What Skeptics Get Wrong About The Canaanites (And The Bible In General) 

I think Frank Turek answers this brilliantly when he says “Atheists complain that there is evil in the world, why doesn’t God do something. When he does something they complain”

This is great. Really really helpful. Feeling equipped now

Alex: “nothing could be more intuitively wrong with the killing of an innocent child”. His very words. I’d really love to know his standing on abortion.

It took me years to become a Christian, but questions about morality really never bothered me. If God does not exist, then morality is an illusion. If God does exist, then he is the grounding for morality and we simply are not a position to know whether any action or command that he gives is by necessity evil because God is in a position to know better than us.

For Christians the "killing baby Hitler" answer should be NO. Why? Because asking that would be like asking "If you could, would you kill baby Pharaoh before he enslaves the Hebrews?". Well, no Pharaoh would mean no Moses. God already allowed all of these evils to transpire and we should trust in Him and His will because we believe everything He does or doesn't do is for good. Taking things into our own hands like that means that we think we know better than God. We don't.

Cosmic Skeptic: *Talks about God.* Atheists: He is a doctor in theology, I think he knows what he’s talking about. Dr. Craig: *Talks about God.* Atheists: Lol, WLC has a degree from studying fairy tales, as if that means anything!

"The 👑GREATEST MAN in HISTORY" had no servants, yet they called Him Master. Had no degree, yet they called Him Teacher. Had no medicines, yet they called Him Healer. He had no army, yet kings feared Him. He won no military battles, yet He conquered the world. He did not live in a castle, yet they called Him Lord, He ruled no nations, yet they called Him King, He committed no crime, yet they crucified Him. He was buried in a tomb, yet He lives today! "His name is JESUS❤"

The Canaanites sacrificed babies to Moloch. Expedition Bible channel did a video on a Canaanite high place about a year ago. They found the remains of babies the Amorites had sacrificed. Excavated Canaanite High Place: "the sin of the Amorites" is the name of the video.

No one is innocent in a fallen world. Romans 3:23 all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

Atheist complain that the world is evil.and God does not act on it but then complain when GOD acts like God in the Bible.

If God likes killing children, why is He against the god Molech which is the god of child sacrifice? Didn't He punish nations that worshipped Molech because as Jesus said that it's better for someone to be tied onto a millstone and be thrown into the sea than to make these little ones stumble? Mark 9:42 Is the argument that God loves violence? Why did He punish those warring nations? The atheist argument that God is evil is kind of contradictory to what is written in the old testament. God punished those who caused evil specially those who enslaved other nations. Read the book of Nahum and God punished Nineveh. This was long after God gave mercy when He sent Jonah. Apparently, they returned to their wicked ways. Nahum lists some of Nineveh's sins: plotting against God (1:9, 11); idolatry (1:14); vile behaviour (1:14); shedding blood, lying and plundering (3:1); enslaving nations (3:4); presumption (3:8); and cruelty (3:19). If today we're so against slavery, isn't God right when He punished Nineveh when one of their sins is SLAVERY? I don't understand this atheist argument that God is evil. God keeps punishing the wicked. Who punishes the wicked? The righteous hence God is righteous.

The conversations seem to leave out one simple fact. Every person born owes a life debt. That is why every person alive will die. This debt must be paid. Even Jesus subjected Himself to this justice. Had He not chosen to die on the cross, by the progression of His life, we can safely assume that His body would have aged and died. God has a right to determine when and how that debt is paid. Even an innocent baby has a life debt and isn't guaranteed any length of life. When God brought the flood, would we be so simple minded to believe that babies and children did not drown? God can take a life whenever He chooses, however He chooses without losing any of His goodness. Period.

My enemy attacks, I will defend. Atheist: War is wrong. I will spare my enemy's life, make him my slave. Atheist: Slavery is wrong. I will release my slave. Atheist: You would let him starve!! I will feed my former enemy and slave. Atheist: Can't you give your home, too! I will give my enemy my home. Atheist: They don't need your charity! I will walk away. Atheist: I need you to stay and work! No. Atheist:. Then I shall force you to be my slave. My enemy attacks, I must defend. Atheist: War is wrong.

