Problem of the slaughter of the Cannanites

[Silvertusk]

I do like WLC's answer to this:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/slaughte ... canaanites

[Ivellious]

I've heard versions of this argument reiterated by several different people/groups, and I'm yet to be convinced by it. The notion that it's ok to kill children just because, to that point in their lives, they had been raised by bad people is insane to me, and sounds like a moral cop-out. By that reasoning it seems like we should let all atheists, Muslims, Hindus, etc. have abortions because, hey, at least those kids are then saved from being raised by idolaters.

In this article, I also disagree with the vibe that Craig gives off when talking about God's options with the kids. He makes it sound like the Israelite's only option is to kill them. As if it was either kill them or just leave them to die. Why couldn't they just raise them to adulthood (with good Jewish morals) and then just let them leave when they reached adulthood? I get that the Bible says they couldn't breed with them or anything, but when this argument is laid out...it sounds like Craig is basically saying that the Israelites weren't allowed to do anything except kill non-Israelites. I mean, if Israelites came across people in need, were they not allowed to help them? It sounds absurd when you compare that train of thought to what you usually would think, but when people like Craig use this argument to justify the Canaanite situation, that's what I get out of it.

Plus, it seems rather logically inconsistent for God to, on this one very specific situation, order the deaths of an entire group of people. The justification I've heard in the past is that this was only ordered because the Canaanites represented a legitimate threat to the Israelites. But there have certainly been hundreds of other times when a group of heathens has threatened the existence of Jews/Christians, and to my knowledge God hasn't decided to wipe out anyone else by that reasoning since then.

[Silvertusk]

Of course it seems insane to us on a human level - and I totally agree with you. I feel exactly the same and please remember that when you read the rest of this - There is absolutely no way, and I repeat no way that this can be justified on a Human level - But I can see how this from God's point of view this would be justifiable.

You have to remember God can see the future and it well be that if these children were allowed to live they would have turned out exacty the same as their parents and would have to be judged by God. This way - they now have eternal joy.

The Cananites were given 400 years to repent and they did not - God stayed his hand as he is a patient God.

This is the only way I can balance the view of an all-loving God with what looks like genocide. I just have to trust that he has morally justifable reasons for his command, no matter how abhorent it seems to us on a human level.

[PaulSacramento]

I am of the view that there is more than one answer to this issue and that it is NOT an either/or thing but a combination of them.
The wording is typical of ANE writings to describe the TYPE of combat, the "totality" of the conflict.
Much like even today we say a village was "raised to the ground", or " wiped off the map/face of the earth" and it is quite clear by all that saw it that it was not the case, I believe that the wording used was more to describe the intensity and type of conflict rather than a literal and concrete statement of the result of the conflict.
It is quite clear that when battle started that "[poop] happens" and that in the heat of battle MANY innocents are killed, that no one will deny.
It is clear that God does NOT intervene in HOW an action is done even if He commands such action ( people are of course free to NOT obey God as it is shown over and over).
The issue is what seems to be a proclamation of God to destroy ALL, including women and children.
Of course this is NOT an issue for those that see the bible as the written word of man and are open to the possibility that the writers had their "aggendas" also ( propaganda) and that they could ( and according to the likes of Jeremiah, did) write things their "own way".
However, to the bible literalist, of it was written then God said it, period.
So, I think that IF the believer truly believes that God commanded that even children be killed that they must indeed, reconcile that with their view of God.

[Danieltwotwenty]

I have no issue with it, either God knows all outcomes so it has been justified or like Paul said maybe it was the writers agenda with a mixture of hyperbolic writing.


Dan

[Philip]

This subject is examined in great detail in Paul Copland's book, "Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God" (http://www.amazon.com/Is-God-Moral-Mons ... 0801072751) - I HIGHLY recommend it. It also goes into great detail about other hard-to-understand issues, like slavery in the Bible.

[Danieltwotwenty]

This subject is examined in great detail in Paul Copland's book, "Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God" (http://www.amazon.com/Is-God-Moral-Mons ... 0801072751) - I HIGHLY recommend it. It also goes into great detail about other hard-to-understand issues, like slavery in the Bible.

I am going to buy this today, I have always wanted to read it.

