Many people argue that God acted immorally in the Old Testament when He ordered the Israelites to destroy the Canaanites who were living in the land that God had promised to Abraham and his descendants. However, there are several reasons why this is a poor argument.
 
First, if God does not actually exist, then the accounts of His deeds in the Old Testament are meaningless fables, and it does not matter what these stories claim about God.
 
Second, if the purpose of objecting to Old Testament accounts is to hold God and His followers to a standard of behavior, then it is reasonable to ask whose standard should be used and why?
 
Third, if believers in the Judeo-Christian God are to answer for God’s actions in their scriptures, then it seems reasonable to examine the justifications for and explanations of those actions as offered by them including:
 

1. The Canaanites were actually a perverse people, and God patiently waited 400 years (from the time of Abraham to Joshua) allowing the Canaanites time to amend their evil ways. Instead, their wickedness actually increased, so God used the Israelites to punish the Canaanites for their sins – just as He had punished all mankind by means of the flood earlier, the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, and even the Israelites themselves by means of forty years spent in the wilderness and the Babylonian captivity. Clearly, God was no harder on the Canaanites than He was upon His own people.
   
2. The Canaanites had the opportunity to flee; by choosing to stay and fight, they resisted God and sealed their own fate. 
   
3. It is evident that the Israelites didn’t literally kill every single Canaanite man, woman and child, because the Canaanites continued to appear in the Bible long after the time when they were allegedly wiped out. It is more likely that the authors of the Old Testament books used metaphorical or hyperbolic language to express the message they wanted to convey about Israel’s victories over the Canaanites.
   

 
Each of these points suggest that there is nothing inconsistent or contradictory about the Judeo-Christian view of a God who is both loving and capable of wiping out evil.

Ironically, atheists often ask, “If God exists, why doesn’t He prevent evil?” The destruction of the Canaanites is an example of God putting an end to evil practices (such as child sacrifices to a false god) just as these atheists demand. Unwilling to let go of this convenient (if impotent) cudgel, however, atheists continue to object to God’s judgment and destruction of the Canaanites—a clear example of wanting to have it both ways.

Finally, while objections to the immorality of the God of the OT may explain why one may not be Jewish or Christian, they offer only an incomplete explanation for why someone is an atheist since there are many alternative views of God that do not require acceptance of anything from the Bible.

AAAND on a related topic but not answering the "god" part . . . but yes, I think we're talking about a Bronze-Age War deity with the requisite human traits and utter lack of morals required of such a construct . . . 

Many modern historians and archaeologists now believe that the original Hebrews WERE Canaanites.  Here is just one article that I chose for its clarity and readability.  There are more.

http://www.apxaioc.com/article/were-anci...canaanites

That's some impressive gymnastics there. Does your back hurt?

1. You're acting as though we cannot judge the morality of fictional characters. "I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way."

2. If God was willing to destroy the Cananites to 'prevent evil', and flood the world to 'prevent evil', why didn't he stop the Holocaust? Sudden decline in birth rates of German people, including the Hitler family would have done wonders. You don't get to have it both ways. You can't say "Well God did prevent evil, but you all see it as Evil!" and then not answer why he stopped preventing evil as soon as reliable methods of mass communication became available.

3. You're focusing on a single event, and ignoring all the other immoral acts that God is claimed to have done.

4. Being consistent doesn't equal being moral.

(January 22, 2016 at 12:59 pm)athrock Wrote: Many people argue that God acted immorally in the Old Testament when He ordered the Israelites to destroy the Canaanites who were living in the land that God had promised to Abraham and his descendants. However, there are several reasons why this is a poor argument.
 
First, if God does not actually exist, then the accounts of His deeds in the Old Testament are meaningless fables, and it does not matter what these stories claim about God.

This would be true if the god character wasn't believed by some people to not only be real but to be a role model and influence. Incredible I know but there are some people out there that actually live life like the stuff in holy texts is true!
 