I've heard interesting theories that most of these tribes were descendants of nephilim and giants, so these campaigns were a matter of cleaning up this evil and corruption.

Conversations like this make me miss dr. Michael Heiser even more. His knowledge and view of the killing of the canaanites is very interesting and the only one that makes sense to me. I hope you use one of his clips to take this debate further.

The atheist in the comment sections are mad asl, because their best argument Got debunked.💀

Something that always is missing from conversations about this topic is this. We live in an independent, legal based Western culture. We can't conceptualize paying for the sins of our family or tribe. We then interpret this story through a modern lens. Ancient Israel and the Canaanites were in a group honor/shame culture. If your father was killed by a warring enemy, you were honor-bound to kill your enemy. Examples of this show up in the modern era in stories like Peace Child. So, the Canaanite children, if they survived, were honor bound to kill the Israelites in return for the conquest. Similarly, any women who survived would be required to remarry and her children would similarly be honor bound to avenge their tribe for the conquest. So Yahweh's command was intended to prevent significant further warfare between Israel and the Canaanites. The Israelites didn't obey Yahweh and left survivors. Sure enough, the problems and wars between Israel and the descendants of the Canaanites continued to war for hundreds of years. God's command to wipe out one generation was (a) group punishment for hundreds of years of evil child sacrifice and (b) an act of mercy for the future given the honor/shame cultural context. That's why it was just and moral at the same time.

I applaud this channel for bring to light the hard-to-understand topics of Christianity. These topics shouldn't be avoided, they need to be discussed. And there's multiple ways to interpret the text. A proper interpretation requires a proper perspective, and this is where the various interpretations vary. For everyone addresses these hard-to-understand texts with their own perspective. One's perspective determines how they'll interpret these texts.

IP - "I think we misread these texts" *So "God's word" is full of Middle Eastern hyperbole speech?* Whose words is this book from again? Someone else made it all up? Ok, as long as we agree this book is not the word of a "God", sure why not, it's all Middle-Eastern Hyperbole, people made it all up

As Christians, we constantly struggle between what God directs or allows to happen, and what we think ought to have been. A death of a loved one, a natural disaster, an act of atrocity. That's an inevitable tension existing when finite persons limited in time and space are trying to comprehend events set in a context of a much larger timeline and much broader space. But because we believe in God, and because we trust that He is good (conclusions reached from other lines of evidence), we acknowledge our finitude and concede that God would have reasons for what He directs or allows to happen. It's not a perfectly satisfactory position in that our inability to comprehend still remains, but that is necessary given our finitude. It is a coherent perspective. On the other hand, the atheist talking about "the strongest moral intuitions" a sentence after acknowledging that in his worldview he can't speak of morality is absolutely incoherent.

I'm with Dr. Craig on this one. Trying to frame the conversation as if God had to make that decision in order to save humanity I really think misses the simplicity of "God is God and I am not". I don't believe God needs to provide justification to prove that what He commands is for the greater good for it to be considered moral. That attempts to understand things in in our own little box by twisting the God of the Universe to fit our own expectations of Him. To borrow a bit from Job..."were you there when I laid the foundations of the world?" Sometimes we just have to accept that we arent going to get the answers to everything while on this earth, but someday it will no longer be a dim mirror. Can we submit to a Creators' authority over us, or not?

The only objective truth comes from God Himself. Morality flows from His will. His will for mankind is that they don't murder each other. But His will for a believer is to follow God's commands. He told Abraham to kill Isaic. Abraham had every intention to do so. What a chaos this planet would be if God did not write, You shall not murder on the hearts of all mankind. But chaos builds none the leas. God destroyed the people of earth with a flood. That was mass genocide. But it was necessary. When God commands His servant to kill, then that is God's will and it is moral. It's that simple. The question of going back in time to kill Hitler as an infant is infantile. God could have killed him anytime he wanted. We have no business judging God in letting Hitler live, thus to go back in time to make that judgement is foolish speculation. It has no place in the mind of a born again christian.

