Apathy, Atheism, and the Absurdity of Life Without God

Here is a truth I wish everyone would take the time to earnestly and honestly contemplate:

If God does not exist and there is no life after death, then there is no ultimate meaning, value, or purpose in life.

The question of God’s existence is the most important question we can seek to answer. If God does not exist and we do not survive the death of our bodies, life is ultimately absurd. J.P. Moreland provides an illustration which helps bring this truth home:

Suppose I invited you over to my house to play a game of Monopoly. When you arrive I announce that the game is going to be a bit different. Before us is the Monopoly board, a set of jacks, a coin, the television remote, and a refrigerator in the corner of the room. I grant you the first turn, and puzzlingly, inform you that you may do anything you want: fill the board with hotels, throw the coin in the air, toss a few jacks, fix a sandwich, or turn on the television. You respond by putting hotels all over the board and smugly sit back as I take my turn. I respond by dumping the board upside down and tossing the coin in the air. Somewhat annoyed, you right the board and replenish it with hotels. I turn on the television and dump the board over again.

Now it wouldn’t take too many cycles of this nonsense to recognize that it didn’t really matter what you did with your turn, and here’s why. There is no goal, no purpose to the game we are playing. Our successive turns form a series of one meaningless event after another. Why? Because if the game as a whole has no purpose, the individual moves within the game are pointless. Conversely, only a game’s actual purpose according to its inventor can give the individual moves significance.[1]

As Moreland articulates, if the game of Monopoly as a whole has no purpose, the individual moves within the game have no meaning or value. The only way your moves within the game of Monopoly have significance is if you discover the purpose of the game and you align yourself with that purpose.

Jesus on the Problem of Evil

In Luke 13:1-5 we have Jesus’ clearest teaching on the problem of evil:[1]

"Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish."

Not only is this Jesus’ clearest teaching on the problem of evil but we see Him addressing both moral and natural evil in His response. Notice that Jesus is first questioned regarding an example of what we would call moral evil: the murder of some Galileans by Pilate. In providing an answer, Jesus Himself introduces an example of natural evil: the falling of the tower of Siloam which killed eighteen.

Goodness Isn't the Issue. Badness Is.

 

“I’m basically a good person. My good deeds outweigh my bad.”

This is the most common answer I have heard from non-Christians in response to the question, “Why should God allow you into heaven?”

But this answer actually has its root in original sin.

After Adam and Eve rebelled against God, they experienced guilt and attempted to hide from Him. They also experienced shame, and so they attempted to cover themselves through their own effort. Once Adam and Eve became corrupt, they couldn’t produce anything better than themselves, i.e., all they could produce was corruption. Each one of us is born into this world as a little fallen Adam and Eve. And like Adam and Eve, fallen humankind today attempts to hide and cover from God. But rather than sew fig leaves together, one of the most prevalent ways we attempt to cover our moral shame and guilt is by appealing to our own moral “goodness.” That is, we point to our “basic human goodness” and “good deeds” in an attempt to justify ourselves before God. Often this even becomes a rationalization as to why we don’t need God, e.g., “Why do I need God? I’m living a good enough life on my own.”

Do All Religions Lead to God?

Maybe you've heard the parable of the six blind men and the elephant. In this parable, six blind men feel a different part of an elephant and come to different conclusions regarding what the elephant is actually like.

One blind man grabs the tusk and says, "An elephant is like a spear!" Another feels the trunk and concludes, "An elephant is like a snake!" The blind man hugging the leg thinks, "An elephant is like a tree!" The one holding the tail claims, "An elephant is like a rope!" Another feeling the ear believes, "An elephant is like a fan!" The last blind man leaning on the elephant's side exclaims, "An elephant is like a wall!"

This parable is often used to illustrate a view known as religious pluralism. Like the blind men, no religion has the truth. Rather, all religions are true in that they accurately describe their personal experience and the spiritual reality they encounter, given various historical and cultural backgrounds.

There are various types of religious pluralism, but one way to define it is as follows: "the view that all religious roads - certainly all major or ethical ones - lead to God or to ultimate reality and salvation."1 This idea is commonly reflected in such statements as "All religions basically teach the same thing" or "All roads lead to the top of the mountain."

