of Jehovah (see his article “Killing the Canaanites”). Jones provides a list of the crimes or sins allegedly committed by the Canaanites which were (supposedly) deserving of the death penalty: idolatry, incest, adultery, child sacrifice, homosexuality, and bestiality.
The Sin or Crime of Child Sacrifice
Of the six sins or crimes that Clay Jones lists as moral justifications for Jehovah’s command to slaughter the Canaanites (men, women, and children), this is the ONLY sin or crime that seems to be deserving of the death penalty.  None of the other five sins/crimes is serious enough to warrant killing the persons who perform them.  In fact, the very idea that Jehovah demanded the death penalty for the other five sins/crimes argues for the conclusion that JEHOVAH IS UNJUST, so in pointing to  those five sins/crimes as moral justification of  the slaughter of the Canaanites, Jones simply adds fuel to the fire that he was trying to put out.
But child sacrifice seems to be a more serious matter than incest, adultery, or homosexual sex.  At the least, child sacrifice involves the murder of a child, which is a terrible sin or crime.  We cannot help but feel agreement with the sentiment that such a sin or crime is a PERVERSION, because parents are supposed to love and cherish their children and to protect their children from harm and injury.  So, when a parent harms their own child or kills their own child, we view that as being the very opposite of what should happen, the very opposite of what is NORMAL, so to speak.
Although it is right and proper to be appalled at the idea of parents harming or killing their own children, we also need to remember that this is all too common an event in this world, even here in the U.S.A.  where Christianity has been the dominant religion for over two centuries:

  • In 2013 there were about 679,000 children who were victims of child abuse or neglect in the U.S.A.
  • About 122,000 of those children were subjected to physical abuse
  • About 61,000 of those children were subjected to sexual abuse
  • An estimated 1,520 children died in 2013 as a result of abuse and neglect in the U.S.A. 

(see report: Child Maltreatment 2013 ,p.ii)
So, before we start throwing stones at the Canaanites who lived a thousand years before the birth of Jesus, we ought to pause and reflect on the actual behavior of the population of our (largely) Christian nation now, more than two thousand years after the birth of Jesus.
The most obvious bit of hypocrisy in appealing to the charge of “child sacrifice” as a justification for the slaughter of the Canaanites (men, women, and children) is that this is a justification of the slaughter of children, and it also clearly has a religious foundation: the command to slaughter the children supposedly comes from Jehovah, the god of the Israelites.
Jehovah was supposedly angry and fed up with the Canaanites, so the slaughter of the Canaanites by the Israelites would, presumably, help ease the anger of a deity (i.e. Jehovah), and would also, presumably, help to obtain the favor and assistance of that deity (i.e. Jehovah), which is exactly what the religious ritual of “child sacrifice” was intended to accomplish.  So, what we have in Jehovah’s command to slaughter the Canaanites (men, women, and children) can reasonably be viewed as the command to perform human sacrifices on a MASSIVE scale, including the sacrifice of hundreds or thousands of children:
50. If Jehovah commanded the slaughter of the Canaanites (men, women, and children) in part as punishment for the sin or crime of “child sacrifice”, then JEHOVAH IS UNJUST, because Jehovah was in effect commanding the Israelites to engage in acts of child sacrifice on a massive scale to punish acts of child sacrifice.
The hypocrisy of Jehovah is not limited to commanding child sacrifice as the punishment for the evil of child sacrifice.  We view child sacrifice as evil, because we care about the rights and needs of children, but there is no good reason to believe that Jehovah shares our values and concerns about the welfare of children.
For one thing, Jehovah commanded that the death penalty be used against children, when children were disrespectful of their parents:

Exodus 21:17 New American Standard Bible
17 “He who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.

Leviticus 20:9 New American Standard Bible
9 ‘If there is anyone who curses his father or his mother, he shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother, his bloodguiltiness is upon him.
Jehovah commanded that the death penalty be used on “stubborn and rebellious” sons who are disobedient to their parents:

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 New American Standard Bible
18 “If any man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father or his mother, and when they chastise him, he will not even listen to them,
19 then his father and mother shall seize him, and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gateway of his hometown.
20 They shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard.’
21 Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death; so you shall remove the evil from your midst, and all Israel will hear of it and fear.

Jehovah authorized the death penalty for children who strike their parents:

Exodus 21:15 New American Standard Bible
15 “He who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.
The laws of Jehovah demand the death of a child who curses his/her parents, or who strikes his/her parents, and the laws of Jehovah demand the death of a son who is rebellious and disobedient towards his parents, so we can reasonably conclude that Jehovah was NOT deeply concerned about the welfare of children.
Furthermore, as we saw in previous posts, the laws of Jehovah treat women as property of men, and specifically they treat daughters as property of their fathers.  Thus, in the laws of Jehovah there is no prohibition or punishment for a father having sex with his own daughter  (see Leviticus chapters 18 and 20).
Also, if a young girl is violently raped by an adult man, the punishment was a fine (not the death penalty), which was not to compensate the girl, but to compensate her father for the damage to his property, since he could no longer obtain the full bride price for his daughter given that she was now “damaged goods” (see Deuteronomy 22:28-29), as indicated in this commentary on Deuteronomy 22:
Adultery and rape are seen as offenses against the husband or father of the woman involved.  There seems to be no concern for rape as a crime of violence against the woman herself in these laws.
[…]
…If the raped woman is not married or betrothed (vv.28-29), the matter is less serious, a clear indication that rape was viewed as a crime against the victim’s husband.  In this case it is a crime against her father, and he is compensated for the loss of her bride price (cf. Exod. 22:16-17).       (HarperCollins Bible Commentary, Revised Edition, p.207)
The laws of Jehovah also recognize that Israelite fathers have the right to sell their daughters into slavery:
Exodus 21:2 & 7-8 New American Standard Bible (emphasis added)
2 “If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment.
[…]
7 “If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do.
8 If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He does not have authority to sell her to a foreign people because of his unfairness to her.
The passage begins with a discussion about rules concerning male Hebrew slaves, that is male Israelites who become slaves, and then goes on to discuss daughters who are sold as slaves by their fathers.  These daughters are clearly female Israelites, not only because the passage begins with talking about male Israelite slaves, but also because there is a prohibition of selling such a female slave “to a foreign people” meaning selling her to some people other than Israelites.  This prohibition makes no sense unless the female slave in question was herself an Israelite. Thus, this passage recognizes the right of an Israelite father to sell his own daughter into slavery.
It is clear that as far as children are concerned, Jehovah was NOT very concerned about their welfare.  The laws of Jehovah show that the motivation behind the prohibition of child sacrifice was NOT a deep concern for the rights and needs of children.
In Leviticus Chapters 18 and 20, we find a prohibition against offering one’s children to the god Molech:
Leviticus 18:21 New American Standard Bible
21 You shall not give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am the Lord.
Leviticus 20:1-2 New American Standard Bible (emphasis added)
1 Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying,
2 “You shall also say to the sons of Israel:
‘Any man from the sons of Israel or from the aliens sojourning in Israel who gives any of his offspring to Molech, shall surely be put to death; the people of the land shall stone him with stones.
One further bit of hypocrisy from Jehovah on this matter is that he himself appears to have demanded child sacrifice:
Exodus 13:1-2 New American Standard Bible
1 Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying,
2 “Sanctify to Me every firstborn, the first offspring of every womb among the sons of Israel, both of man and beast; it belongs to Me.”
Exodus 22:29 New American Standard Bible
29 “You shall not delay the offering from your harvest and your vintage. The firstborn of your sons you shall give to Me.
These passages from Exodus might well reflect an Israelite practice of child sacrifice to Jehovah/Yahweh, as argued in the article on “Molech” in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (emphasis added):
Human sacrifice as more generally referred to in the phrase, “the one who makes his son or daughter pass through the fire,” is frequently and exclusively attributed to Canaanite origins by some biblical writers (e.g. Deut. 12:31).  Nonetheless, some form of human sacrifice was apparently part of the Yahwistic cult in preexilic (and perhaps exilic) times. …The “sacrifice of the firstborn to Yahweh” and the Molech sacrifice were probably closely related, if not one and the same cult.  Although the former required that the firstborn sons be sacrificed to Yahweh while the latter listed as sacrifices children generally (of both sexes), the fact that daughters could legally substitute for sons as firstborn heirs favors the equation of these two cults (cf. Num. 27:1-8 and the texts from Emar and Nuzi regarding the legal substitution of daughters for sons within the context of inheritance)….Therefore, texts that refer to the sacrifice of the firstborn to Yahweh (e.g. Gen. 22:1-14; Exod. 13:2, 12-13, 15; Mic. 6:6-7) can be related to the Molech cult.  Molech’s associations with Baal (rather than Yahweh) in biblical traditions (cf. Jer. 2:23; 19:5; 32:35) are more likely part of the inventive Deuteronomistic rhetorical polemic to “Canaanize” what was formerly a non-Deuteronomistic, but Yahwistic, Israelite practice of human sacrifice.
As added confirmation of the endurance and pervasiveness of the practice, Ezekiel implies that Yahweh had commanded the Israelites to participate in the sacrifice of their firstborn (Ezek. 20:25-26), but qualifies this law as a form of punishment.  Similarly, Exod. 22:29-30 (MT 28-29) comprises an unqualified demand to make the firstborn sacrifice to Yahweh; the option to redeem the firstborn is not offered here as in later Priestly texts.  In the light of Jeremiah’s condemnation of the practice and Ezekiel’s recognition that Yahweh had once condoned the ritual killing of humans, it is self-evident that for many it was an acceptable form of Yahweh worship. …
In a series of mini-debates captured in the book God or Godless?, the atheist John Loftus argues with the Christian theologian Randal Rauser over various issues and objections concerning atheism vs. Christianity.  In addition to the above article on “Molech” from Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, see Chapter 4 of God or Godless?, where Loftus argues that “Child sacrifice was commanded of the Israelites by Yahweh…” (God or Godless?, p.37).
So, a case can be made that the worship of Jehovah originally included “child sacrifice” and that the claim that this practice was merely a temptation for Israelites introduced by the wicked Canaanites, might well be propaganda covering up the embarrassing truth that Israelite worship of Jehovah/Yahweh had included child sacrifice from ancient times:
The lack of extrabiblical confirmation for the existence of a specifically chthonic or netherworld aspect of a deity M-l-k and for his status as patron of a cult of human sacrifice ought to elicit caution as regards a straightforward historical reading of the biblical portrayal of the Molech cult.  Moreover, tensions evident in the biblical traditions regarding the nature and extent of human sacrifice suggests another instance wherein Deuteronomistic history employed a strategy of rhetorical polemic.  By artificially attributing to Molech patronage over the cult of human sacrifice, the Deuteronomists sought to distance the practice from its origins in the Yahweh cult altogether.  The rhetorical character of the Deuteronomistic portrayal finds its clearest confirmation in the fact that non-Deuteronomistic (and non-Priestly) biblical traditions do not distance human sacrifice from the cult of Yahweh (cf. texts preserving the sacrifice of the firstborn).  (Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, “Molech”, p.913)
Given that there is significant evidence indicating that the Israelites had a history of worshiping Jehovah by means of child sacrifice prior to engaging in the slaughter of the Canaanites, there is a problem of the bias of favoritism in employing the death penalty on a massive scale against the Canaanites:
51.  If Jehovah commanded the Israelites to slaughter thousands of Canaanites in part as the death penalty for the sin or crime of “child sacrifice”, then JEHOVAH IS UNJUST, because it is unjust to show favoritism towards the Israelites by ignoring (or even promoting) “child sacrifice” among the Israelites, but then commanding the mass slaughter of other tribes or peoples for engaging in the same sort of activity.
Jehovah appears to have used a double-standard in relation to use of the death penalty for the sin or crime of “child sacrifice”.
In order to be JUST, the laws of Jehovah concerning the sin or crime of “child sacrifice” need to meet the following basic requirements:
R1. The laws of Jehovah must clearly indicate who falls under the scope of the law concerning “child sacrifice”.
R2. The laws of Jehovah must state explicitly and definitely what conduct  constitutes a violation of the laws concerning “child sacrifice” and that such conduct is prohibited.
R3. The laws of Jehovah must clearly indicate what punishment may be imposed for the sin or crime of  engaging in “child sacrifice”.
First of all, as with most of the other sins or crimes in Clay Jones’s list, the phrase “child sacrifice” never occurs in the laws of Jehovah (I checked every instance of the words “child” and “children” in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy in both NASB and NRSV translations).  Strictly speaking, the laws of Jehovah do NOT prohibit “child sacrifice” because they never once mention “child sacrifice”:
52. If Jehovah commanded the slaughter of many Canaanites as the death penalty for violating a prohibition against “child sacrifice”, then JEHOVAH IS UNJUST, because there is no explicit prohibition of the practice of “child sacrifice” in the laws of Jehovah.
However, there are passages in the laws of Jehovah that have been interpreted to be talking about “child sacrifice”.  Two of those passages were already quoted above (Leviticus 18:21 and 20:1-2).  Those passages do not prohibit “child sacrifice” in general, they prohibit you from giving “any of your offspring to offer them to Molech”.  There is no description or explanation of what is meant by “X offers some of X’s offspring to Molech”.
Killing a son or daughter as a ritual sacrifice to the god Molech would seem to count as offering some of one’s offspring to Molech, but there are other ways to give offspring to a god as well.  One might dedicate a son or daughter to become a priest of the god Molech.  One might volunteer a son or daughter to serve in the temple of Molech for a month or for a year.  One might command one’s son or daughter to work on some project that is believed to further the plans or the will of the god Molech (perhaps doing missionary work to promote belief in, and devotion to, Molech).  So, these laws of Jehovah found in Leviticus are VAGUE and UNCLEAR and thus fail to satisfy (R2):
53. If Jehovah commanded the slaughter of many Canaanites as capital punishment for violation of the prohibition against giving a son or daughter to the god Molech (i.e. Leviticus 20:2), then JEHOVAH IS UNJUST, because this law should be Void for Vagueness (the law fails to clearly specify the conduct that is prohibited).
Furthermore, Molech was just one particular god, so even if we interpret Leviticus 18:21 and 20:2 to mean that “child sacrifice” for Molech is prohibited, this does not rule out making a “child sacrifice” for some OTHER god.   These laws are also are too narrow to outlaw “child sacrifice” in general.
Finally, as I have argued previously, the prohibitions in Leviticus Chapters 18 and 20 are clearly aimed at “the sons of Israel,” at the men of the nation of Israel.  So, the laws in those Chapters satisfy (R1), but the Canaanites are NOT included in the scope of those laws:
54. If Jehovah commanded the slaughter of many Canaanites as capital punishment for violation of the prohibition against giving a son or daughter to the god Molech (i.e. Leviticus 20:2), then JEHOVAH IS UNJUST, because the scope of this law is limited to the men of the nation of Israel, and does NOT include the Canaanites.
However, there are other books with laws of Jehovah that provide somewhat different prohibitions related to “child sacrifice”.  In Exodus there is a prohibition against sacrificing ANYTHING to a god other than Jehovah:
Exodus 22:20 American Standard Version
20 He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto Jehovah only, shall be utterly destroyed.
But the expression “shall be utterly destroyed” does NOT mean “shall be punished by the death penalty”.  This might well simply be a threat by God that such a person will face God’s wrath or some calamity caused by God, so there is no clear punishment assigned to this general prohibition.  Also, Exodus 22 has the same scope as the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20, which is “the sons of Israel” meaning the men of the nation of Israel. So, this prohibition does NOT apply to the Canaanites.
That Exodus 22:20 is addressed to the same audience as the Ten Commandments, namely to the men of Israel, is clear from the fact that Exodus 22:20 is part of a section of laws that starts at the beginning of Chapter 21:
 Exodus 21:1 New American Standard Bible
1 “Now these are the ordinances which you are to set before them:
The referents of the pronouns “you” and “them” must be sought in the previous chapter, namely Chapter 20:
Exodus 20:22 New American Standard Bible
22 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘You yourselves have seen that I have spoken to you from heaven.
So we see that the pronoun “you” in Exodus 21:1 refers to “Moses”, and the pronoun “them” in Exodus 21:1 refers to “the sons of Israel”, and not to the Canaanites. 
In Deuteronomy, there is a prohibition against burning a son or daughter “in the fire to” Jehovah.  But it is not clear what this expression means, and there is no description or explanation of what burning someone “in the fire to” Jehovah involves.
Deuteronomy 12:30-31 New American Standard Bible (emphasis added)
30 beware that you are not ensnared to follow them, after they are destroyed before you, and that you do not inquire after their gods, saying, ‘How do these nations serve their gods, that I also may do likewise?’
31 You shall not behave thus toward the Lord your God, for every abominable act which the Lord hates they have done for their gods; for they even burn their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods.
The conduct that is prohibited is NOT clearly specified, so this law fails to meet requirement (R2):
55. If Jehovah commanded that many Canaanites be slaughtered as the death penalty for “burning their sons and daughters in the fire” to Jehovah in violation of Deuteronomy 12:31, then JEHOVAH IS UNJUST, because this law in Deuteronomy 12:31 should be Void for Vagueness (because it fails to clearly specify the conduct that is prohibited).
The law is clearly addressed to the Israelites, which implies that the Canaanites are not under the scope of this law.  Also, since this prohibition concerns how Jehovah should be worshiped, this does NOT apply to the Canaanites, who worshiped OTHER gods, not Jehovah:
56. If Jehovah commanded that many Canaanites be slaughtered as the death penalty for “burning their sons and daughters in the fire” to Jehovah in violation of Deuteronomy 12:31, then JEHOVAH IS UNJUST, because this law in Deuteronomy 12:31 clearly applies only to the Israelites and not to the Canaanites (since the law is clearly addressed to the Israelites).
Finally, this prohibition does not indicate what sort of punishment, if any, may be given to someone for a violation of the prohibition, thus it fails to satisfy requirement (R3):
57. If Jehovah commanded that many Canaanites be slaughtered as the death penalty for “burning their sons and daughters in the fire” to Jehovah in violation of Deuteronomy 12:31, then JEHOVAH IS UNJUST, because this law in Deuteronomy 12:31 does NOT clearly state that the death penalty is to be the punishment for this sin or crime.
There is a similar prohibition later in Deuteronomy against making one’s son or daughter “pass through the fire”:
Deuteronomy 18:9-11 New American Standard Bible
9 “When you enter the land which the Lord your God gives you, you shall not learn to imitate the detestable things of those nations.
10 There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer,
11 or one who casts a spell, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead.
There is no description or explanation of what making someone “pass through the fire” means.  Thus, the prohibition in Deuteronomy  18:10 is VAGUE and UNCLEAR and fails to satisfy requirement (R2) for a just law:
58. If Jehovah commanded that many Canaanites be slaughtered as the death penalty for “making his son or daughters pass through the fire” in violation of Deuteronomy 18:10, then JEHOVAH IS UNJUST, because this law in Deuteronomy 18:10 should be Void for Vagueness (because it fails to clearly specify the conduct that is prohibited).
Based on the content of verse 9, it is clear that this law is being addressed to the Israelites,  (“When you enter the land which the Lord God gives you…”), and not to the Canaanites.  So, although the law satisfies requirement (R1), it does NOT apply to the Canaanites:
59. If Jehovah commanded that many Canaanites be slaughtered as the death penalty for “making his son or daughters pass through the fire” in violation of Deuteronomy 18:10, then JEHOVAH IS UNJUST, because this law in Deuteronomy 18:10 clearly applies only to the Israelites and not to the Canaanites (since the law is clearly addressed to the Israelites).
Finally, this prohibition does not indicate what sort of punishment, if any, may be given to someone for a violation of the prohibition, thus it fails to satisfy requirement (R3):
60. If Jehovah commanded that many Canaanites be slaughtered as the death penalty for “making his son or daughters pass through the fire” in violation of Deuteronomy 18:10, then JEHOVAH IS UNJUST, because this law in Deuteronomy 18:10 does NOT clearly state that the death penalty is to be the punishment for this sin or crime.
As far as I can tell, the laws of Jehovah do not include ANY JUST LAWS that could provide a reasonable basis for employing the death penalty against Canaanites for “child sacrifice” of any sort.  The laws of Jehovah on this matter are VAGUE and UNCLEAR, and their scope is limited to the men of Israel, and most of the relevant laws do NOT clearly specify the death penalty as the appropriate punishment.

