I think this line of thought is dangerous, as it could easily be used to justify abortion. Better to die in the womb than be raised in an unbelieving household.
It doesn’t help to make the wrong argument in response to the atheist.
It would probably be more rational to show just who the Canaanites were and what they were doing. They were way worse than Sodom and Gomorrah
Deuteronomy 20: 16-17 16 But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: 17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee:
1)Non-theists having moral standards,
2)"Theists" who feel they have to "justify" the commandments of A-mighty G-d,
3)Chrstians (or "anti-chrstians") acting as if the "old testament" were their book to defend. Oh, and one more:
4)Jews who never defend the TaNa"KH because it's a "chrstian" book.
I believe He had a good reason for destroying these peoples. They had been compromised by the blood of the fallen. Their descendants were half Nephalem. They had to go.
The error in Dawkins’ thinking, and people like him, stems from the fact that he was raised in a culture that had its basis in Christianity, that promotes a more humane society. That does not mean a perfect society.
He does not understand or know the Old Testament historical context, and is not interested in finding out; he just wants to sit in judgment. I am sure Satan took the moral high ground against God.
I wonder if Dawkins considers abortion genocide. I bet he does not.
Dawkins is an arrogant, pompous fool.
What a puffed-up jackanapes. Typical of almost every atheist I’ve ever met. They make vegans look humble.
Craig responds to Dawkins calling him an "apologist for genocide" by making an apologetic argument for the extermination of the Canaanites.
The old testament is filled with genocide after genocide after genocide. But what people seem to forget, is that this is the way conquest was done.
As a military, you simply cannot leave anyone behind you who may be trouble. The best way to deal with that, was to leave no one behind you. This was not new at the time, history is full of such things.
But to say that God did not order the absolute killing of everyone, i.e. every man, woman, child, and beast, is simply not true. It is spelled out very clearly, and was carried out per very specific orders, for very good military reasons.
Apart from salvation, God “exterminates” everyone. Everybody dies.
I would have just pointed out the fundamental dishonesty of Dawkins. He rejects the Bible as a complete work of fiction, except for when he wants to twist some part of it to make an argument about how bad God is.
God was not engaging in simple genocide for the sake of it.
The religious practices of the Cannaanites and worshipers of Baal and Molech involved child sacrifice of burning their newborns alive as sacrifices to those gods.
If God did not punish that behavior, then He would not be just.
So the condemnation by the God haters then implies that they are OK with the religious practice of those people groups, that they think burning children alive is OK.
Then they can be asked what their solution to that kind of problem would be.
I will pass on the word to my Amalekite friends ...
Before people get too worked up about the poor Canaanites, their religion centered around the sacrifice of children. That was why God said to kill them and destroy their “gods.”