The elephant parable, while attractive to many, suffers from a number of problems:

(non-) BOOK REVIEW for "Divinity of Doubt: The God Question"

Former LA prosecutor and best-selling author Vincent Bugliosi released his latest book "Divinity of Doubt: The God Question" recently and I decided to buy it. I like to use the investigative method when approaching truth claims and it sounded like Bugliosi was doing the same thing despite reaching a different conclusion. So I had to try it. Bulgliosi describes this work as the culmination of a two-year research project. He's written on the OJ case, JFK assassination, and George W. Bush but now steps out of his field to give his best case for agnosticism in this latest work. Bugliosi says he employs his prosecutorial skills to sift through the evidence for a rational conclusion. In that, I applaud him but the praise stops there.

Question: Who Created the Creator?

The kalam cosmological argument is a simple yet effective argument for the existence of God. It goes as follows:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

After establishing that the universe has a cause, Christian theists would go on to argue that God is the cause of the universe coming into being. But some skeptics are unsatisfied with this answer, claiming that if the universe itself was caused by God then one is justified in raising the question "What caused God?" or "Who created the Creator?" This is similar to Richard Dawkins question "Who designed the designer?"1

There are several problems with this line of inquiry:

First, who exactly is asking the question “Who created the Creator?”2 Not atheists like Richard Dawkins. Dickie Dawkins does not believe in God, let alone a created god. However, Christians are not asking this question either, for Christians hold that God is an eternal, self-existent Being, i.e., the uncaused first cause. To whose belief does this question apply then? Neither. This leads us to the second problem.

The Problem of Unfair Damnation

Jim Wallace at PleaseConvinceMe.com tackles the question of hell and the destiny of the unevangelized:



Check out Jim Wallace's website PleaseConvinceMe.com and his you tube channel for more great videos.

Is God a Genocidal Bully?

(Conversantlife.com) by Sean McDowell

Richard Dawkins sure thinks so. In The God Delusion he wrote:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

This is certainly a well-worded objection, but is it convincing? I remember the first time I heard this objection. It unsettled me quite a bit. How could a loving God be so malevolent as to command the extermination of an entire people-group (the Canaanites) including men, women, and children (Josh 9:11-15)? Undoubtedly, this is one of the most difficult questions confronting Christians. While not all answers will entirely soothe the emotions, there are three points that can help us makes sense of this challenge. (For a more in-depth analysis, I suggest reading an excellent article by William Lane Craig.)

Unbelievable Unbelief

(Stand to Reason) by Greg Koukl

The skeptic says, “If Jesus would only show Himself to me—if God would just work one dramatic miracle—then I’d believe in Him.” This kind of person overestimates himself. Even miracles can be denied or dismissed.

During Jesus’ passion week in Jerusalem, he was called to nearby Bethany because his friend Lazarus was dying. By the time Jesus arrived, Lazarus was gone. In a dramatic scene Jesus called him forth from the tomb alive, still wrapped in burial cloths.

This was a spectacular miracle performed in public for all to see. What was the response of the Jewish leaders? They plotted Jesus’ death. "This man is performing many signs. If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation." (John 11:47-48)

But Jesus wasn’t the only one they wanted to eliminate. They also had to get rid of another piece of evidence: "But the chief priests took council that they might put to death Lazarus also; because on account of him many of the Jews were going away, and were believing in Jesus." (John 12:10-11)

Incredible! Instead of falling to their knees in response to this obvious display of Messianic power, they conspire to kill the very man whose public resurrection was proof positive of their error.

This is unbelievable unbelief.

You think if God just did a miracle it would change your rebellious heart? Don’t count on it. Jesus said, “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone rises from the dead” (Luke 16:31).

As one wag put it, a skeptic with such an experience would not seek God, he’d seek a psychiatrist.

Oh so true. The sun melts butter…but it hardens clay.

Reflections on My Recent Debate

(Conversantlife.com) by Sean McDowell

My recent debate with James Corbett on the topic, "Is God the Best Explanation for Moral Values?", has generated quite a stir. A number of people from various backgrounds and beliefs have chimed in with their thoughts, including a popular atheist blogger, a Christian science-fiction writer, a Christian postmodernist, the "Apologetics Junkie," and the Saddleback College paper (the debate was held at Saddleback College).

Here are a few of my thoughts:

Last November I sat down with my friend Greg Koukl while we were both at a conference in New Orleans to talk about his (then) pending debate with Michael Shermer. Greg gave me lots of helpful advice, but one quote stuck out to me in particular: “The more you sweat in preparation, the less you bleed in battle.” Given that my first debate was going to be on my home turf—in front of my family, friends, students, and colleagues—I most definitely did not want to bleed in battle.