bookmark_borderThe Slaughter of the Canaanites – Part 9

Clay Jones argues that Jehovah commanded the Israelites to slaughter the Canaanites (men, women, and children), but that this command and the obedience of the Israelites to the command was morally justified because the Canaanites deserved the death penalty for various serious crimes or sins which were violations of the laws of Jehovah (see his article “Killing the Canaanites”). Jones provides a list of the crimes or sins allegedly committed by the Canaanites which were (supposedly) deserving of the death penalty: idolatry, incest, adultery, child sacrifice, homosexuality, and bestiality.
The Sin or Crime of Bestiality
The word “bestiality” does not occur anywhere in the Bible.  Thus, the word “bestiality” does not occur anywhere in the laws of Jehovah.  Thus, there is no explicit prohibition of “bestiality” in the laws of Jehovah.  However, we can compare the meaning of “bestiality” in ordinary English language, and then review the laws of Jehovah to see whether some actions are prohibited which would fall under the meaning of the word “bestiality”:
sex between a person and an animal
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bestiality)
There are verses in Leviticus that prohibit such sexual activity:
Leviticus 18:23 New American Standard Bible
23 Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion.
Leviticus 20:15-16 New American Standard Bible
15 If there is a man who lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death; you shall also kill the animal.
16 If there is a woman who approaches any animal to mate with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.
It appears that there is a bit of a double-standard here, in terms of men vs. women.  Men are to be put to death for having sex with an animal, but women are to be put to death merely for attempting to have sex with an animal (“approaches any animal to mate with it”).  This is SEXIST and unfair to women:
45. If Jehovah commanded that many Canaanite men and women be killed as the death penalty for violating the prohibitions in Leviticus concerning sex with animals, then JEHOVAH IS UNJUST, because it is unjust to execute men only for actually having sex with an animal,  while executing women for merely attempting to have sex with an animal.
In a previous post, I argued that the sin or crime of beastiality was not deserving of the death penalty:
17. If Jehovah commanded the killing of the Canaanites as punishment for the sin or crime of beastiality (i.e. sex between a human and a non-human animal), then JEHOVAH IS UNJUST, because the sin or crime of beastiality is NOT deserving of the death penalty.
Why should we have a law against having sex with an animal?  One concern might be for public health – sex with animals could result in transmission of new sexually transmitted diseases, especially from animals to humans (but also from humans to animals).  Another concern might be for the well-being of animals.  A non-human animal might be caused to suffer or might be physically injured by having sex with a human.  Even if an animal enjoys having sex with a human, this could be viewed as a sort of “rape” of the animal by the human, because a non-human animal is no more capable of giving consent to sex than is a baby or a young child.
But none of these reasons seem strong enough to warrant the death penalty, especially in view of the fact that the laws of Jehovah allow an adult man to violently rape a young girl without imposing the death penalty for that sin or crime.  So, even the violent “rape” of a non-human animal (which seems like the worst sort of case of having sex with an animal) cannot be justly punished with the death penalty by Jehovah’s laws, because that would mean treating the violent rape of a young girl by an adult man as something that is LESS SERIOUS than the violent “rape” of an animal by an adult man.
Furthermore, there are MANY different ways to injure or cause pain and suffering to animals.  Factory farming, for example, causes injuries and pain and suffering to millions of animals each year, but we have no laws that impose the death penalty on humans for such practices.  Some sadistic humans take pleasure in beating and abusing and even torturing animals.  Although we sometimes send people to prison for animal abuse, we don’t execute people for such crimes.  If it was the suffering and abuse of the animal that was the moral justification for prohibition of sex with animals, then Jehovah’s laws clearly miss the mark, because they fail to deal with the vast array of non-sexual ways in which humans cause animals to suffer.
Furthermore, it is clear that the laws of Jehovah concerning sex with animals are not based on a concern for the animals involved, because the laws command not only that the human involved be executed, but that the animal involved also be killed.  If the purpose of these laws was to protect animals from injury, suffering, and harm, then it makes no sense to kill the victim of the crime!
If sex with animals is considered to be wrong because non-human animals are incapable of giving consent to having sex, so that sex with an animal is a form of “rape”, then we should note that this justification is problematic.  If we want to prevent animals from having non-consensual sex, and if non-human animals CANNOT give consent (because like children they are unable to give consent) to having sex, then we have an obligation to prevent any and every non-human animal from ever having sex with any other animal (human or non-human).   According to this logic, ALL sexual intercourse by non-human animals would be considered to be “rape”.  Since we do allow non-human animals to have sex, even though they are not capable of giving consent to having sex, it is logically inconsistent to equate having sex with an animal with the sin or crime of RAPE.
We should be concerned about the possibility of sexually transmitted diseases being passed from animals to humans, but we should ALSO be concerned about non-sexually transmitted diseases being passed from animals to humans, and we allow all sorts of close interactions of a non-sexual nature between humans and animals, and those close non-sexual interactions ALSO have the potential to foster the transmission of diseases from animals to humans.  Apart from doing significant scientific investigation/study, it is not clear that sexually transmitted diseases that arise from humans having sex with animals is a greater health risk than diseases that arise from non-sexual interactions between humans and animals.  Even if sex with animals does present a greater health risk than non-sexual interactions with animals, it is far from clear that the difference is more than just a matter of degree.
I believe it is a good thing to prohibit humans from having sex with animals, but I do not see any reasonable justification for making such activity into a capital crime; sex with animals is NOT deserving of the death penalty.
In order to be JUST, the laws of Jehovah concerning sex with animals need to meet the following basic requirements:
R1. The laws of Jehovah must clearly indicate who falls under the scope of the law concerning sex with animals.
R2. The laws of Jehovah must state explicitly and definitely what conduct  constitutes a violation of the laws concerning sex with animals and that such conduct is prohibited.
R3. The laws of Jehovah must clearly indicate what punishment may be imposed for the sin or crime of  violating prohibitions concerning sex with animals.
Although the laws of Jehovah appear to give a clear indication of the SCOPE of the prohibitions concerning sex with animals, as I have argued concerning other prohibitions, the SCOPE is  the nation of Israel and does NOT include the Canaanites:
Leviticus 18:23 New American Standard Bible (emphasis added)
23 Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion.
Since the pronoun “you” in this verse clearly refers back to the phrase “the sons of Israel” found at the beginning of Chapter 18 of Leviticus, the first prohibition against having sex with animals applies only to “the sons of Israel” (i.e. the men of the nation Israel).  The phrase “any woman” should be interpreted in keeping with the interpretation of the pronoun “you”, so “any woman” in this context clearly means: any Israelite woman.  It would be absurd and illogical to limit the scope of the first prohibition to Israelite men, but to hugely expand the scope of the second prohibition to include every woman in every nation.  So, the prohibitions concerning sex with animals satisfy (R1), but since the scope is limited to Israelites, it would be unjust to apply the death penalty to Canaanites for violations of these laws:
46. If Jehovah commanded the slaughter of many Canaanites as the death penalty for violating Jehovah’s laws concerning sex with animals, then JEHOVAH IS UNJUST, because it is unjust to impose a severe punishment on people on the basis of laws which clearly appear to exclude those people from the scope of those laws.
What about the second basic requirement for a just law?  Do the laws of Jehovah state explicitly and definitely what conduct  constitutes a violation of the laws concerning sex with animals (R2)? I will argue that they are VAGUE and UNCLEAR as to what specific sexual activities constitute a violation of the laws concerning sex with animals.
The first thing to note is that the prohibition concerning MEN having sex with animals uses the same UNCLEAR language as the prohibition against men having sex with other men.  Here is the verse prohibiting men from having sex with other men:

Leviticus 20:13 New American Standard Bible (emphasis added)

13 If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

 This is followed a couple of verses later by the prohibition of men having sex with animals:
Leviticus 20:15 New American Standard Bible (emphasis added)
15 If there is a man who lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death;
The expression “X lies with Y” is a euphemism used in ancient Hebrew to mean roughly “X has sex with Y”.  But the use of euphemism makes both of these laws VAGUE and UNCLEAR, because a law, especially a law which carries the death penalty as a punishment, needs to be very clear and precise as to what conduct is prohibited.  We can see, based on a parallel passage in Leviticus 18 that the euphemism “lies with” is a way for referring to sex:

Leviticus 18:23 New Revised Standard Version (emphasis added)

23 You shall not have sexual relations with any animal and defile yourself with it, nor shall any woman give herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it: it is perversion.

It is reasonable to use Leviticus 18:23 as the basis for interpreting the phrase “lies with” in Leviticus 20:15, so we can conclude that the laws of Jehovah prohibit a man from having sexual relations with an animal, and that a violation of this law may be punished by the death penalty.  But if this is what the law against sex with animals means, then this law is VAGUE and UNCLEAR about what conduct constitutes a violation of this law, and thus this law is unjust.

The phrase “X had sexual relations with Y” is a vague and unclear statement, because it is unclear whether oral sex would count as an example of “having sexual relations”, and whether anal sex would count, and whether manual sex would count.  When President Bill Clinton famously asserted, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.”, he was not lying, because the meaning of this phrase is VAGUE and UNCLEAR.

Miss Lewinsky and Bill Clinton had oral sex; she put his penis in her mouth and sucked and licked his penis until he had an orgasm and ejaculated.  But they did not engage in coitus; he did not insert his penis into her vagina and move his penis in and out of her until he had an orgasm and ejaculated.  Because it is unclear whether “having sexual relations” means strictly engaging in coitus or whether it includes other sorts of sexual activity (such as oral sex, anal sex, or manual sex), we cannot convict Bill Clinton of lying.  We can say he was being deceptive and using VAGUE and UNCLEAR language to mislead others, but what he asserted is NOT clearly false, because he used language which was (intentionally) unclear.

Such VAGUE and UNCLEAR language has no place in laws, particularly in criminal laws where serious punishments can be given to a person who is convicted of such a crime, and the death penalty is one of the most serious punishments that one can receive (apart from torture which we have eliminated as a legitimate legal punishment in the USA).

I, however, used the New Revised Standard Version above, as the basis for this interpretation.  The Revised English Bible provides an alternative translation to the key verse from Leviticus 18:

Leviticus 18:23 Revised English Bible (emphasis added)

23 You must not have sexual intercourse with any animal to make yourself unclean with it…

The phrase “X had sexual intercourse with Y” seems a bit more clear and specific than “X had sexual relations with Y”, and my American Heritage Dictionary (2nd College edition) supports my linguistic intuition here:

sexual intercourse:  Coitus, esp. between humans.

O.K., but what exactly is “Coitus”?  This term appears to have a fairly specific meaning, again from my American Heritage Dictionary:

coitus: The physical union of male and female sexual organs, leading to orgasm and ejaculation of semen.

Now we have clarity and specificity.

1.  “X lies with Y” means “X has sexual intercourse with Y”.

2. “X has sexual intercourse with Y” means “X and Y engage in sexual activity in which there is a physical union of male and female sexual organs [of X and Y] and in which the male has an orgasm and ejaculates semen.”

Therefore:

3. “X lies with Y” means “X and Y engage in sexual activity in which there is a physical union of male and female sexual organs [of X and Y] and in which the male has an orgasm and ejaculates semen.”

This very clear and precise definition of “X lies with Y” in (3) has some serious problems, however.  First on this definition, it is IMPOSSIBLE for one man to “lie with” another man, or to have “sexual intercourse” with another man, because on this definition, “X lies with Y” ONLY IF one of the two people has a female sexual organ, a vagina ( I suppose that someone could be born with both male and female sexual organs, but then it is not clear that such a person would be correctly categorized as a “man” in the view of the Israelites or of the author of Leviticus).

But it is clear that the author of Leviticus believes that it is possible for two men to be engaged in sexual activity that can be correctly categorized as “X lies with Y”.  Therefore, either the translators of the Revised English Bible were mistaken in their translation of Leviticus 18:23 (using the expression “sexual intercourse”) or else the definitions of “sexual intercourse” and “coitus” in my American Heritage Dictionary are mistaken.

Furthermore, if we go with the narrow definition of “X lies with Y” that is implied by this Revised English Bible translation of Leviticus 18:23, then the laws of Jehovah would allow (without any punishment imposed) the following sexual activities:

  • oral sex between men
  • anal sex between men
  • manual sex (mutual masturbation) between men
  • oral sex between a man and an animal
  • anal sex between a man and an animal
  • manual sex between a man and an animal
  • penile/vaginal sex between a man and an animal in which the man does not reach orgasm or does not ejaculate
  • oral sex with another man’s wife
  • anal sex with another man’s wife
  • manual sex (mutual masturbation) with another man’s wife
  • penile/vaginal sex between a man and another man’s wife in which the man does not reach orgasm or does not ejaculate
  • oral sex between a man and his mother (or sister or daughter)
  • anal sex between a man and his mother (or sister or daughter)
  • manual sex (mutual masturbation) between a man and his mother (or sister or daughter)
  • penile/vaginal sex between a man and his mother (or sister or daughter) in which the man does not reach orgasm or does not ejaculate

Most Christian believers would find such wide-ranging sexual freedom to be appalling, and would be inclined to doubt the divine inspiration of the laws of Jehovah if those laws permit all of these sexual activities to be engaged in without any prohibition or punishment.

We could tweak the definition of “sexual intercourse” to try to achieve a definition which was clearer and more specific than the obviously problematic phrase “sexual relations” but less specific than the very precise definition of “coitus” from my American Heritage Dictionary, but such tweaking would be arbitrary, and NOT well grounded in the text of Leviticus.  The problem is that Leviticus is VAGUE and UNCLEAR in ALL of the sexual prohibitions that we have been considering (i.e. “incest”, “adultery”, “homosexuality”, and “bestiality”).

Such unclarity leaves too much room for interpretation by a judge or jury as to whether or not a specific instance of questionable sexual activity is prohibited or not.  Thus, ALL of the sexual prohibitions found in Leviticus should be VOID FOR VAGUENESS.  ALL of these sexual prohibitions constitute UNJUST LAWS, particularly in view of the fact that violations of these laws may be punished by the death penalty.  The definitions of capital crimes must be very clear and precise, leaving very little room for subjectivity and different interpretations by different judges or juries:

47. If Jehovah commanded the slaughter of many Canaanites as the death penalty for the sin or crime of having sex with an animal, then JEHOVAH IS UNJUST, because the laws of Jehovah fail to state explicitly and definitely what conduct  constitutes a violation of the laws concerning sex with animals.

This problem also applies to the prohibition of “adultery” in the laws of Jehovah:

48. If Jehovah commanded the slaughter of thousands of Canaanites as the death penalty for the sin or crime of “adultery”, then JEHOVAH IS UNJUST, because the laws of Jehovah are VAGUE and UNCLEAR about what conduct constitutes “adultery” (because of the key phrases “lies with” and “sexual relations” are vague and unclear ). 