[bippy123]

I've heard versions of this argument reiterated by several different people/groups, and I'm yet to be convinced by it. The notion that it's ok to kill children just because, to that point in their lives, they had been raised by bad people is insane to me, and sounds like a moral cop-out. By that reasoning it seems like we should let all atheists, Muslims, Hindus, etc. have abortions because, hey, at least those kids are then saved from being raised by idolaters.

In this article, I also disagree with the vibe that Craig gives off when talking about God's options with the kids. He makes it sound like the Israelite's only option is to kill them. As if it was either kill them or just leave them to die. Why couldn't they just raise them to adulthood (with good Jewish morals) and then just let them leave when they reached adulthood? I get that the Bible says they couldn't breed with them or anything, but when this argument is laid out...it sounds like Craig is basically saying that the Israelites weren't allowed to do anything except kill non-Israelites. I mean, if Israelites came across people in need, were they not allowed to help them? It sounds absurd when you compare that train of thought to what you usually would think, but when people like Craig use this argument to justify the Canaanite situation, that's what I get out of it.

Plus, it seems rather logically inconsistent for God to, on this one very specific situation, order the deaths of an entire group of people. The justification I've heard in the past is that this was only ordered because the Canaanites represented a legitimate threat to the Israelites. But there have certainly been hundreds of other times when a group of heathens has threatened the existence of Jews/Christians, and to my knowledge God hasn't decided to wipe out anyone else by that reasoning since then.

Ivellious imagine for one second that those kids grow up and perpetuate the child sacrifices that they would be taught by their parents, and they end up in eternal hell. Imagine now that they are enjoying eternity in heaven with God .
If you look at this with earthly eyes it can never be justified but if you look at it through heavens eyes it can be more than justified. Our lives on this earth are just a blink of an eye to God and all the people that are now in heaven.
This is what most people forget when they think about it.

Physical death means very little compared to eternal life.
I believe that our God is a just and compassionate God, and I Truely believe that his mercy was extended to those caananite children, for they would have grown up to be exactly like their heathen parents. Not only this but they would have dragged many of the Hebrews along with them.

[Ivellious]

Ivellious imagine for one second that those kids grow up and perpetuate the child sacrifices that they would be taught by their parents, and they end up in eternal hell. Imagine now that they are enjoying eternity in heaven with God .
If you look at this with earthly eyes it can never be justified but if you look at it through heavens eyes it can be more than justified. Our lives on this earth are just a blink of an eye to God and all the people that are now in heaven.
This is what most people forget when they think about it.

Physical death means very little compared to eternal life.
I believe that our God is a just and compassionate God, and I Truely believe that his mercy was extended to those caananite children, for they would have grown up to be exactly like their heathen parents. Not only this but they would have dragged many of the Hebrews along with them.

I figured I'd get something like this. But this argument seems to say that there was literally only one option to save them, and that was to have the Israelites wipe them out. Why couldn't they do anything else?

They could have raised the children. Something tells me that small children were probably not damaged enough to not become peaceful, rational, God-loving members of society. And even if the Israelites weren't allowed to breed with them, they could be taken or sent elsewhere after reaching adulthood.

Or, if raising them was no good to them, why make the Israelites do the killing? What is the divine justification for putting the kids through the no doubt terrifying experience of being killed by the same strangers that butchered their parents? God clearly has the ability to take a life, and probably in a much less violent and disturbing way. And, barring the entire Israelite army being a band of sociopaths, this would save them from being traumatized by the memory of killing children.

And finally, what of free will? I don't want to get into a "is free will real" debate, but even if God knew they were going to be evil people later in life, why take their free will away from them? They clearly got no choice in the matter.

And by the logic that these arguments bring up, why do we care about when non-Christians have abortions, or when non-Christian children die or get killed? I'm not being condescending here. Aren't we doing them a favor by letting them die? Isn't it better that they don't become adults who were raised to be atheists or Muslims or Hindus? This is part of why I don't buy the "it's better to butcher the heathen children" argument, because it easily opens up a huge can of worms about killing kids in general.

[PaulSacramento]

This subject is examined in great detail in Paul Copland's book, "Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God" (http://www.amazon.com/Is-God-Moral-Mons ... 0801072751) - I HIGHLY recommend it. It also goes into great detail about other hard-to-understand issues, like slavery in the Bible.