So I prepared hard for about four months by watching debates, reading books, talking with my former professors, and even having multiple practice debates with friends of mine. I’ve probably never prepared for something harder in my life. While I have been a public speaker for over a decade, this was my first official debate. I learned very quickly that speaking skills help in debate, but they are only one component.

McDowell-Corbett Debate Video (2 of 2)

Is God the Best Explanation for Moral Values? Part 2 from ConversantLife on Vimeo.

McDowell-Corbett Debate Video (1 of 2)

Is God the Best Explanation for Moral Values? Part 1 from ConversantLife on Vimeo.

An Objectively Good Night

Success!!! Despite a few hiccups in pre-event planning, last night's McDowell-Corbett debate went incredibly well. Saddleback College was buzzing with students, families, scholars, and local citizens lucky enough to get a seat in an event that sold out weeks in advance over a period of about 10 days. Sadly, we had to turn away over three times the number as our room could hold but the webcast was viewed by over a 1,000 people from around the globe. In fact, Conversant Life told me that so many people logged in at one time that the server crashed three times (sorry about that livestream viewers). I would be remiss not to thank Karla Westphal (Saddleback College Freethinkers Club faculty advisor) for hosting the event and handling lots of logistics. I wouldn't have wanted anyone else in her role.

Both speakers were articulate and dynamic which kept the audience captivated the entire 95 minutes without a break. Craig Hazen set the tone with his trademark wit and cordial demeanor. I witnessed first hand his unbroken contact with the timekeeper and even-handed treatment of speaker time limits. The only exception was when he granted Corbett an additional response in the Q&A portion. He even kept the course on track to about three minutes of our planned end time. Amazing work, Dr. Hazen! My only fear is the backlash I'm going to get from all those unable to attend now that Craig and Sean gave away free books and DVDs to everyone there (again, sorry webcasters).

Sean spoke first, as is customary of the positive debate position, and set the bar high for his opponent. Sean layed out his case in outline form stating two key contentions to frame the debate. 1) If God does not exist, we have no solid foundation for moral values, and 2) If God does exist, we do have a solid foundation for moral values. Sean carefully made the distinction between subjective and objective with Greg Koukl's famous ice cream illustration. He told the story of a terrible teen gang rape to show what it means for something to be objectively wrong. Sean argued that any ethical system must account for three things: 1) Transcendence, 2) Free will, and 3) Human value. Concluding that God makes the most sense of moral values, Sean then challenged Dr. Corbett to offer a better explanation.

Sean McDowell's First Debate

Apologetic Junkie is proudly coordinating the first debate in the young, though flourishing, career of Christian apologist Sean McDowell. While Sean travels widely as a popular Christian speaker on apologetics, he also heads the Bible department at Capistrano Valley Christian Schools and is working on his PhD in apologetics.

His opponent, Dr. James Corbett, made his fame two years ago in a highly publicized federal case where he was sued for making discriminating comments about Christianity in class. To see a short clip from the Bill O'Reilly show click here.

During the lawsuit (which is still active), I heard that Dr. Corbett said disparaging remarks of Biola University and how he bragged about wanting to debate someone from there. So I asked Sean if he would be interested in debating Corbett, History teacher at Capistrano Valley High School. The McDowell-Corbett debate will match two men with heavy influence in the lives of Orange County youth. Last year, each of them mentored students who debated their worldviews of Freethought (Corbett's students) and Christianity (McDowell's students). Now, the mentors will meet each other on the public stage. They will debate a topic that tries to determine if the ultimate grounding of moral values can only be found in God. The debate: "Is God the Best Explanation for Moral Values?" will be held Friday night, Feb 26th at Saddleback College in Mission Viejo, California and will be moderated by Biola's director of apologetics, Craig Hazen.

Saddleback College student clubs Campus Crusade for Christ and the Freethinkers Club are hosting the event which is sponsored by Rock Ministries (Mount of Olives Church - Mission Viejo) and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. Non-Saddleback students are $5 and early registration is encouraged. If you don't live nearby, it will be webcast live at http://www.conversantlife.com/ and should be posted online sometime after the event. View the flyer by clicking here.

The Debate Audio is Finally Here!

On December 9, 2009, Freethought Alliance hosted a debate at the Costa Mesa Civic Center titled "Does the God of the Bible Exist?" It was a 3-on-3 panel discussion between Christians and atheists.

