Board index ‹ God

[Ostrich]

> And yet you don't judge a doctor as immoral because he allows or even causes pain and suffering.

A doctor's code is to "do no harm". Having a child raped so her offspring can become a priest violates that. Your analogy is a bad one. It assumes that God can do no evil, so anything God does MUST be good, including rape, incest, slavery, genocide.

>I'm not claiming evil is good.

See above. A person is not an omnipotent God.

> I am showing that for evil to exist doesn't mean that the person who allows it isn't good.

If the person has the power to eliminate evil, then allowing it is immoral. To correct your analogy, a Doctor who has the cure for a sickness, but withholds it, is immoral. If God has the power to eliminate evil, but does not, He is immoral. But what you're trying to do is redefine evil as something not immoral, but more of a tool to a path to a "good" outcome... In other words, evil is not really evil, it's just slightly less good.

> It's not a contradiction for a person to be good and for evil to exist.

Yes. But it is a contradiction to claim an all powerful God is also all loving, and evil to exist.

> Because God is NOT part of the world is what enables him to act outside of it.

But Miracles ARE, by definition, a part of this world. So what you're claiming is that God changes the rules of this universe, rules He created, without entering into this world? Then who performed the miracle? Please give your definition.

Second, your assertion that since no one can guarantee there are NOT metaphysical realities, that this somehow proves there are, is a logical fallacy. No one can prove that I have a pet unicorn that disappears when you look at it. Does this support my case for my pet unicorn being real? Of course not.

3rd, For a realm to exist, outside of everything that exists(the universe) is a false assertion. The burden of proof false on you to provide evidence for a realm that exists. If we discover this realm through evident support, this realm simply becomes part of the Universe. The Universe is everything that exists.

> God did.

Circular reasoning at it's finest. If God gave you the list of what was good and evil, how did you know it was God that gave you that list? If morality is based on His revelation, then we must first verify that that revelation is actually from Him. Which we cannot.
the Bible teaches that morality is built into us (we all have a sense of right and wrong), and so we were given "this list" as part of human nature.

If this were true, then God is not required to tell us morality, remind us of it, or dictate it to us. God is thus reduced to an enforcer of the consequences, or punishments.

Your beliefs are all over the map, a quilt of cliched thought only serving to support your assumptions of what you WANT to believe in.
Human Nature? Is that what GOD created in us? That sure sounds like predestination, or programming. So why would we need God to ever intervene with miracles or prayer? He already programmed us from the beginning. But of course, this causes dissonance with your wanting to believe in God and free will, so you will then claim that God doesn't want robots.

There is no way for us to know that God knows everything. Only that he knows more than we do.

[jimwalton]

Wow, this is a completely different conversation than you alluded to with your original post.

> A doctor's code is to "do no harm".

And yet sometimes they do quite a bit of harm (amputation, surgery, radiation, etc.) to bring about the good they seek

> Having a child raped so her offspring can become a priest violates that.

What in the world????? Where in the world does THIS come from? This is off the wall.

> It assumes that God can do no evil, so anything God does MUST be good, including rape, incest, slavery, genocide.

What in the world?????? Morality is not defined by "what God does." That's part of the Euthyphro dilemma, which is a false dilemma, and this isn't even true.

God never raped anyone.
God didn't commit incest.
God didn't command slavery.
God didn't commit genocide.

You know, your question was, "What would the world be like if God didn't exist?" Where is this stuff coming from? Are you just hauling out a closetful of peeves? Each of these subjects requires real conversation, not toss-offs.

> But it is a contradiction to claim an all powerful God is also all loving, and evil to exist.

It is not. As I said, there is no logical progression that can take you from "All powerful and all-loving God" to "It is impossible, therefore, for evil to exist." None. Guaranteed. I challenged you to write it, and you haven't.

> So what you're claiming is that God changes the rules of this universe, rules He created, without entering into this world?