I am going to buy this today, I have always wanted to read it.

This is also I good one to get:
God's Word in Human Words: An Evangelical Appropriation of Critical Biblical Scholarship by Kenton L. Sparks
and this one:
Sacred Word, Broken Word: Biblical Authority and the Dark Side of Scripture by Kenton L. Sparks (Apr 4, 2012)

[Danieltwotwenty]

This subject is examined in great detail in Paul Copland's book, "Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God" (http://www.amazon.com/Is-God-Moral-Mons ... 0801072751) - I HIGHLY recommend it. It also goes into great detail about other hard-to-understand issues, like slavery in the Bible.

I am going to buy this today, I have always wanted to read it.

This is also I good one to get:
God's Word in Human Words: An Evangelical Appropriation of Critical Biblical Scholarship by Kenton L. Sparks
and this one:
Sacred Word, Broken Word: Biblical Authority and the Dark Side of Scripture by Kenton L. Sparks (Apr 4, 2012)

I will add them to my list, thanks Paul.

Paul Copland's book is on it's way and I can't wait to start reading it.

Currently I am reading Miracles by C.S.Lewis, but it has been slow going for such a small book.

Dan

[Byblos]

Ivellious imagine for one second that those kids grow up and perpetuate the child sacrifices that they would be taught by their parents, and they end up in eternal hell. Imagine now that they are enjoying eternity in heaven with God .
If you look at this with earthly eyes it can never be justified but if you look at it through heavens eyes it can be more than justified. Our lives on this earth are just a blink of an eye to God and all the people that are now in heaven.
This is what most people forget when they think about it.

Physical death means very little compared to eternal life.
I believe that our God is a just and compassionate God, and I Truely believe that his mercy was extended to those caananite children, for they would have grown up to be exactly like their heathen parents. Not only this but they would have dragged many of the Hebrews along with them.

I figured I'd get something like this. But this argument seems to say that there was literally only one option to save them, and that was to have the Israelites wipe them out. Why couldn't they do anything else?

They could have raised the children. Something tells me that small children were probably not damaged enough to not become peaceful, rational, God-loving members of society. And even if the Israelites weren't allowed to breed with them, they could be taken or sent elsewhere after reaching adulthood.

Or, if raising them was no good to them, why make the Israelites do the killing? What is the divine justification for putting the kids through the no doubt terrifying experience of being killed by the same strangers that butchered their parents? God clearly has the ability to take a life, and probably in a much less violent and disturbing way. And, barring the entire Israelite army being a band of sociopaths, this would save them from being traumatized by the memory of killing children.

And finally, what of free will? I don't want to get into a "is free will real" debate, but even if God knew they were going to be evil people later in life, why take their free will away from them? They clearly got no choice in the matter.

And by the logic that these arguments bring up, why do we care about when non-Christians have abortions, or when non-Christian children die or get killed? I'm not being condescending here. Aren't we doing them a favor by letting them die? Isn't it better that they don't become adults who were raised to be atheists or Muslims or Hindus? This is part of why I don't buy the "it's better to butcher the heathen children" argument, because it easily opens up a huge can of worms about killing kids in general.

Because it does absolutely no good to speculate, that's why. They could have been raised and grown up to kill the very people who raised them too. Do you know that for sure? So we can sit here and dream up all kinds of what-if scenarios and they'd all be just that, mere speculations.

[Icthus]

I figured I'd get something like this. But this argument seems to say that there was literally only one option to save them, and that was to have the Israelites wipe them out. Why couldn't they do anything else?

They could have raised the children. Something tells me that small children were probably not damaged enough to not become peaceful, rational, God-loving members of society. And even if the Israelites weren't allowed to breed with them, they could be taken or sent elsewhere after reaching adulthood.

Or, if raising them was no good to them, why make the Israelites do the killing? What is the divine justification for putting the kids through the no doubt terrifying experience of being killed by the same strangers that butchered their parents? God clearly has the ability to take a life, and probably in a much less violent and disturbing way. And, barring the entire Israelite army being a band of sociopaths, this would save them from being traumatized by the memory of killing children.