The Christian side included Dr. Clay Jones from Biola University, Dr. Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe, and our own Dan Grossenbach from Apologetic Junkie. The atheist panel included Dr. Bruce Flamm from the Inland Empire Atheists and Agnostics group, Mark Smith, and Alex Uzdavines.

Let me warn you in advance about this debate. The debate was quite lively and unconventional, which is why some would prefer to label it a panel discussion (or even a street fight!). The structure of this "debate" made a real debate nearly impossible. Unfortunately rhetoric often prevailed over reason and prevented genuine dialogue from taking place.

Full MP3 Debate Audio here.

In addition, due to the nature of the debate we thought it would be helpful to sit down with Dr. Clay Jones and Dan Grossenbach for a post-debate interview. Be sure to listen to their thoughts and reflections regarding the debate. It takes a lot more time to answer the difficult questions than it does to ask them. Hopefully this interview will answer the questions that time, format, and interruptions did not allow.

Full MP3 Post-Debate Audio Interview here.

We appreciate comments and feedback. Enjoy!

How NOT to Repond to the Disaster in Haiti

The following commentary is offered by Pat Robertson regarding the recent earthquake in Haiti:



Melinda Penner of Stand to Reason gave the following reaction:

It's unfortunate that Pat Robertson thinks he has insight into God's hidden actions to claim that the Haiti earthquake is a consequence of a pact with the Devil Hatians made two centuries ago. He may be right in some respects, like the evil nature of voodoo, but drawing a cause and effect requires insight into God's intentions that we have no reason to believe Robertson has. God has judged nations, we know from His revelation, but that provides no grounds at all to interpret any specific disaster as judgment. Earthquakes may be a natural phenomenon God could use, but it doesn't follow at all that any particular earthquake is a judgment of God's unless He tells us. Jeremiah 29:23 expresses God's offense at an instance of falsely speaking on His behalf. This shows us that it's a serious thing to claim to speak for God, and we should only do so on the proper authority of His revelation. Robertson provides us claim or reason to think he has that knowledge. This is his own speculation. Despite the compassion Robertson also expressed in his claim, which is no doubt sincere and he is praying for these suffering people, he was out of line in any attempt to speak for God in this instance.

Apologetic Junkie would like to encourage you to please donate to help Haiti through Samaritan's Purse, World Vision, or another charitable organization.

If You Believe People Are Basically Good

(Townhall.com) by Dennis Prager

No issue has a greater influence on determining your social and political views than whether you view human nature as basically good or not. In 20 years as a radio talk show host, I have dialogued with thousands of people, of both sexes and from virtually every religious, ethnic and national background. Very early on, I realized that perhaps the major reason for political and other disagreements I had with callers was that they believed people are basically good, and I did not. I believe that we are born with tendencies toward both good and evil. Yes, babies are born innocent, but not good. Why is this issue so important?

First, if you believe people are born good, you will attribute evil to forces outside the individual. That is why, for example, our secular humanistic culture so often attributes evil to poverty. Washington Sen. Patty Murray, former President Jimmy Carter and millions of other Westerners believe that the cause of Islamic terror is poverty. They really believe that people who strap bombs to their bodies to blow up families in pizzerias in Israel, plant bombs at a nightclub in Bali, slit stewardesses' throats and ram airplanes filled with innocent Americans into office buildings do so because they lack sufficient incomes. Something in these people cannot accept the fact that many people have evil values and choose evil for reasons having nothing to do with their economic situation. The Carters and Murrays of the West -- representatives of that huge group of naive Westerners identified by the once proud title "liberal" -- do not understand that no amount of money will dissuade those who believe that God wants them to rule the world and murder all those they deem infidels.

Second, if you believe people are born good, you will not stress character development when you raise children. You will have schools teach young people how to use condoms, how to avoid first and secondhand tobacco smoke, how to recycle and how to prevent rainforests from disappearing. You will teach them how to struggle against the evils of society -- its sexism, its racism, its classism and its homophobia. But you will not teach them that the primary struggle they have to wage to make a better world is against their own nature. I attended Jewish religious schools (yeshivas) until the age of 18, and aside from being taught that moral rules come from God rather than from personal or world opinion, this was the greatest difference between my education and those who attended public and private secular schools. They learned that their greatest struggles were with society, and I learned that the greatest struggle was with me, and my natural inclinations to laziness, insatiable appetites and self-centeredness.