 The same problem applies to the prohibitions of sexual activity in the laws of Jehovah that fall under our concept of “incest”:
49. If Jehovah commanded the slaughter of thousands of Canaanites as the death penalty for the sin or crime of “incest”, then JEHOVAH IS UNJUST, because the laws of Jehovah are VAGUE and UNCLEAR about what conduct constitutes “incest” (because of the key phrases “lies with” and “sexual relations” are vague and unclear). 
I want to consider and reject one possible line of defense against the objection I have raised here.  Suppose that someone replies to my objection by arguing from facts and details about the meanings of Hebrew words and phrases found in various passages from Leviticus and  by arguing from facts and details of the content of Leviticus related to the beliefs and attitudes of the author of Leviticus towards sex, that there is an alternative translation and interpretation of Leviticus 18:23 which is less VAGUE than the translation of the New Revised Standard Version (i.e. “sexual relations”), and which is less NARROW and less SPECIFIC than the translation of the Revised English Bible (i.e. “sexual intercourse”).  Furthermore, suppose this responder to my objections was successful in showing that this alternative translation and interpretation avoids the problem of being VOID for VAGUENESS and is a better and superior translation/interpretation than the two alternatives I have described above.  Would such a response show my objection to be weak or faulty?  I don’t think so.
For my objection here to work, it is NOT necessary that the translations/interpretations that I have pointed to be shown to be CORRECT or even shown to be the BEST AVAILABLE interpretations in terms of the latest and greatest Old Testament scholarship and scholarship concerning the meanings of ancient Hebrew words and phrases.  The reason why this is so, is that laws are very practical in nature, especially laws that govern the everyday behavior of people in general.  Such laws, in order to be just laws, must be clearly written and easily understood by the common person.
I think it is a good and wonderful thing that a few people, perhaps one in a ten thousand people, become scholars and experts in the Old Testament and in the translation and interpretation of ancient Hebrew.  However, we cannot expect the average person to master Old Testament scholarship and the subtleties of translating ancient Hebrew.  Because of the practical nature of laws, especially laws that govern the everyday behavior of common folk, it would be UNJUST to impose the death penalty on a person who misunderstood one of the laws of Jehovah simply because that person fell short of being a competent scholar of the Old Testament or of the ancient Hebrew language.
If a case for an alternative translation/interpretation of Leviticus 18:23 rests on facts and details about the meanings of ancient Hebrew words and phrases and/or facts and details concerning the beliefs and attitudes of the author of Leviticus about sex, then such discussion is likely to require TOO MUCH of the common person on the street.  This would especially be true of ancient Canaanites who (a) were mostly illiterate, and (b) did not have possession of printed copies of the laws of Jehovah, and (c) did not have access to modern scholarship concerning the translation or interpretation of the Old Testament and of the ancient Hebrew language.
Thus, even if a solid case could be made that some alternative interpretation of Leviticus 18:23 was both clear and specific, but less narrow and less specific than the definition of “coitus” from my American Heritage Dictionary, this would probably NOT refute my objection, because the arguments for such a claim are likely to demand too much knowledge or effort on the part of the common person, or on the part of the average Canaanite.  Laws concerning the everyday behavior of people in general MUST be written in clear and specific language that does NOT require a significant amount of knowledge and learning on the part of people who are expected to conform their actions to those laws.
The laws of Jehovah do clearly specify the death penalty as the punishment for a violation of the laws that prohibit people from having sex with animals, thus these laws satisfy the third requirement for a just law (R3), but this just makes it all the more critical that the laws be clear and precise about what conduct constitutes a violation of these laws.

bookmark_borderThe Slaughter of the Canaanites – Part 8

Clay Jones argues that Jehovah commanded the Israelites to slaughter the Canaanites (men, women, and children), but that this command and the obedience of the Israelites to the command was morally justified because the Canaanites deserved the death penalty for various serious crimes or sins which were violations of the laws of Jehovah (see his article “Killing the Canaanites”). Jones provides a list of the crimes or sins allegedly committed by the Canaanites which were (supposedly) deserving of the death penalty: idolatry, incest, adultery, child sacrifice, homosexuality, and bestiality.
In Part 5 I showed that JEHOVAH IS UNJUST if he used the idea of the death penalty for “idolatry” as part of a justification for the slaughter of the Canaanites. In Part 6 I showed that JEHOVAH IS UNJUST if he used the idea of the death penalty for “incest” as part of a justification for the slaughter of the Canaanites.  In Part 7 I showed that JEHOVAH IS UNJUST if he used the idea of the death penalty for “adultery” as part of a justification of the slaughter of the Canaanites.
I also plan to show that JEHOVAH IS UNJUST if he used the idea of the death penalty for “child sacrifice” as part of a justification for the slaughter of the Canaanites.  However, there is a good deal of historical information and complex historical issues surrounding “child sacrifice” in the Old Testament, so I want to put in a bit more time reading and studying before I lay out my objections to this proposed moral justification of the slaughter of the Canaanites (men, women, and children).
The Sin or Crime of Homosexuality
In a previous post I pointed out that RAPE is always non-consensual sex and often involves violence against the victim, and is thus a serious crime that deserves a serious punishment; while homosexual sex is generally consensual sex between adults and thus ought not to be punished as a crime at all, and certainly ought not be punished more severely than RAPE. (Also, when homosexual sex is non-consensual, it can just be considered RAPE, and thus wrong and deserving of punishment simply for that reason.)
But the laws of Jehovah are SEXIST, and so the violent rape of a young girl by an adult man is punished not with the death penalty, but with a fine, which is paid to the girl’s father (as compensation for damaging his property), and no compensation is given to the girl.  In fact, the man is required to marry his victim, and thus he gains the legal right to continue raping the girl whenever he wishes.  The absurdity of imposing capital punishement for the sin or crime of homosexual sex, while only imposing a fine and a mandatory marriage on a rapist, shows that JEHOVAH IS UNJUST and that JEHOVAH IS A SEXIST (and thus that Jehovah is NOT God).
Although the laws of Jehovah are SEXIST and treat women as pieces of property owned by men (girls and single women are owned by their fathers and engaged or married women are owned by their husbands) and thus women are treated UNJUSTLY by the laws of Jehovah, there is also injustice towards men that results from the SEXIST nature of the laws of Jehovah.  As I previously pointed out, only men can commit the crime of “incest” because the SEXIST laws of Jehovah fail to recognize the possibilty that women can also initiate sexual activity.  Thus JEHOVAH IS UNJUST towards men for making “incest” a crime that only a man can do.
The same problem occurs here with the sin or crime of “homosexuality”:
Leviticus 18:22 New American Standard Bible (emphasis added)
22 You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 New American Standard Bible (emphasis added)
13 If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.
The sin or crime of “homosexuality” (i.e. homosexual sex) can ONLY be committed by a man, according to the laws of Jehovah.  But if homosexual sex is wrong for a man, then it should also be wrong for a woman. If men deserve punishment for homosexual sex, then women also deserve punishment for homosexual sex.  But because the laws of Jehovah are SEXIST, they focus on the actions of men, and largely ignore the actions of women, and they also assume that only men can initiate sexual activity, when in fact women are also capable of initiating sexual activity, including homosexual sex with another woman:
 41. If Jehovah commanded the slaughter of many Canaanite men as the death penalty for the sin or crime of homosexual sex, then JEHOVAH IS UNJUST, because it is unjust to severely punish men for engaging in consensual sex with other men while allowing women to engage in consensual sex with other women with impunity.
To avoid the INJUSTICE involved in laws subject to being made Void for Vagueness, a law against “homosexuality” must meet at least these three requirements:
R1. The laws of Jehovah must clearly indicate who falls under the scope of the law concerning “homosexuality”.
R2. The laws of Jehovah must state explicitly and definitely what conduct  constitutes “homosexuality” and that such conduct is prohibited.
R3. The laws of Jehovah must clearly indicate what punishment may be imposed for the sin or crime of “homosexuality”.
First of all, the words “homosexual” and “homosexuality” do NOT occur anywhere in the Old Testament, so these words do not occur in the laws of Jehovah.  So, there are no laws against “homosexuality” per se in the laws of Jehovah.
42. If Jehovah commanded the slaughter of many Canaanite men as the death penalty for the sin or crime of “homosexuality”, then JEHOVAH IS UNJUST, because there is no explicit prohibition of “homosexuality” in the laws of Jehovah.
But we know the meaning of the word “homosexuality”, so we can review the laws of Jehovah for laws that in effect prohibit homosexuality, even if the word “homosexuality” is not explicitly used in the laws of Jehovah.  My American Heritage Dictionary (2nd College edition) gives two definitions of “homosexuality”:
1. Sexual desire for others of one’s own sex.
2. Sexual activity with another of the same sex.
It would be unjust for Jehovah to impose the death penalty on someone just for having sexual desire for others of the same sex, especially since Jehovah supposedly created human beings and thus he is responsible for creating humans who have such homosexual desires.  Having a desire does not, however, mean that one must act on the desire, so it makes more sense to understand the sin or crime of “homosexuality” to mean engaging in sexual activity with another of the same sex.
The laws of Jehovah, as we have already seen, do not prohibit ALL “sexual activity with another of the same sex”.  The laws of Jehovah, for example, do NOT prohibit a woman from engaging in sexual activity with another woman.  The laws of Jehovah also do NOT prohibit a man from french kissing another man.  So, it is inaccurate and misleading to say that the laws of Jehovah prohibit “homosexuality”.  Rather, they prohibit only specific forms of homosexual activity between men.
Do the laws of Jehovah satisfy the second requirement for a just law against certain forms of homosexual activity between men?  There is a problem of VAGUENESS, because of the phrase “lies with a male as those who lie with a woman”.  Taken literally, a man would be committing this sin or crime just by lying down near another man without engaging in sex, since men often lie down near a woman without necessarily having sex with the woman.
But the authors of the Old Testament often used euphemisms for sexual intercourse, and this appears to be an instance of such a euphemism:
Other references to sexual intercourse also use ordinary words with a specifically sexual sense.  Among the most frequent is a Hebrew verb that means “to lie with” or “to sleep with,” with both primary and sexual meanings parallel to English useage. (Michael Coogan, God and Sex, p.9-10).
Given that “to lie with” is a common euphemism in the OT for sexual intercourse, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 should be understood as prohibiting sexual intercourse between men.
Presumably, this law concerns anal intercourse between men, since that is the closest analogue to ordinary sexual intercourse between a man and a woman.  This law of Jehovah does NOT prohibit anal intercourse between a man and a woman, nor between women (with the use of fingers or penis-shaped objects).  It is UNCLEAR whether this law of Jehovah prohibits oral sex between men or mutual masturbation between men, because it is not clear that oral sex or mutual masturbation were considered to be part of ordinary sexual intercourse between a man and a woman.
So, there is a significant degree of VAGUNESS and UNCLARITY in this law, a degree that would be unacceptable in a modern court of law in the USA, because it leaves too much room for interpretation by a judge or jury.  If Jehovah is omniscient and is a perfectly morally good person, then there is no good reason to lower our standards of justice for the laws of Jehovah, and if Jehovah was NOT omniscient or NOT a perfectly morally good person, then Jehovah was NOT God.  Therefore:
43. If Jehovah commanded the slaughter of many Canaanite men as the death penalty for the sin or crime of having sexual intercourse with another man, then JEHOVAH IS UNJUST, becuase the laws of Jehovah are unclear as to what precise conduct counts as a violation of this prohibition.
Since Leviticus 20:13 explicitly prescribes the death penalty for this sin or crime, the third requirement (R3) for a just law is satisfied by this particular law.
What about the SCOPE of the prohibition?  Does this law satisfy the first requirement (R1) of a just law?  Do the laws of Jehovah clearly indicate who must comply with this prohibition? Does this law apply to the Canaanites?  Once again, it is fairly clear that this law does NOT apply to Canaanites.  The key question here is:  What is the referent of the pronoun ‘you’ in Leviticus 18:22?
Leviticus 18:22 New American Standard Bible
22 You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.
The opening of Chapter 18 of Leviticus makes it clear to whom the word “you” refers:

Leviticus 18:1-5 New American Standard Bible (emphasis added)

1 Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying,
2 “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘I am the Lord your God.
3 You shall not do what is done in the land of Egypt where you lived, nor are you to do what is done in the land of Canaan where I am bringing you; you shall not walk in their statutes.
4 You are to perform My judgments and keep My statutes, to live in accord with them; I am the Lord your God.
5 So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, by which a man may live if he does them; I am the Lord.

The word “you” occurs seven times in these opening verses of Chapter 18, and in each case this word clearly refers back to “the sons of Israel”  who previously lived “in the land of Egypt”.  Clearly the word “you” in Leviticus 18:22 refers to “the sons of Israel” (i.e. the men of the nation Israel) and NOT to the Canaanites.  Therefore, although the laws of Jehovah do clearly indicate the SCOPE of this law prohibiting sexual intercourse between two men, they indicate that the law applies to the Israelites, not to the Canaanites:
44. If Jehovah commanded the slaughter of many Canaanite men as the death penalty for the sin or crime of having sexual intercourse with another man, then JEHOVAH IS UNJUST, becuase the laws of Jehovah give clear indication that this law applies only to Israelite men.
In conclusion, the laws of Jehovah do clearly indicate that the death penalty may be imposed for the sin or crime of a man having sexual intercourse with another man and thus the law prohibiting this satisfies the third requirement for a just law (R3).   This law, however, is somewhat UNCLEAR and VAGUE leaving it open to a judge or jury to determine whether oral sex between men counts as a violation, and whether mutual masturbation between men counts as a violation, and thus this law is unjust and should be made VOID FOR VAGUENESS and fails the second requirement for a just law (R2). Furthermore, although the SCOPE of this law is clearly indicated by the opening verses of Leviticus Chapter 18, thus satisfying (R1), the scope includes only Israelite men, not Canaanite men, and so the use of this law to impose the death penalty on a Canaanite man would be unjust.
Finally, Jehovah’s laws concerning homosexual activity are clearly UNJUST, because as a result of their SEXIST viewpoint they impose a severe punishment (death) on men for engaging in an activity that women are allowed to engage in with no punishment at all (i.e. having sex with another person of the same sex).
 
 

bookmark_borderThe Slaughter of the Canaanites – Part 7

Clay Jones argues that Jehovah commanded the Israelites to slaughter the Canaanites (men, women, and children), but that this command and the Israelites obedience to the command was morally justified because the Canaanites deserved the death penalty for various serious crimes or sins which were violations of the laws of Jehovah (see his article “Killing the Canaanites”). Jones provides a list of the crimes or sins allegedly committed by the Canaanites which were (supposedly) deserving of the death penalty: idolatry, incest, adultery, child sacrifice, homosexuality, and bestiality.
The Sin or Crime of Adultery
To avoid the INJUSTICE involved in laws subject to being made “Void for Vagueness”, a law against “adultery” must meet at least these three requirements:
R1. The laws of Jehovah must clearly indicate who falls under the scope of the law against “adultery”.
R2. The laws of Jehovah must state explicitly and definitely what conduct  constitutes “adultery” and that such conduct is prohibited.
R3. The laws of Jehovah must clearly indicate what punishment may be imposed for the sin or crime of “adultery”.
The sin or crime of “adultery” is explicitly prohibited in the Ten Commandments:
Exodus 20:14 New American Standard Bible
14 “You shall not commit adultery.
Deuteronomy 5:18 New American Standard Bible
18 ‘You shall not commit adultery.
The Ten Commandments, however, do not specify or define what conduct constitutes “adultery” (R2), nor do they indicate the punishment for “adultery” (R3).
But the Ten Commandments do provide clarity about who falls under the scope of this law (R1).  The word “you” in this commandment has a clear referent in both Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5:
Exodus 19:1-6 New American Standard Bible (emphasis added)
1 In the third month after the sons of Israel had gone out of the land of Egypt, on that very day they came into the wilderness of Sinai.
2 When they set out from Rephidim, they came to the wilderness of Sinai and camped in the wilderness; and there Israel camped in front of the mountain.
3 Moses went up to God, and the Lord called to him from the mountain, saying, “Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob and tell the sons of Israel:
4 ‘You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings, and brought you to Myself.
5 Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine;
6 and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words that you shall speak to the sons of Israel.”
Exodus 20:1-2 New American Standard Bible (emphasis added)
1 Then God spoke all these words, saying,
2 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
Deuteronomy 5:1-6 New American Standard Bible
1 Then Moses summoned all Israel and said to them:
Hear, O Israel, the statutes and the ordinances which I am speaking today in your hearing, that you may learn them and observe them carefully.
2 The Lord our God made a covenant with us at Horeb.
3 The Lord did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, with all those of us alive here today.
4 The Lord spoke to you face to face at the mountain from the midst of the fire,
5 while I was standing between the Lord and you at that time, to declare to you the word of the Lord; for you were afraid because of the fire and did not go up the mountain. He said,
6 ‘I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
Obviously Jehovah did not bring the Canaanites “out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery”.  It is clear in both Exodus 20 and in Deuteronomy 5, that Jehovah is giving the Ten Commandments to ISRAEL, more specifically to “the sons of Israel” (because Jehovah was a sexist).  It is clear from the context that the pronoun “you” found in the Ten Commandments refers to “the sons of Israel” and thus the scope of these laws does NOT include the Canaanites. Therefore, although there is a clear specification of the scope of the law against “adultery” (R1), the scope does NOT include the Canaanites, and thus:
38. If Jehovah commanded that thousands of Canaanites be slaughtered as capital punishment for the sin or crime of “adultery”, then JEHOVAH IS UNJUST, because Jehovah’s laws do NOT clearly indicate that the Canaanites fall under the scope of the prohibition of “adultery” (in fact they indicate that the law applies only to “the sons of Israel”).
The book of Leviticus provides some clarification about what conduct constitutes “adultery” (R2) and about what punishment may be imposed for this sin or crime:
Leviticus 20:10-12  New American Standard Bible (emphasis added)
10 ‘If there is a man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, one who commits adultery with his friend’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
11 If there is a man who lies with his father’s wife, he has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death, their bloodguiltiness is upon them.
12 If there is a man who lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed incest, their bloodguiltiness is upon them.
Although verse 10 by itself does not clearly define “adultery,” it does give us a big clue: “adultery” is something that a man does “with another man’s wife” and “with his friend’s wife”.  But just doing something with a “friend’s wife” is obviously not deserving of serious punishment.  If I play checkers with a friend’s wife, it would hardly be just to kill me for playing that game with her.  Verses 11 and 12, however, appear to provide specific examples of adultery, and both involve a man who “lies with” another man’s wife, namely with his father’s wife (vs. 11) or with his son’s wife (vs. 12).  So, based on this passage from Leviticus Chapter 20, one may reasonably infer that in the laws of Jehovah:
Definition of “adultery” (as used in Leviticus)
The sin or crime of “adultery” occurs when a MAN has sexual intercourse with the wife of one of his friends or with the wife of one of his relatives.
This interpretation of “adultery” is confirmed by a sexual prohibition stated in an earlier chapter of Leviticus:

Leviticus 18:20 New American Standard Bible (emphasis added)

20 You shall not have intercourse with your neighbor’s wife, to be defiled with her.

The first thing to notice here is that this is a SEXIST understanding of “adultery”.  In the English language, the ordinary meaning of “adultery” includes sexual unfaithfulness of either husband or wife, but on the meaning of “adultery” in the book of Leviticus, a husband can have sex with any woman he wants to, so long as she is not already married to another man.   A woman, on the other hand, is prohibited from having sex with any man other than her husband, on pain of DEATH:
In the Ancient Near East and the OT (Lev. 18:20; 20:10; Deut. 22:22) adultery meant consensual sexual intercourse by a married woman with a man other than her husband..  However, intercourse between a married man and another woman was not considered adultery unless she was married. (Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, p.23) 
This understanding of “adultery” is clearly sexist and unfair to women, thus:
39. If Jehovah commanded that thousands of Canaanite women be slaughtered as capital punishment for the sin or crime of “adultery” (as understood in Leviticus 20), then JEHOVAH IS UNJUST, because it is unjust to impose the death penalty on women for doing something that men are allowed to do with impunity (i.e. be sexually unfaithful to their spouses).
The second thing to notice about the above understanding of “adultery” is that it is VAGUE and UNCLEAR.  This law appears to fail to meet the second criterion for just laws (R2). When is someone considered to be a “friend”?
Are all of my neighbors automatically considered to be my “friends”?  What if I have never had a conversation with one of my neighbors, would that person still be categorized as a “friend” just because he lived on my block?  What if I have a long-standing disagreement with one of my neighbors about noisy late-night parties?  What if I hate this particular neighbor?  Is that person still considered, for legal purposes, to be my “friend”?  And if ALL of my neighbors are considered to be my “friends”, how far does my neighborhood extend?  Is it just the people on my block?  If I walk three blocks away from my house, is it OK to have sex with another man’s wife who lives in that area? or do I have to travel to a completely different city? or to a different state? or to another country?
The most plausible interpretation of “friend” (alternatively translated as “neighbor”) is given by a modern translation of this verse:
Leviticus 20:10 Good News Translation (emphasis added)
10 If a man commits adultery with the wife of an Israelite, both he and the woman shall be put to death.
In other words “friend” (alternatively translated as “neighbor”) in this context means “an Israelite man”.  This fits well with my previous point about the SCOPE of this law (and of the Ten Commandments in general) being limited to “the sons of Israel”.  This also fits with a conservative Jewish interpretation of this passage and the prohibition of “adultery”:
 10 And a man who commits adultery with [another] man’s wife, committing adultery with the wife of his fellow the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
 committing adultery with the wife of his fellow: [Thus] excluding the wife of a non-Jew. [From here,] we learn that [the legal status of Jewish] marriage cannot be held by a non-Jew. — [Torath Kohanim 20:105; Sanh. 52b]
(from a Jewish commentary on the Torah available at Chabad.org)
If the legal status of Jewish marriage “cannot be held by a non-Jew”, then it would NOT be possible for a Canaanite man or woman to commit “adultery” unless the Canaanite man was having sex with a married Jewish woman or the Canaanite woman had converted to become Jewish and then married a Jewish man.  Neither of those events was likely or common.
So, we might be able to set aside the problem of the VAGUENESS of this law against “adultery” by interpreting “friend” or “neighbor” to mean “an Israelite man”.  But if we do so, then the prohibition of “adultery” would NOT provide a JUST basis for slaughtering Canaanites, because very few Canaanites would have been guilty of having sex with the wife of an Israelite man (or of being that wife).
40. If Jehovah commanded the slaughter of thousands of Canaanites as the death penalty for the sin or crime of “adultery”, then JEHOVAH IS UNJUST, because either the laws of Jehovah are VAGUE about what conduct constitutes “adultery” (because of the word “friend” or “neighbor” in the law) or the laws of Jehovah are clear about what conduct constitutes “adultery” (because we interpret “friend” or “neighbor” to mean “an Israelite man”) but this law was violated by only a handful, at most, of Canaanites.
Leviticus does clearly state that the death penalty may be given as the punishment for the sin or crime of “adultery”, so the third requirement (R3) for a just law is satisfied.  We have seen that the law against “adultery” satisfies (R1), but that the law only applies to “the sons of Israel” and NOT to the Canaanites.  We have seen that this law should either be “Void for Vagueness” because of the unclarity of the word “friend” (or “neighbor”), or else we can adopt the most likely interpretation of this word, and understand the definition of “adultery” to be “having sex with the wife of an Israelite man”, in which case very few Canaanites would have been guilty of this sin or crime.  Either way, JEHOVAH IS UNJUST for using this law against “adultery” as the basis for the slaughter of the Canaanites (men, women, and children).

bookmark_borderThe Slaughter of the Canaanites – Part 6

Clay Jones argues that Jehovah commanded the Israelites to slaughter the Canaanites (men, women, and children), but that this command and the Israelites obedience to the command was morally justified because the Canaanites deserved the death penalty for various serious crimes or sins which were violations of the laws of Jehovah. Jones provides a list of the crimes or sins allegedly committed by the Canaanites which were (supposedly) deserving of the death penalty: idolatry, incest, adultery, child sacrifice, homosexuality, and bestiality.
To avoid the INJUSTICE involved in laws subject to being made “Void for Vagueness”, a law must meet at least these three requirements:
R1. The law must clearly indicate who falls under the scope of the law.
R2. The law must state explicitly and definitely what conduct is prohibited.
R3. The law must clearly indicate what punishment may be imposed.
We saw in Part 5 of this series that Jehovah’s laws fail all three tests in relation to the (alleged) prohibition of “idolatry”, and that in relation to the prohibition against “worshiping idols” there is unclarity about what conduct constitutes “worshiping an idol” (R2), and that the scope of the prohibition appears to be limited to the Israelites (R1), and that there is no clear indication in the laws of Jehovah that the punishment for this sin or crime is the death penalty.
So, we can either discard the first item on Clay Jones’s list or else conclude that JEHOVAH IS UNJUST for demanding the death penalty to be used on Canaanites on the basis of the laws of Jehovah concerning “idolatry” and/or “worshiping idols”.
The Sin or Crime of Incest
Let’s apply the three  basic requirements for a just law to the prohibition of “incest” in the laws of Jehovah:
 Q1. Do the laws of Jehovah clearly indicate who falls under the scope of the law that prohibits “incest”?
Q2. Do the laws of Jehovah state explicitly and definitely what specific conduct constitutes “incest” and that “incest” is prohibited?
Q3. Do the laws of Jehovah clearly indicate that the punishment for the crime or sin of “incest” is the death penalty?
Once again Clay Jones has failed to actually read and study the laws of Jehovah before pronouncing that thousands of Canaanites (men, women, and children) were guilty of the crime or sin of “incest” and determining that “incest” was a capital offense in the laws of Jehovah.
As with the word “idolatry”, the word “incest” occurs ONLY ONCE in the entire Old Testament (in Leviticus 20:12)!  No definition or clarification is given in the laws of Jehovah to specify what conduct constitutes “incest”.  Furthermore, the specific example of conduct that is categorized as “incest” in Jehovah’s laws does NOT FIT with the ordinary meaning of the word “incest” in the English language.  This makes that specific passage confusing and unclear, and implies that the Hebrew word that was translated by the English word “incest” had a meaning that was NOT equivalent to the meaning of the word “incest” in English.   Finally, there is no clear and explicit prohibition of “incest” in the laws of Jehovah (a minor detail that somehow slipped past Clay Jones). So, the answer to Q2 is NO, and Jehovah’s laws fail to meet the requirement (R2).
Although the death penalty is assigned to one particular kind of conduct that is categorized by the laws of Jehovah as “incest” (in Leviticus 20:12), this is NOT sufficient reason to conclude that the death penalty is assigned to “incest” in general.  Furthermore, there is no explicit assignment of the death penalty to the crime or sin of “incest” in general.  Thus the answer to Q3 is NO, and the laws of Jehovah concerning a prohibition of “incest” fail to satisfy (R3).
Because there is in fact no general prohibition of “incest” in the laws of Jehovah, there can be no specification of the scope of the persons to whom such a prohibition applies. So, the answer to Q1 is also NO, and Jehovah’s laws concerning “incest” fail to satisfy (R1).
Three swings, and three stikes, AGAIN.  Jehovah’s laws concerning the prohibition of “incest” fail all three basic requirements for a just law, so if Jehovah commanded that the death penalty be applied to thousands of Canaanites in part because of their violation of Jehovah’s laws concerning a prohibition of “incest”, then JEHOVAH IS UNJUST.