This is not what I claimed at all. God DOES enter this world, according to the Bible (since you want to know what the Bible teaches and what Christians believe). God is separated from the "stuff" of this world (a rejection of pantheism), but he acts in it and is even able to enter it. The classical laws of mechanics and physics are only relevant when the system is causally closed. But even Isaac Newton himself said that these natural laws describe how the world works when, or provided that, the world is a closed (isolated) system, subject to no outside causal influence. Newton was a Christian, by the way, and believe in God's action in the world. But even Sears and Zemanski's standard college physics text, Universal Physics, says, "*This is the principle* of conservation of linear momentum: *When* no resultant external force *acts on a system*, the total momentum of the system remains constant in magnitude and direction" (italics theirs). They add that "*the internal energy of an isolated system remains constant*. This is the most general statement of *the principle of conservation of energy*." These principles, therefore, apply to isolated or closed systems.

You know that Quantum Mechanics is even more amenable to the idea of miracles. One important characteristic of QM is indeterminism. Special divine actions, including miracles, are compatible with QM because QM doesn't determine a specific outcome for a given set of initial conditions, but instead assigns probabilities to possible outcomes. That means QM doesn't prohibit divine action in the material world.

> Second, your assertion that since no one can guarantee there are NOT metaphysical realities, that this somehow proves there are, is a logical fallacy.

That wasn't my claim at all. You haven't read me accurately. My only point was that science cannot prove there aren't metaphysical realities. If you'd like to try, I'll be glad to read. That doesn't prove there are, but your assertion was that "miracles cannot exist." I'm asking you to logically substantiate that claim, which you haven't done.

> For a realm to exist, outside of everything that exists(the universe) is a false assertion.

This doesn't make sense. Is a word or phrase missing?

> The Universe is everything that exists.

How do you know? Some scientists are now theorizing that there are multiverses—universes that exist outside our universe (you even said so in an earlier part of this thread). The Bible says that metaphysical and spiritual realities exist, but you have not proved that to be impossible, either. In other words, you haven't substantiated your case.

> "God did." This is circular reasoning at its best.

Hmm, still trying to figure this out. I gave you in a previous post the logical progression that is not circular. It was (to reprint it here for you):

The argument from morality is not circular. It goes like this: (source: Zacharias)

1. It is commonly admitted that there is evil in the world. People believe that some things are just wrong.

2. But if evil exists, one must also assume that good also exists in order to know the difference.

3. And if good and evil exist, one must assume that some kind of standard exists to measure what is good and what is evil. Again, people commonly believe that there are standards of right and wrong, good and bad. That would lead us to believe that a moral law exists that allows us to evaluate such things.

4. If a moral law exists, then that moral law has a source. Where did the moral law come from—our "standard" of what is right and what is wrong? It must have come from somewhere, or there must at least be an objective basis for it.

5. It makes sense that the source of our personal, objective moral law must also be personal, moral, and objective.

6. Therefore God—a personal, moral source outside of humanity—must exist.

> If this were true, then God is not required to tell us morality, remind us of it, or dictate it to us. God is thus reduced to an enforcer of the consequences, or punishments.

A sense of morality is built into us, but that doesn't mean we have all the details. That ingrained sense has to be informed by specific training and teaching. You may have an instinct to survive, but that doesn't mean to be trained in survival techniques isn't helpful. The training enhances what is natural. Same thing here. But somehow you erroneously conclude that because of this, God is reduced to an enforcer of punishments. You have quite a chip on your shoulder.

> Your beliefs are all over the map, a quilt of cliched thought only serving to support your assumptions of what you WANT to believe in.

It's interesting that you judge me in this way when we have had a conversation that's all over the map. You somehow have concluded, because I have tried to answer your questions, that my beliefs are random, a patch quilt of nonsense, and unfounded assumptions. Obviously, it's a biased evaluation and judging me without adequate information.

> Human Nature? Is that what GOD created in us? That sure sounds like predestination, or programming.

Wow, not a bit, but the DNA code is pretty undeniable. That we have human nature has nothing to do with predestination.

> So why would we need God to ever intervene with miracles or prayer?

Because we are inadequate in ourselves to achieve eternal life built on a relationship with God.

I'm not sure continuing this conversation is going to be particularly productive. You have a real chip on your shoulder, read things into my writing that I never said, can't substantiate your claims, and are pre-judging me without knowledge. Besides, this conversation has nothing to do with the original post, so there was even something misleading about your query. I guess you should only respond if you have something substantial to say, because I don't see where this is going to any benefit.

[Ostrich]

> Morality is not defined by "what God does.