Third, if you believe that people are basically good, God and religion are morally unnecessary, even harmful. Why would basically good people need a God or religion to provide moral standards? Therefore, the crowd that believes in innate human goodness tends to either be secular or to reduce God and religion to social workers, providers of compassion rather than of moral standards and moral judgments.

Fourth, if you believe people are basically good, you, of course, believe that you are good -- and therefore those who disagree with you must be bad, not merely wrong. You also believe that the more power that you and those you agree with have, the better the society will be. That is why such people are so committed to powerful government and to powerful judges. On the other hand, those of us who believe that people are not basically good do not want power concentrated in any one group, and are therefore profoundly suspicious of big government, big labor, big corporations, and even big religious institutions. As Lord Acton said long ago, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Lord Acton did not believe people are basically good. No great body of wisdom, East or West, ever posited that people were basically good. This naive and dangerous notion originated in modern secular Western thought, probably with Jean Jacques Rousseau, the Frenchman who gave us the notion of pre-modern man as a noble savage. He was half right. Savage, yes, noble, no. If the West does not soon reject Rousseau and humanism and begin to recognize evil, judge it and confront it, it will find itself incapable of fighting savages who are not noble.

Debate Feedback

On Wednesday, Dr. Hugh Ross (Reasons to Believe), Dr. Clay Jones (Biola), and I debated three atheists at the Costa Mesa Community Center in a packed room of about 300. The crowd appeared evenly split between skeptics and Christians based on a hand tally requested by two of the debaters in an early exchange.

It was one of the most unique experiences I've ever had in my apologetics ministry. In general, I've received positive feedback from Christians, but I'm curious to hear honest feedback from others who were there that night. Soon, I plan to write a summary of the arguments and give my perspective, but for now, I'm asking for input on the event. Perhaps we can start another discussion here on the Junkie. I know my perspective from on stage, but what's yours?

Three Passions

(Stand to Reason) by Greg Koukl

Crucifixion is a cruel form of execution, generally reserved for slaves and rebels. Death is agonizing and slow, the result of shock, exposure and, eventually, asphyxiation. Hanging from a cross constricts the diaphragm, inhibiting breathing. The only way to get air is to release pressure on the arms by pushing up against the nails that pierce the feet, requiring continual effort that could go on for days. Exhaustion eventually overtakes the victim and he suffocates.

For Jesus, though, the pain of the cross pales in the face of a greater anguish. There is a deeper torment that cannot be seen, one no camera can capture and no words can express, more excruciating than nails pinning Jesus’ body to the timbers, more dreadful than lashes ripping flesh from His frame. It is a dark, terrible, incalculable agony, an infinite misery, as God the Father unleashes his fury upon His sinless Son as if guilty of an immeasurable evil.

Why punish the innocent One? Nailed to the top of the cross is an official notice, a certificate of debt to Caesar, a public display of Jesus’ crime: “The King of the Jews.” The cross is payment for this crime. When punishment is complete, Caesar’s court will cancel the debt with a single Greek word stamped upon the parchment’s face: tetelestai. Finished. Paid in full.

Being king of the Jews is not the crime Jesus pays for, however. Hidden to all but the Father is another certificate nailed to that cross. In the darkness that shrouds Calvary from the sixth to the ninth hour, a divine transaction is taking place; Jesus makes a trade with the Father. The crimes of all of humanity—every murder, every theft, every lustful glance; every hidden act of vice, every modest moment of pride, and every monstrous deed of evil; every crime of every man who ever lived—these Jesus takes upon Himself as if guilty of all.

At the last, it is not the cross that takes Jesus’ life. He does not die of exposure, or loss of blood, or asphyxiation. When the full payment is made, when the last of the debt melts away and the justice of God is fully satisfied, Jesus simply dismisses His spirit with a single Greek word that falls from His lips: “Tetelestai.” It is finished. The divine transaction is complete.

You see, the Passion actually consists of three passions. The passionate intensity of God’s anger at us for our sins collides with the passionate intensity of God’s love for us, causing the passionate intensity of the agony of the cross to be shouldered by God Himself in human form: Jesus.

How Can Yahweh Be Perfectly Good and Just and Yet Command Extermination?