Quote:Second, if the purpose of objecting to Old Testament accounts is to hold God and His followers to a standard of behavior, then it is reasonable to ask whose standard should be used and why?

Well I'm glad you asked that, I would judge behaviour by the standards of today. If you do judge the actions of the god character through modern morality it falls short and you will see that the actions replicate what you would expect from a poorly written being used to justify the actions of bronze age goat herders.
 

Quote:Third, if believers in the Judeo-Christian God are to answer for God’s actions in their scriptures, then it seems reasonable to examine the justifications for and explanations of those actions as offered by them including:
 

1. The Canaanites were actually a perverse people, and God patiently waited 400 years (from the time of Abraham to Joshua) allowing the Canaanites time to amend their evil ways. Instead, their wickedness actually increased, so God used the Israelites to punish the Canaanites for their sins – just as He had punished all mankind by means of the flood earlier, the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, and even the Israelites themselves by means of forty years spent in the wilderness and the Babylonian captivity. Clearly, God was no harder on the Canaanites than He was upon His own people.
   
2. The Canaanites had the opportunity to flee; by choosing to stay and fight, they resisted God and sealed their own fate. 
   
3. It is evident that the Israelites didn’t literally kill every single Canaanite man, woman and child, because the Canaanites continued to appear in the Bible long after the time when they were allegedly wiped out. It is more likely that the authors of the Old Testament books used metaphorical or hyperbolic language to express the message they wanted to convey about Israel’s victories over the Canaanites.
   

 
Each of these points suggest that there is nothing inconsistent or contradictory about the Judeo-Christian view of a God who is both loving and capable of wiping out evil.

Again we see theists justifying genocide. A common trend.

Quote:Ironically, atheists often ask, “If God exists, why doesn’t He prevent evil?” The destruction of the Canaanites is an example of God putting an end to evil practices (such as child sacrifices to a false god) just as these atheists demand. Unwilling to let go of this convenient (if impotent) cudgel, however, atheists continue to object to God’s judgment and destruction of the Canaanites—a clear example of wanting to have it both ways.

God is supposed to be able to have mind control. In the exodus fable he is said to have "hardened Pharoahs heart" so surely a kinder way of dealing with them would be anything other than what the story says. To be clear the story of the canaanites is just a petty justification for a violent act perpetrated by an evil cult, the cult of the rather silly desert god Yahweh.[/quote]

It's always cute to see believers try to justify mass murder on a grand scale with an appeal to Divine Command and by blaming the victims, who didn't get to present their side of the story in a "holy book".

I'll bet you're a nightmare on a jury: Well, ordinarily rape is a bad thing, but in this case the bitch had it coming.

It doesn't really matter if the stories are true or not. People believe they are, and want me to give myself willingly to the person described in the book, so I'm free to judge his actions as acceptable or not. It's like if someone watched star wars, and tried to argue that Darth Sidious is a good guy. I don't believe those events happened, but I can still argue against the idea tht Sidious isn't evil.

when I decide if something is acceptable or not, I use my standard. There's a big culutral difference between the bible and most modern societies. Granted I'm not perfect, but my limited understanding of right and wrong is all I have. So that's what I work with.

The Canaanites were a bad people. That's all well and good. Killing them all, down to the women and children, does not solve the problem of people being bad. This is a proven historical fact. Wiping out neighbors who disagree with you does not solve the problem.

And where were they supposed to go? If there was another place for a tribe to go, why didn't Yahweh just send the isrealites there?

It doesn't matter if the Isrealites only stole some land, and killed some people. It's still wrong.

Killing people for not worshiping Yahweh is not "wiping out evil". It's just picking sides based on who is willing to worship Yahweh more. Which is really what the bible is about. It has little to do with morality. It's just some god demanding worship, and killing people who don't.