Then what is it defined by?

> God never raped anyone. God didn't commit incest. God didn't command slavery. God didn't commit genocide.

God condoned and commanded all of the above as told by the Bible.

> I challenged you to write it, and you haven't.

1 God exists. 2 God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. 3 An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils. 4 An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence, and knows every way in which those evils could be prevented. 5 An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence. 6 A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil. 7 If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God, then no evil exists. 8 Evil exists (logical contradiction).

>God DOES enter this world.

If this is true, then there are fingerprints. Laws of physics do not change. By God entering into this world, he would leave physics/evidence for this. If He suspends the laws somehow while He is in this world, so as not to leave evidence, this would be the equivalent of a unicorn that becomes invisible when you look at it.

Isaac Newton like many contemporaries,lived with the threat of severe punishment if he had been open about his religious beliefs.

> "world"?

We must clarify our terms.The Universe is an isolated system since it is a term to describe the entire spacetime continuum, including all of the energy stored in it. In reality, the Universe is regarded as the only true isolated system, as perfect isolation on a smaller scale is impossible. The Earth can be viewed as an approximately closed system, although it is open in reality. So when you use the term "world" what do you mean? The earth? or The universe?

> Special divine actions, including miracles, are compatible with QM

You haven't given your definition of "miracle" yet. So I can't debate this assertion.

> science cannot prove there aren't metaphysical realities.

Science can't prove there aren't Leprechauns, and Unicorns, and Bigfoot. This is a waste of an argument.

> "miracles cannot exist."

This of course depends on mine and your definition of the term. The "Argument from miracles" is an argument, usually for the existence of a deity, that relies on eyewitness testimony or anecdotes of impossible or extremely improbable events to establish the active intervention of a supernatural supreme being (or supernatural agents acting on behalf of that being).

The existence of muti-verses, if proven, will then be incorporated into "everything that exists".

> The Bible says that metaphysical and spiritual realities exist.

You have not proven this assertion.

> It is commonly admitted that there is evil in the world. People believe that some things are just wrong...

This is simply 1.Evil exists. 2. If evil exists, good exist. 3. Morality exists. 4. Morality came from somewhere. ---The assumption of an omnipotent God leads to problems communicating a moral code in a clear way to people in an authentic manner. ----The specification that morality is "hard-wired" by God (to circumvent the communication problem) implies that this argument from morality is dependent on direct creation actually happening, and that the Original sin didn't change it.

1. Morality is personal, moral(self referential) and objective (unproved assumption)
2 God must be the source. (unproved assumption).

The existence of God is assumed in defining something that already exists (morality); therefore it is circular reasoning by attempting to show the existence of God in this manner.

This is simply an old argument than can be countered with the existence of naturalist origins of morality. While there are various secular formulations of morality and ethics, such as humanism, it needs to be explained why we feel morality. Evolutionary advantages for certain behaviors that one could consider "moral", providing an alternative explanation that does not require a god. Evolutionary psychology, when it works properly, attempts to do this. For example, killing another person is detrimental to the society at large; the tribe has one less person to help or defend it. Law enforcement is not perfectly efficient, and morality provides an additional barrier against criminal behaviour.

When multiple religions/denominations each use this argument to justify their own version of deity, the credibility of the whole argument weakens. This is because the "objective" morality used for the premise is not exactly the same for each religion/denomination.

First you must present logical evidence explaining why your God must be omnibenevolent rather than omnimalevolent. This goes directly back to my original question. Put simply, you must demonstrate why your God is "good" and not "bad".

>A sense of morality is built into us.

This does not require a God.

First you must demonstrate why we need objective morality. Or why we need to be able to tell "right from wrong" at all.

Second you must demonstrate the existence of objective morality.

Third you must prove the existence of the morality generating entity.

And finally, prove why YOUR God is the only possible morality-generating-entity.

> my beliefs are random, a patch quilt of nonsense, and unfounded assumptions.

Your beliefs are very typical, as is your flawed reasoning. I'm attempting to illustrate them. Our conversation has covered a wide range of religious topics. But you have yet to provide sound logical , or reasonable evidence for them.

> Because we are inadequate in ourselves to achieve eternal life built on a relationship with God.