35. If Jehovah commanded the slaughter of the Canaanites (men, women, and children) in part as a punishment for the crime or sin of “incest”, then JEHOVAH IS UNJUST, because there is no clear indication in the laws of Jehovah as to who is in scope for the prohibition of “incest”.

36. If Jehovah commanded the slaughter of the Canaanites (men, women, and children) in part as a punishment for the crime or sin of “incest”, then JEHOVAH IS UNJUST, because there is no clear specification in the laws of Jehovah as to what activity constitutes “incest” nor is there a clear and explicit statement that “incest” is prohibited.

37. If Jehovah commanded the slaughter of the Canaanites (men, women, and children) in part as a punishment for the crime or sin of “incest”, then JEHOVAH IS UNJUST, because there is no clear specification in the laws of Jehovah as to what punishment may be used for a violation of the prohibition against “incest”.

 But wait a minute.  We all know what the word “incest” means.  The ordinary meaning of this word in English can be clearly and simply defined as follows:
INCEST is the crime or sin of having sexual intercourse with one’s parent, child, sibling, grandchild, or grandparent.
If Jehovah’s laws prohibit sexual intercourse with a parent, and with a child, and with a sibling, and with a grandchild, and with a grandparent, then Jehovah’slaws prohibit all of the sexual conduct that we now categorize as “incest”.  And if Jehovah’s laws assign the death penalty to each of these kinds of sexual conduct, then Jehovah’s laws assign the death penalty to each of the kinds of sexual conduct that we now categorize as “incest”.  So, even if the word “incest” appeared nowhere in the laws of Jehovah, the laws of Jehovah could still in effect prohibit what we now call “incest” and assign the death penalty to what we now call “incest”.
So, we need to look at the specific sorts of sexual conduct that Jehovah’s laws prohibit and the punishments that the laws of Jehovah assign to violations of those various prohibitions:
Q4.  Do the laws of Jehovah prohibit sexual intercourse with one’s parent?
Q5. Do the laws of Jehovah prohibit sexual intercourse with one’s child?
Q6. Do the laws of Jehovah prohibit sexual intercourse with one’s sibling?
Q7. Do the laws of Jehovah prohibit sexaual intercourse with one’s grandchild?
Q8. Do the laws of Jehovah prohibit sexual intercourse with one’s grandparent?
Because homosexual sex is called out as a separate crime or sin in Clay Jones’s list, and because that will be considered in a later post, I’m going to ignore for now the idea of two related males having sex with each other, and only examine what the laws of Jehovah have to say about sex between a male and female who are related to each other in the ways specified above.
(Q4) & (Q5)
The laws of Jehovah do prohibit sexual intercourse between a male and his mother (Leviticus 18:7).
Although having sex with your “father’s wife” is a capital offense (Leviticus 20:11), having sex with your own mother does not necessarily involve having sex with your father’s wife, because your parents could have been previously divorced.  Therefore, there is no clear and specific statement in Jehovah’s laws that the punishment for a man having sex with his mother is the death penalty.
There is NO PROHIBITION in the laws of Jehovah of a father having sex with his daughter!!
Bible scholar Michael Coogan (co-editor of The Oxford Companion to the Bible) explains why this is the case:
Not all of these prohibitions [concerning sexual conduct in Leviticus 18] concern what we would call incest, sex between close relatives.  As with the seventh commandment, they have to do with property: one man in an extended family expropriating the property of another man in the same family, a woman under the latter’s control.  That is why the list is incomplete according to our definition of incest: sex between father and daughter is not mentioned, because the daughter was the father’s property, as the law permitting a man to sell his daughter as a slave shows. [see Exodus 21:7] (God and Sex, p.109)
In other words, the laws of Jehovah treat women as property owned by men.  Since a daughter was the propery of her father (until she becomes engaged or married) a father having sex with his own daughter does not involve “expropriating the property of another man.”  So, here we have further evidence that Jehovah was a SEXIST who viewed girls and women as the property of men, and thus that JEHOVAH IS UNJUST.
(Q6)
The laws of Jehovah prohibit sexual intercourse between a male and his sister (Leviticus 18:9&11 and 20:17, and Deuteronomy 27:22). However, the laws of Jehovah do NOT assign the death penalty as the punishment for this form of incest:
Commentary concerning Leviticus 20:17:
There was no precedent for a humanly executed death penalty for the offenses in vv.6 and 17-21, so none is given, but the text is confident that God would punish them. (Eerdman’s Commentary on the Bible, p.118) 
(Q7) & (Q8)
The laws of Jehovah prohibit a male from having sexual intercourse with a female grandchild (Leviticus 18:10).
The laws of Jehovah do NOT clearly and explicitly assign the death penalty to this form of incest.
The laws of Jehovah do NOT clearly  and explicitly prohibit a woman from having sexual intercourse with a male grandchild (when the grandchild was too young to be held accountable for engaging in prohibited forms of sex), because the laws of Jehovah are SEXIST and wrongly assume that only males can initiate sexual activities.
In fact, for the same reason, the laws of Jehovah do NOT clearly prohibit a woman from having sexual intercourse with her son, where her son is too young to initiate sex or to be held accountable for his sexual activity.  Similarly, Jehovah’s laws do not clearly and explicitly prohibit sex between a woman and her brother when the woman initiates the sex and the brother is too young to initiate sex or to be accountable for his sexual activity.  Because Jehovah’s laws are SEXIST, they fail to deal with forms of incest where an older woman initiates sex with a young boy with whom she is directly related (i.e. her brother, her son, or her grandson).  This is further evidence that Jehovah is a SEXIST and thus that JEHOVAH IS UNJUST.
The laws of Jehovah also do NOT prohibit a male from having sexual intercourse with his grandmother.
However, the omission of this last prohibition could be because people had short life spans in the Ancient Near East, especially women who often died from giving birth to a child, so it would probably be rare for a grown man to have a grandmother who was still living.
Conduct that we consider to be the most common form of incest is NOT prohibited by the laws of Jehovah (i.e. sex between a man and his daughter), and another sort of conduct that we consider to be a common form of incest is prohibited by the laws of Jehovah (i.e. a male having sex with his sister) but the death penalty is NOT assigned to that form of “incest” by the laws of Jehovah.  Furthermore, although sex between a man and his mother is prohibited, the laws of Jehovah do not clearly and explicitly state that death is the punishment for such sexual conduct. Although sex between a man and his female grandchild is prohibited, the laws of Jehovah do not clearly and explicitly state that the death penalty is the punishment for this form of incest.
Finally, the laws of Jehovah have no clear prohibition concerning sex between a woman and her brother, son, or grandson when she is the one who initiates the sexual activity, and the male is too young to initiate sex or to be accountable for his sexaual activities.
Therefore, it is simply NOT the case that Jehovah’s laws prohibit incest in general, if we understand “incest” in terms of the ordinary meaning of the word in the English language, and it is NOT the case that Jehovah’s laws clearly and explicitly state that the punishment for sexual conduct that we consider to be incest is to be always, or in general, the death penalty.
The one form of incest that is clearly to be punished by death, according to the laws of Jehovah, is when a man has sex with his “father’s wife” (not with his mother, but with some other wife of his father), but this sexual conduct would be punished by death even without the law against this form of incest, because this is ALSO a form of adultery. The son is having sex with a woman who already belongs to (is owned by) another man.
So, it appears that the one form of incest that is clearly punishable by the death penalty may be judged by Jehovah to be worthy of death because of special circumstances beyond just the fact of the sex being between close relatives (i.e. this particular form of incest involves adultery – stealing another man’s wife/property).  Thus, it might well be the case that Jehovah does NOT view incest, in and of itself, as deserving the death penalty.