(January 22, 2016 at 12:59 pm)athrock Wrote: Many people argue that God acted immorally in the Old Testament when He ordered the Israelites to destroy the Canaanites who were living in the land that God had promised to Abraham and his descendants. However, there are several reasons why this is a poor argument.
 
First, if God does not actually exist, then the accounts of His deeds in the Old Testament are meaningless fables, and it does not matter what these stories claim about God.

You can stop right there as far as I'm concerned. Except I wouldn't call them "meaningless" fables. You expect the characters of legends and fables to be over sized and exaggerated. Personally it is the depiction of a god as hyper rationally kind which I find to be suspect.

 

(January 22, 2016 at 12:59 pm)athrock Wrote: Each of these points suggest that there is nothing inconsistent or contradictory about the Judeo-Christian view of a God who is both loving and capable of wiping out evil.

But don't you apologists teach that god was first and created all else? If there is evil in the world it obviously has god's blessing. If He occasionally has to reboot a particular group that would indicate He has favorites. Perhaps the evil you do to those who torment god's chosen is blessed in the eye of the lord? Would you personally be faithful enough to bash the skull of an infant if you believed it to be god's will?

(January 22, 2016 at 12:59 pm)athrock Wrote: Ironically, atheists often ask, “If God exists, why doesn’t He prevent evil?” The destruction of the Canaanites is an example of God putting an end to evil practices (such as child sacrifices to a false god) just as these atheists demand. Unwilling to let go of this convenient (if impotent) cudgel, however, atheists continue to object to God’s judgment and destruction of the Canaanites—a clear example of wanting to have it both ways.

The shoe may be on the other foot. It is no concern of mine that the god of bible does what I would call immoral if men did it. It causes me no conflict because I'm willing to call that spade a spade. I think it is you that is made uncomfortable by all this, not atheists. But hey, if it helps you to project one side of your internal debate out there onto atheists in order to work through your issues, I'm glad we can help.

(January 22, 2016 at 12:59 pm)athrock Wrote: Finally, while objections to the immorality of the God of the OT may explain why one may not be Jewish or Christian, they offer only an incomplete explanation for why someone is an atheist since there are many alternative views of God that do not require acceptance of anything from the Bible.

Promising to hear you say so. I quite agree. But thank you, no thank you. I'm not having any more gods.

(January 22, 2016 at 1:11 pm)Cecelia Wrote: 1. You're acting as though we cannot judge the morality of fictional characters.  "I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way."

As I noted in the OP, if God is a fictional character, then you can judge all you want...for whatever that is worth. But if you want to attempt to judge God and demand explanations from believers, then you should be willing to listen to what they say in reply.

(January 22, 2016 at 1:11 pm)Cecelia Wrote: 2. If God was willing to destroy the Cananites to 'prevent evil', and flood the world to 'prevent evil', why didn't he stop the Holocaust?  Sudden decline in birth rates of German people, including the Hitler family would have done wonders.  You don't get to have it both ways.  You can't say "Well God did prevent evil, but you all see it as Evil!" and then not answer why he stopped preventing evil as soon as reliable methods of mass communication became available.

Here you are equating the evil of the Holocaust with the evil of the Canaanites or of Sodom? Are you in a position to do that? Are you God, or do you know all that God knows about these various events?

The Nazis implemented their "final solution" over about a ten-year period. The Canaanites practiced their various evils for 400 years. The Canaanites were wiped out by the Israelite army; the Nazis were destroyed by the Allied forces. Interesting parallel, eh?

Further, is it a mere coincidence that within a few years of the end of the Second World War, the United Nations declared that Israel was to be a sovereign nation? Did the blood of these martyrs water the seeds of that declaration?

(January 22, 2016 at 1:11 pm)Cecelia Wrote: 3. You're focusing on a single event, and ignoring all the other immoral acts that God is claimed to have done.

Yes, I am. And for good reason.

When debating issues like this, it is ESSENTIAL to focus on one point at a time. Otherwise, the discussion gets completely out of control quickly.