Are you referring to an "afterlife" ? What a wild assertion, with no evidence whatsoever. Here is an example of another topic that you bring up without support. Which now elicits questions of the existence of a "soul", it's biological proof, etc. The location of the "afterlife"? Is it good? Do we have free will? Are there animals there?

You brought it up, not me. I'm not sure you can be convinced of anything beyond your assumptions. You have a blind faith that pre judges all arguments to the contrary. I'm looking for sound arguments to the contrary to my assertions. Please continue to attempt them. But so far, you have only presented apologetic ones.

[jimwalton]

> Then what is it defined by?

Morality is defined by the nature and character of God, just like humanity is defined by our nature, not by what we do as humans. We ARE humans. God IS good.

> God condoned and commanded all of the above as told by the Bible.

This is patently untrue. He did no such thing.

> 1 God exists. 2 God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. 3 An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils. 4 An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence, and knows every way in which those evils could be prevented. 5 An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence. 6 A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil. 7 If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God, then no evil exists. 8 Evil exists (logical contradiction).

OK, you lose your case at point 3. It doesn't necessarily follow that an omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils. Hume and Philo claimed the same, but their arguments fail. For instance, pain has a beneficial purpose in letting you know something is wrong. Without pain, you wouldn't take avoidance or corrective action. So with evil. It lets us know something is wrong so we can take corrective steps. And I have already established, with my doctor analogy, that sometimes evil is the necessary path to a greater good. Therefore, it is unproven that an omnibenevolent being would want to prevent ALL evils. It's also true that some evils cannot be eliminated without eliminating that greater good; your 3rd point is where your argument falls apart. For your argument to work, you must prove that all evils and every state of evil is hopelessly unjustified, that there is NEVER an occasion for a greater good, and that no course to a good end ever involves a path through pain, suffering, or evil. That's where your argument fails.

> If this is true, then there are fingerprints.

There are such fingerprints. The universe bears many evidences of having been designed by an intelligent causal source, and that those designs are purposeful. There are also many elements of fine tuning that betray a random and chance source.

> If He suspends the laws

You are still working with an inadequate definition of miracle. I define miracle as "a supernatural exception to the regularity and predictability of the universe, and therefore it is not a common (this term needs to be interpreted) occurrence." For instance, there was an earthquake just when the Israelites blew the trumpets around Jericho. It was a perfect natural occurrence, since Jericho is on a fault line and experiences many earthquakes, but this was a miracle because it coincided perfectly with the blowing of the trumpets to conquer Jericho. So not every miracle has to be a suspension of the laws of physics. It's an inadequate definition of miracle.

> Evolutionary advantages for certain behaviors that one could consider "moral", providing an alternative explanation that does not require a god.

The problem is that if we have evolved by the chance happenings of random processes, the probability of our capability to reason is low. If everything is chance, then my thoughts are also the result of chance, and so I can't assume any reliability—it might be, it might not. I can legitimately question anything, because there's no way to tell if it's random and wrong or random and right. NO way to tell. There is a serious and deep conflict between naturalism and reason. Therefore I truly have little basis to determine if something is true. Nietzsche said, "Only if we assume a God who is morally our like can 'truth' and the search for truth be at all something meaningful and promising of success. This God left aside, the question is permitted whether being deceived is not one of the conditions of life." Thomas Nagel said, "If we came to believe that our capacity for objective theory (e.g., true beliefs) were the product of natural selection, that would warrant serious skepticism about its results." Barry Stroud: "There is an embarrassing absurdity in [naturalism] that is revealed as soon as the naturalist reflects and acknowledges that he believes his naturalistic theory of the world. … I mean he cannot it and consistently regard it as true."

Secondly, if I can't truly determine truth, I have every reason to question concepts like "right" and "wrong." Patricia Churchland said, "Boiled down to essentials, a nervous system enables the organism to succeed in the four Fs: feeding, fleeing, fighting, and reproducing. The principle chore of nervous systems it to get the body parts where they should be in order that the organism may survive. … Improvements in sensorimotor control confer an evolutionary advantage: a fancier style of representing is advantageous so long as it is geared to the organism’s way of life and enhances the organism’s chances of survival. Truth, whatever that is, definitely takes the hindmost."

