Why Kill Canaanites?
5March 14, 2013 by theguywiththeeye
Will anyone challenge humblesmith’s post? Will he defend it?
Content Crusades
find/promote controversial posts on other sites or help bring them here for a one-on-one debate at Defend Your Post.
Latest Comments
 | chosenrebel on The Atheism of Christians |
 | Logan Rees on Science Proves Nothing (Part… |
 | Allallt on Why Kill Canaanites? |
chosenrebel
International Justice Mission
Glen
Love Africa
Fourat J
Doctors Without Borders
clubschadenfreude
snowleopard.org
myatheistlife
Heifer International
Content Crusades 
The slaughter of the Canaanites is one of the stranger things that apologists defend, so far as I can see. You could take modern and modest parallels, like abortion doctor killers, and most Christians (any one that follows Jesus’ preachings on love) would abhor the idea that God commanded it.
But, of course, God does command murder. Let us assume, for a moment, that the Canaanites did deserve death: even the women and children and even the cattle and the infrastructure. Why not just have them drop dead, painlessly? Why war? Why not just kill the guilty and the unsalvageable? The children, surely, could have been spared.
And if the point is to stop the spread of Canaanites (because the Bible is all to fast to assume that sin is genetic…) just make them infertile. Then there’s no untimely death. It certainly sets a bad precedent to get a human to do your murdering for you, if you then carve “thou shalt not murder” into stone. It’s a mixed message, that’s all I’m saying. There was better ways of doing it (i.e. less suffering, more efficient, less messy, clearer message–I mean, imagine the message that Sodom left, an entire city burned in Divine fire…)
But then it gets worse. No one claims that God punishes us in our life time. That’s the point. Bad point live good lives (sometimes) and then those bad people get judged after their timely death. So why do these select few get judgement called up on them, but the Khmer Rouge never got the same treatment?
Thanks for the comment. I’m going to let this comment stay until I receive word back from another potential challenger. Are you getting the concept here? This blog is still a bit rough around the edges.
I think I get it. But I don’t know how many people are willing to defend their posts in an environment they are not in full control of. I tend to find it difficult to get a conversation on people’s blogs.
I will ask this, though. Do you prefer the idea of people’s first comment being “I shall challenge this!” or do you prefer the idea, like what I have been doing, of detailing my initial challenge?
Well, I think for this to be successful it’s going to take a few people getting onboard besides me and encouraging others to participate.
“I tend to find it difficult to get a conversation on people’s blogs.”
That’s why I started this! I think that some of the issue is that people may get overwhelmed with multiple criticisms. Here I will make sure they only have to deal with one other author.
I think I would prefer that the initial challenge be posted in the comments & suggestions page … unless you have a better suggestion to get things started?
Eventually, only the comments of the original author & ONE challenger will be accepted on each thread. So, I, we, have to find a way to make sure people don’t waste their time with lengthy responses here.
It’s a shame this guy doesn’t want to defend his post. It has become the pinnacle of the morality argument. Thinking of it, that’s weird though, because I find the Number 31 story of absolutely destroying man woman and child, except for a girl who has not known a man by lying with him, whom you make keep for yourself, to be worse still. And that’s the Midianites.