For example, I can now ask you: Based on the arguments presented in the OP, is it possible that God was NOT acting immorally but with very good reason when He judged and destroyed the Canaanites by means of the Israelites?

(January 22, 2016 at 1:11 pm)Cecelia Wrote: Being consistent doesn't equal being moral.

Is it inconsistent for a loving God to act with perfect justice when punishing a people who are evil and refuse correction?

(January 22, 2016 at 1:11 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(January 22, 2016 at 12:59 pm)athrock Wrote: Second, if the purpose of objecting to Old Testament accounts is to hold God and His followers to a standard of behavior, then it is reasonable to ask whose standard should be used and why?

Well I'm glad you asked that, I would judge behaviour by the standards of today. If you do judge the actions of the god character through modern morality it falls short and you will see that the actions replicate what you would expect from a poorly written being used to justify the actions of bronze age goat herders.

First, why do you use the phrase "bronze-age goat herders"? Do you think that you are more intelligent than they were? I'm not arguing that you are more knowledgeable about many things (except goat herding perhaps), but do you think that you are superior to them by virtue of the fact that we have advanced the sciences beyond what they understood?

Has this made you MORALLY superior to them? Are you a better man?

And if our society approves of things such as abortion which kills innocent children in their mothers's wombs and the use of drones which results in the deaths of innocent civilians, are we really able to say that we are morally advanced beyond the "goat herders" who would have found those things to be morally repugnant?
 

(January 22, 2016 at 1:11 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(January 22, 2016 at 12:59 pm)athrock Wrote: Third, if believers in the Judeo-Christian God are to answer for God’s actions in their scriptures, then it seems reasonable to examine the justifications for and explanations of those actions as offered by them including:
 

1. The Canaanites were actually a perverse people, and God patiently waited 400 years (from the time of Abraham to Joshua) allowing the Canaanites time to amend their evil ways. Instead, their wickedness actually increased, so God used the Israelites to punish the Canaanites for their sins – just as He had punished all mankind by means of the flood earlier, the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, and even the Israelites themselves by means of forty years spent in the wilderness and the Babylonian captivity. Clearly, God was no harder on the Canaanites than He was upon His own people.
   
2. The Canaanites had the opportunity to flee; by choosing to stay and fight, they resisted God and sealed their own fate. 
   
3. It is evident that the Israelites didn’t literally kill every single Canaanite man, woman and child, because the Canaanites continued to appear in the Bible long after the time when they were allegedly wiped out. It is more likely that the authors of the Old Testament books used metaphorical or hyperbolic language to express the message they wanted to convey about Israel’s victories over the Canaanites.
   

 
Each of these points suggest that there is nothing inconsistent or contradictory about the Judeo-Christian view of a God who is both loving and capable of wiping out evil.

Again we see theists justifying genocide. A common trend.

Rubbish. I have EXPLAINED why that which you call "genocide" may not be inconsistent with the existence of God. You haven't really undermined that view.

(January 22, 2016 at 1:11 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(January 22, 2016 at 12:59 pm)athrock Wrote: Ironically, atheists often ask, “If God exists, why doesn’t He prevent evil?” The destruction of the Canaanites is an example of God putting an end to evil practices (such as child sacrifices to a false god) just as these atheists demand. Unwilling to let go of this convenient (if impotent) cudgel, however, atheists continue to object to God’s judgment and destruction of the Canaanites—a clear example of wanting to have it both ways.

God is supposed to be able to have mind control. In the exodus fable he is said to have "hardened Pharoahs heart" so surely a kinder way of dealing with them would be anything other than what the story says. To be clear the story of the canaanites is just a petty justification for a violent act perpetrated by an evil cult, the cult of the rather silly desert god Yahweh.

To be REALLY clear, the story of the Canaanites does nothing to undermine the existence of a loving, personal God who occassionally acts to wipe out evil.