(Reasons.org) by Kenneth Samples

Richard Dawkins, the world’s most famous atheist, asserts that the God of the Old Testament is “a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser.”¹

Yahweh, the Hebrew name of the personal God of Israel in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, reveals himself to be the Creator of heaven and earth. As the one true Lord, he is an infinite, eternal, and morally perfect personal deity. Historic Christianity identifies Yahweh as none other than the Triune God who is more specifically unveiled in the New Testament as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Tension arises when examining the Scriptures. The Bible reveals God to be perfectly good (Psalm 145:8-9) and perfectly just (Deuteronomy 32:4) in the very nature of his being. However, the Old Testament states that God personally commanded the army of the Hebrews to destroy the Canaanite nations.

During the conquest of Canaan, God commanded the following to the Hebrews:

“When the LORD [Yahweh] your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy” (Deuteronomy 7:2).

“However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes” (Deuteronomy 20:16).

In response to this frightening divine command, the Hebrew army carried out the following:

“They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys” (Joshua 6:21).

How can this seemingly brutal genocidal command be reconciled with God’s perfect goodness and justice?


Moral Justification for God’s Command

The following seven points help provide the moral context and justification for Yahweh’s command to destroy the Canaanites:

1. While God doesn’t always reveal all the details concerning his sovereign decisions, Scripture indicates that God’s moral will flows from his perfectly good and just nature. Therefore God has morally sufficient grounds for his commands even if those reasons are not fully revealed to humankind. However, in this specific case some of those reasons are evident.

2. God’s command to destroy the Canaanites was motivated by his intention to preserve Israel from the deep moral corruption that would have inevitably resulted through cultural assimilation with the pagan nations. God’s wrathful justice upon the Canaanites resulted in an act of mercy (protection) upon the Israelites. Therefore God’s command to destroy an entire people group nevertheless constituted a moral good.

3. The Canaanites were a morally decadent and reprobate people. Archaeological discoveries have revealed that they practiced such moral abominations as temple prostitution, child sacrifice, and bestiality.² And for hundreds of years they consistently ignored God’s call to repent of their wicked ways (Genesis 15:16). In God’s eyes they were beyond moral rehabilitation.

4. Life in the ancient Near-Eastern world was extremely brutal. And the Canaanite nations viewed the Israelites as their enemies. In this context of warfare among nations God’s command to destroy the pagan peoples was a necessary act of war.

5. God, as the sovereign creator and sustainer of life, has the prerogative to take life at his just discretion (Deuteronomy 32:39; Job 1:21). Because the cosmos belongs to the Lord, he has the ontological right to do as he wishes with his creatures. His only constraint is his moral nature. God is therefore in a different moral category of being than his creatures. He is the ultimate judge of all things. As Christian philosopher Paul Copan notes: “Like Narnia’s Aslan, Yahweh, though gracious and compassionate … is not to be trifled with.”³

6. God’s order to exterminate the Canaanites was not a command to murder (to take human life without just cause). Rather, it constituted a command of capital punishment on a grand scale and therefore reflected a retributive form of justice (the punishment matched the crime).

7. The divine command for the Hebrew army to destroy the Canaanites took place in a unique historical and biblical context. This was not a common or normative event in the life of God’s people. Yahweh is compassionate and patient and remains, in spite of this act, a God of mercy (Exodus 34:6).

Why Such Utter Devastation?

Yet while God had just cause to destroy the Canaanites for their wicked ways, was it necessary to kill all life? Couldn’t the innocent children have been preserved?

Unfortunately, the abominable evil of the Canaanite society had polluted the children as well.⁴

God, who knows the thoughts and intentions of people (Hebrews 4:12), knew that if these children had been allowed to live they would have inevitably infected God’s people with terrible iniquity. The Hebrews had to be “preserved” because they were the very people from which the Messiah would emerge. Additionally, it may be that God took mercy upon these children and granted them divine acceptance in the next life. God’s compassion is deep and wide even in the midst of temporal judgment.

An important lesson to be learned from this great and terrible event is that God loves his people and he will take extreme measures to protect them from moral and spiritual ruin (Romans 8:28).
___________________________________________________

References:

1. Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2006), 31.

2. Gleason L. Archer Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago: Moody, 1964), 261.

3. Paul Copan, “Is Yahweh a Moral Monster?” Philosophia Christi 10, no. 1 (Summer 2008), 31.

4. Ronald A. Iwasko, “God of War,” in Christianity for the Tough-Minded, ed. John Warwick Montgomery (Minneapolis: Bethany, 1973), 99-107.
______________________________________________

Please Note: If you have the chance, I highly recommend reading Clay Jones' article, also on this topic, entitled "We Don't Hate Sin So We Don't Understand What Happened To The Canaanites" (Philosophia Christi 11, no. 1).