The Joshua statement, "...but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." is anti-Christian.

I will be starting off with Pro's third argument, as it is probably the most important to this debate. 3. I agree with the first paragraph about using The LORD as an excuse for murder. However, I agree with it as it applies today. God would not have someone do that today, because his kingdom is not advanced by military conquest, it is advanced by the spread of the Gospel. But in the Mosaic and Abrahamic Covenants, God had promised the land to his people as well as set up a theocratic state. So it is not applicable to compare Joshua's context to the modern U.S. context, because the forms of government are fundamentally different. Even the most staunch atheists will agree to that. The book of Joshua is about God fulfilling his land promise to his people. God commanded Joshua to take the land, because God said that the land belonged to his people. Furthermore, we know that Joshua was in accordance with Abraham and Moses because a) Joshua was commanded by God to circumcise the new generation in the fifth chapter of Joshua, signifying that the covenant God made with Abraham was being renewed under Joshua's authority and leadership and b) In chapter 8, Joshua renews the covenant of Moses in the presence of the people, doing everything that Moses had commanded. So it is very hard to separate Joshua from the same covenant group as Abraham and Moses. Now to talk about the word "LORD." In the Bible, when "LORD" is spelled with all capital letters, it is not a title, but rather a name. It is the name of "Yahweh." When it appears as "Lord," with only the first letter capitalized, then it is a title. "Lord" is "adonai" and "LORD" is "Yahweh." This is specifically clear because when the Bible uses the phrase "Lord GOD" to show that Yahweh (GOD) is the Lord, the ruler in control. Look at Psalm 68:20, where David says "and to GOD, the Lord." He is saying "to Yahweh, the Lord." So "LORD" is not a title, it is a name. But "Lord" is a title. (Note: The word "God" (with only the first capital letter) is a title. It means "Elohim." That is a title that is given to more people than just the LORD. But the name of the one true God, Yahweh/LORD, is his and his alone.) Answering the rebuttals: "To connect the word 'Jew' to genetics is what is absurd there Con. Joshua was an Ephraimite. We are not talking about genetics we are talking about brother Joseph and brother Judah. By the first century after Christ the children of Joseph had been banished from Palestine for several hundred years. Actually the Ephraimites, whom the subject of this debate was one of, claimed a portion of the throne of all ancient Israel. Since the crown was meant for the tribe of Judah alone that made all of Ephraim suspect in the royal theater. The Ephraimites from a Jewish perspective were evil after they initiated the split in the kingdom. So yeah-" What happened with the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh do not have any claim on who Joshua was and if he was evil or not. That is like if someone in a thousand years claimed that Pro was evil because there was a mass murderer in his family many generations after him. Clearly, that would be outrageous. In order to see if Joshua was evil, we must look at Joshua himself. His descendants and family members are rather irrelevant. In fact, to bring that up is sneaky, using a red herring. We are debating Joshua and his specific statement. Moreover, I did not use the word "Jew" in a genetic sense. I used it to denote ethnicity. "Anyone who practices genocide must be declared evil, unless we are willing to say that the Nazi were not evil." This is circular logic. Where have you shown that Joshua did in fact commit genocide? You assume that he did without providing any reasonable evidence, in order to try to catch me in a trap. However, until you can prove that Joshua did in fact commit genocide, this is a non-issue. I have shown above how what Joshua did was sanctioned by God, in accordance with the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants, and was in fact service to the LORD. Moreover, the entire section about Caesar, Pharaoh, and General is, just like most of Pro's case, a non-issue. Of course "Caesar" needs a name by it so we know who it is. But "LORD" doesn't because "LORD" is a name, not a title. This goes for "Pharaoh" and "General" as well. Lastly, let us look at the irony of my opponent's last paragraph. "So when someone who extinguished the lives of all the children in the city of Jericho uses the word LORD that person has no right to the God of the Christians. That person is Joshua. Joshua has no right to enter the Church. It is evil to quote a mass murderer during Mass." Tell me, is Saint Paul quoted in Mass? Indeed he was a mass murderer, killing and persecuting many Christians. You say that Joshua has no right to enter the church. But, what about the good news of Jesus? Does not God call weary sinners to himself? Is not God gracious is giving to men the right to become children of God? You seem to have missed a bigger point than simply Joshua's service. God saves sinners. And we we all have sinned. "For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another. But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life." (Titus 3:3-7 ESV)