In other words, evolution never takes us to morality. The primary function of our cognitive faculties is not that of producing true or near true beliefs, but only to contribute to survival. What evolution guarantees is that our behavior is adaptive to the circumstances so we can survive. Truth has no place, and cannot have a place. All is random. Our beliefs might be mostly true, but there's no reason at all to think they would be. Natural selection isn't interested in truth, but only in behavior that contributes to survival. And even if for some reason it learned to be interested in truth, since evolution is the sequence of random processes and mechanisms, we have cause to doubt two things: (a) there is such a thing as reliable reason, and (b) that truth and morality are legitimate constructs.

> First you must demonstrate why we need objective morality

Without objective morality, all we have is opinion and/or perspective, which means that "right" and "wrong" can't really be defined, nor can "good" or "evil." Without objectivity, all we are left with is relativity, and no definitions. God and evil are either based only on preference or majority rule.

> Are you referring to an "afterlife" ? What a wild assertion, with no evidence whatsoever.

The evidence is the historical resurrection of Jesus.

> You have a blind faith that pre judges all arguments to the contrary.

There has been nothing in my conversation suggesting blind faith. Instead, there are well-reasoned arguments and evidence to substantiate. You just have to read back through the thread to see them all, but of course there are many more. We can't possibly cover everything in this forum.

[Ostrich]

> Morality is defined by the nature and character of God

You're assuming God exists in order to define morality and using morality's existence to prove God exists. circular reasoning.

Numbers 31:17-18
17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

In 2 Chronicles 13:15-18, God helps the men of Judah kill 500,000 of their fellow Israelites.

In Numbers 31:7-18, the Israelites kill all the Midianites except for the virgins, whom they take as spoils of war.

In 2 Kings 2:23-24, some kids tease the prophet Elisha, and God sends bears to dismember them.

omnibenevolent. Adjective. All-loving, or infinitely good. If evil exists, God cannot be infinitely good.

Pain is not evil or immoral. In your analogy pain is simply a sensory warning of physical harm to the body.

The argument from fine tuning asserts that the possibility of life coming into existence is so incredibly low that an intervening actor must have caused it, ignoring the evolutionary nature of life and the hostility of the universe. Essentially, the fine tuning argument is an example of an argument from incredulity. It also emphasizes traditionally religious themes such as Earth's perceived special status as the centerpiece of God's creation.

"Jericho". You have several problems with your definition. 1. You've defined coincidence as miraculous. So now ALL improbable events must be defined as miracles, not just events that are beneficial. But miraculous deaths as well. 2.It relies on eyewitness testimony of coincidental events. 3. It relies on incorrect assumptions on probability. In which events are assumed guided by supernatural forces simply because of their improbability. 4. You must answer this, Did God plan this event ahead of time? Does God plan all of his miracles ahead of time? By your broad and general definition miracles must happen every day, but only for the benefit of humans? Humans die improbable deaths every day, where is God's hand in them?

> The problem is that if we have evolved by the chance happenings of random processes

Another common creationist argument. The "random chance" criticism is actually a straw man argument, since evolution does not rely only on random chance. While some elements of evolution are random (most notably mutation), the cornerstone of Charles Darwin's theory is natural selection, which is the opposite of chance. Natural selection is non-random and is one of the primary shaping forces for adaptation in nature. By ignoring natural selection in evolution, creationists are better able to argue that a god or a committee of gods must have intervened. But this presents a problem because with a designer, there is no difference between the results of divine creation and random chance.

In the broadest sense, behaviors or social constructs are seen as adaptations in the same way as physical adaptations. Morality falls into this category.

And again, I'm not making the claim that "all is random". You are in that it helps your argument from design. Adaptation is not always successful. Often times, the environment changes too rapidly to allow for adaptation. For example, if the population of a predator within an ecosystem increases, its prey may be wiped out before it can adapt.The platypus, a creature whose very existence disproves the creation of god, is an example of failed adaptation. Its adaptation was so incredibly screwed up, that it has been uniquely classified by science as a "semi-aquatic mammal endemic", which in simpler terms means that it's a fish beaver duck.

> Without objective morality, all we have is opinion and/or perspective...