And finally, what of free will? I don't want to get into a "is free will real" debate, but even if God knew they were going to be evil people later in life, why take their free will away from them? They clearly got no choice in the matter.

And by the logic that these arguments bring up, why do we care about when non-Christians have abortions, or when non-Christian children die or get killed? I'm not being condescending here. Aren't we doing them a favor by letting them die? Isn't it better that they don't become adults who were raised to be atheists or Muslims or Hindus? This is part of why I don't buy the "it's better to butcher the heathen children" argument, because it easily opens up a huge can of worms about killing kids in general.

If I may, I'd like to pop in just briefly to note a few things about the first two suggestions: raising the children or having God do the smiting himself. While raising the children might sound good in principle, I think it would be rather too difficult to manage. God had enough difficulty getting the Israelites to do simple things like worship only him. It may have been an unreasonable to expect them to raise the children of their enemies given A) they were the children of their enemies, B) they likely didn't have resources to spare for a massive influx of new, young people, and C) the cultural power of primogeniture and hereditary heirs likely would have caused difficulties for the large number of adopted children. Of course, the Lord could have told the Israelites to suck it up and raise them anyway, but his chosen people weren't exactly famous for their obedience.

On the subject of God simply killing them himself, I like to think that he was trying to force the Israelites to take responsibility for the founding of their country. Remember, that God offered them the possibility of being a nation of priests ruled directly by him (or something similar, I should remember the passage, but I don't) before they ever reached modern day Israel, but they wanted an intercessor (Moses) instead. Later, they asked God to give them a king (ended up being Saul), not being happy with rule by the Judges and Prophets. The Israelites wanted the usual trappings of nationhood, and God gave them what they wanted--but he also gave them all the problems inherent in being a "regular" nation as well (kings abusive of their powers, political and military difficulties, etc.) God could have simply killed off or warped away the inhabitants of the land he was moving his people into, but that wouldn't allow the Israelites to have any part in it.

As for the whole "killing heathen children" can of worms, I think many would argue that this is a little bit different because there is a direct command from God and that God doesn't have the same moral obligations we do.

In any case, I hate to simply reappear suddenly, say one thing and disappear again, but I'm afraid I'll have to (I wish I had more free time).

[Philip]

If I may, I'd like to pop in just briefly to note a few things about the first two suggestions: raising the children or having God do the smiting himself. While raising the children might sound good in principle, I think it would be rather too difficult to manage. God had enough difficulty getting the Israelites to do simple things like worship only him. It may have been an unreasonable to expect them to raise the children of their enemies given A) they were the children of their enemies, B) they likely didn't have resources to spare for a massive influx of new, young people, and C) the cultural power of primogeniture and hereditary heirs likely would have caused difficulties for the large number of adopted children. Of course, the Lord could have told the Israelites to suck it up and raise them anyway, but his chosen people weren't exactly famous for their obedience.

Some insightful comments, there.

As well, those who wonder why the Israelites didn't take on all of these children are very much assessing what they think SHOULD have been done, through their own modern, cultural sensibilities. Just because these were God's chosen people, doesn't mean they had his heart and love for those of other nations. Unfortunately, these were ancient people who typically viewed their captives as disposable or valued as needed, or discarded as so desired. Children being sent immediately in the presence of the Lord, from a two-second sword strike, in bliss forever, likely saved them long lives of misery and of being unwanted, and of probable destinations of hell if they had lived into their own individual "age of accountability."

[PaulSacramento]

There is also another view, the view that God had given them 400 years to "repent" and change their ways and that Israel was commanded to get them off the promised land and that ONLY those that stayed would be killed.
What we may have is the case of "this is what we will do if you don't do this".
The choice was the Cannanites and if they chose to leave, taking into account what they knew about Israel and their God which means it was more than a good idea to leave, they would be spared BUT if they chose to ignore and fight that it would be a war that none would survive ( that many did also tends to favour the account that the commandment was more a declaration of the type of war that would happen as opposed to a divine command to do EXACTLY that).
In modern times the example would be like this:
A super power gives a country that is know for its propensity to commit atrocities, the choice to stop and leave and settle somewhere else OR they will get nuked. The choice is theirs so their government, with full knowledge of what will happen must decide and they decide to fight and, as such, pay the consequences.