So what? All this does is make it problematic for your God to exist. This presents a problem for only the believer. You need objective morality to exist because you need your God to exist.

> The evidence is the historical resurrection of Jesus.

Now you've opened ANOTHER can of worms. You have evidence, outside the bible, for the resurrection of Jesus? Even if we assume that Jesus Christ existed as a literal, singular, historical person, and he did everything recorded in the Bible up to that point. Even given all this, there are real doubts about the accuracy of the Bible's account.

Can you imagine a movement today that claims a World War II soldier rose physically from the dead, but when you asked for proof all they offered you were a mere handful of anonymous religious tracts written in the 1980s? Would it be even remotely reasonable to believe such a thing on so feeble a proof?

So save your speeches on "well reasoned arguments" for the choir.

[jimwalton]

Well, I can't deal with morality, genocide, evolution, natural selection, the evidence for the existence of God, and the resurrection of Jesus all in one post. These have to be separate conversations because of the limit on post lengths.

> Circular reasoning

All questions of existence—or, more accurately, knowledge of existence—are fundamentally circular. In order to know a thing, we have to know what it is, and we also have to know HOW we know what it is. To know whether things really are as they seem to be, we must have a procedure for distinguishing appearances that are true from appearances that are false. But to know whether our procedure is a good procedure, we have to know whether it really succeeds in distinguishing appearances that are true from appearances that are false. And we cannot know know whether it really does succeed unless we already know which appearances are true and which ones are false. And so we are caught in a circle.

You can't verify your procedure without first having knowledge, but you can't get any knowledge without first verifying your procedure. Kant would say the only option is to pick one or the other and run with it (choose a procedure that you assume but cannot prove will yield true knowledge, like positivism does with science; or choose some tenets of knowledge that you assume are true even though you can't verify them, which is called foundationalism and is the process used in nearly all of philosophy). The way to verify (or contest) truth in a Kantian system isn't to verify (or contest) the first principles, but to test for coherence: a system based on faulty assumptions (or an inaccurate procedure) will eventually either contradict reality, or contradict itself.

Christianity presuppositionally begins with a God who is there. When logical reasoning is applied, we discover that it's reasonable to hold to a theistic position.

> Genocide

Let me lay some groundwork first, and then I'll speak more specifically.

1. The only time(s) that the Israelites were commanded by God to fight offensive battles (to conquer cities) was during the conquest. Beyond the land of Canaan, they were never commanded to expand their boundaries, build an empire, wipe out people groups, etc.

2. The goal of the conquest was not genocide, but occupation. Repeatedly the commands of God are to drive the Canaanites from the land (Ex. 23.30 as one example of many). More to the point, the Canaanites were first to be given an opportunity to surrender and become part of Israel (Dt. 20.10), and if they would not surrender, to engage them in battle.

3. It was God's intent to bless all the nations (Gn. 12.3 and others). It’s not the Canaanites as people that the Lord hates, but their godless perversions and lying religion. Dt. 7.5-6 is very clear that the point is truth, not genocide.

4\. In those days the cities were fortresses surrounding governmental and cultic structures, not dwellings for the population. When commands were given to conquer cities, it was the rulers and soldiers the army was after, not the population. In the agrarian society of the Canaanite city-states, more than 90% of the people lived in the countryside as farmers, and less than 10% of the population lived in the cities. The cities were mostly fortresses and governmental centers. Almost exclusively, when a city was attacked, it was military action against military personnel and the rulers of the region, not against the general (and innocent) population. It was impossible, without nuclear weaponry, to wipe out all the citizenry. There was never an attempt to wipe them out.

5\. The Conquest is not what many people imagine. Joshua cut a swath through the center of Canaan (Jericho, Ai and Shechem, Joshua 6-9), separating north from south. Gibeah surrendered (Josh. 9), and they were not killed. At that point an alliance of cities from the south attacked Joshua (Josh. 10), and the Israelites won. Now they controlled the southern hill country. Joshua then turned and attacked Hazor in the north and burned it (Josh. 11), and an alliance of northern cities attacked him. Joshua won, and all of the hill country of Canaan was now in Israelite hands. That was the extent of it (Josh 11.16, 23, etc.). They never gained the valleys and plains until under the monarchy, as nation-states attacked David and he won. There was no genocide.

Now let's talk about ancient Near-Eastern warfare. The "kill 'em all" speeches of the ancient Near East were a case of customary warfare bravado, and people in those days didn't take it literally. What it meant was: "Secure a total victory." The language is used in Josh. 10.40-42; 11.16-23; yet they readily acknowledge that it wasn't literally true (Judges 1.21, 27-28). On the one hand, Joshua says he utterly destroyed the Anakim (Josh. 11.21-22), but then he gives Caleb permission to drive them out of the land (Josh. 14.12-15; cf. 15.13-19). What it proves it that "kill them all" was an idiom of warfare that meant "We won a decisive victory." No people groups were being wiped out. This was pretty typical of the whole region in this era.
- Egypt’s Tuthmosis III (later 15th c.) boasted that "the numerous army of Mitanni was overthrown within the hour, annihilated totally, like those (now) not existent." In fact, Mitanni’s forces lived on to fight in the 15th and 14th centuries BC.
- Hittite king Mursilli II (who ruled from 1322-1295 BC) recorded making "Mt. Asharpaya empty (of humanity)" and the "mountains of Tarikarimu empty (of humanity)." Not true; just rhetoric.
- The "Bulletin" of Ramses II tells of Egypt's less-than-spectacular victories in Syria (1274 BC). Nevertheless, he announces that he slew "the entire force" of the Hittites, indeed "all the chiefs of all the countries," disregarding the "millions of foreigners," which he considered "chaff."
- In the Merneptah Stele (ca. 1230 BC), Rameses II's son Merneptah announced, "Israel is wasted, his seed is not," another premature declaration. Not true, didn't happen, no genocide.
- Moab's king Mesha (840/830 BC) bragged that the Northern Kingdom of "Israel has utterly perished for always," which was over a century premature. The Assyrians devastated Israel in 722 BC.
- The Assyrian ruler Sennacherib (701-681 BC) used similar hyperbole: "The soldiers of Hirimme, dangerous enemies, I cut down with the sword; and not one escaped."

In addition, we know that the people groups that Joshua claims were "utterly destroyed from the earth" continued on, such as the Anakim I have already mentioned. The same is true of the Amalekites of 1 Sam. 15 (the Amalekites were a people group for about 1000 years after being "totally destroyed"), and all of the Canaanite groups. The point was not to kill them all in a genocidal frenzy, but to win a decisive military victory over their armies and politicians, drive all rebels from the land, assimilate those who were willing, and to destroy the false religious practices that would corrupt the people of God.

The ultimate goal was that God would have a people, set aside for relationship with Himself, that he could covenant with to reveal Himself to and redeem them from sin. All comers, Israeli and foreign, man and woman, slave and free, were welcome. All rebellious, wicked, and deceivers were not.

As you can see, the label "genocide" misleads. The call to "kill 'em all" was language of victory, not genocide. "The moral of the story," as Dr. Paul Copan says, "is not to stop at a surface reading of these terms and assume God’s immorality."

The plan of God was a three-stepped plan, with each subsequent step only being necessary if the first two failed.

STEP 1: Incorporate the Canaanites into Israel as full members of the community, and worshippers of the true God. There was no reason to wait until the Day of the Lord to have the people worshipping the true God (Zech. 14.16-20; Rev. 22, et al.). The Lord will take any who come to him; the invitation is always open, and no sincere seeker is refused. Any Canaanite who surrendered would become part of the Israelite community.

STEP 2: Lacking surrender, the object of the army was to drive the Canaanites from the land, not slaughter them (Ex. 23.30-31; 33.2; 34.11, 24; etc.). Let them go somewhere else to live, and let Israel have the land that was theirs to possess. Anyone who would leave was free to go.

STEP 3: If they won't surrender, don't want to join you, and refuse to leave, the only option is to engage them in battle. The land belonged to Israel, not the Canaanites. But the point was still not genocide, but to kill the soldiers, supplant the rulers, and take possession of the land. The civilians were not harmed.

God communicated in the language of the culture, their typical Near-Eastern warfare rhetoric. Everyone in their era knew what it meant: secure a total victory. We need to read the text through ancient eyes, not through modern ones of a different culture, era, and language.

No room for any other parts of the conversation at this point.