One word: _nephilim_

The Hitler question is thought provoking ... my answer would be 'no' ... Hitler did not come out of a vacuum ... if the ideologies that could produce a Hitler and enable him to gain power had been left to grow unchallenged then maybe 5 to 10 years down the line another 'Hitler' would have risen who could have got his hands on nuclear weapons ... without absolute knowledge of possible outcomes we cannot change history without risking something worse ... I think it was IP or DW who mentioned the movie 'Butterfly Effect' ... my answer is that we have evidence of the character of God ... the cross ... a God who would enter into the suffering of that which He created is worthy of our trust ... like a friend who does something outwardly questionable ... if we know that friend is good and honourable then best to wait to find out why they did what they did before jumping to judgement

I'm an atheist. Will god protect me from dying and going to hell while my investigation into these matters is still in progress? Or should I hurry up and accept Jesus ASAP, because I never know when I'll die, and Hebrews 9:27 says my death will irreversibly seal my eternal fate?

While I appreciate Brandon’s objection to a reading that emphasizes hyperbolic language (essentially…does such a reading mean that God doesn’t mean what He says?) I think this misses the fact that language is always bound up with culture and literary genre. It is not simply a matter of word for word exchanges when it comes to translation - culture and genre are in tension with what individual words mean in isolation, and this dynamic transcends semantic range (put another way, idioms greatly extend what words mean when used together in particular combinations.) God speaks to people in terms they can understand, as in the Incarnation.

If god is all knowing I trust that when he intervenes it is to help future humans wether that better future comes 1 day after his intervention or 10,000 years after his intervention. God is good!

Maybe in choosing to end innocent lives God actually spared them the eternal punishment that they undoubtedly would have heaped upon themselves when they grew up in such a sinful society? We don't know where they wound up after they died and without knowing that how can we judge whether the action that God took was just? But we do know that God is just and the source of all good so we can be confident that whatever justice God gives is going to be far more just than anything we might think is fitting. We only see things from a human perspective but God sees things from the perspective of eternity. If a person suffers throughout their whole life and dies an unjust death but ultimately spends eternity in heaven could you then say that they didn't receive justice?

Why are most atheist mad at a God they do not believe in?

Atheism will lose the morality argument every single time.

This is my stance: God is the source of life, and life itself is quite literally a gift, and God is the giver of this gift. As the creator of all life, he has the SOLE *right/authority* to give and take life whenever he chooses (without him and his loving kindness, no one has life at all in the first place); but because he is all-just and all-righteous and a perfect judge, whenever he does decide to take a life it cannot be a wicked decision by definition. However, because of God alone having this authority, whenever someone else takes life on their own (as their own judge, jury, and executioner), they do not have the authority to do so. So when someone does something they is not within their *right/authority,* this is defined to be immoral. And to speak without absolutes (because I dont have every scripture memorized), almost every time God uses his *authority* and decides to take a life, its usually preceded by a divine warning or many warnings of which are directly ignored by the offender. These warnings are either viewable in the immediate context of the account, or they are to be understood as part of the law given decades/centuries before the account takes place. Another example would be prophets declaring warning messages to other nations to turn back their ways or be destroyed, the book of Jonah is a great example of this because the city of Ninevah actually heeded these warnings and repented and saved themselves from being destroyed by God’s wrath.

People miss the hyperbolic language and they also miss the concept of judgement upon a nation. It’s a disappointing answer by Dr. Craig and not the common answer of Christianity. We use the same sorts of hyperbolic language, ‘the Kansas City Chiefs killed the Patriots last week’ or ‘the Romans totally wiped out the Abraham was told it wasn’t time to take the land because the iniquity of the peoples had not reached the point of judgement. There is a consistent pattern of judgment against entire nations in scripture, where the people as a whole are guilty even while the individual guilt varies. An imperfect comparison is RICO charges against a gang - everyone in the organization is guilty of group criminal conduct even though individuals are guilty of different specific crimes. Steve might just run messages for the Don, but he is still guilty of the overall criminal operations of the gang.

An awesome, epic conversation and response from two awesome, epic dudes! I really enjoyed this video, gentlemen! Keep up the good work!!

The trolley scenario is easy. There is only one decision which doesn't amount to 1st degree murder. Not throwing the switch. The only dilemma is the individual's comfort with murder.

Thanks for the thoughtful, nuanced discussion. That final analogy with childbirth hit home: I recently witnessed this glorious/painful process with my daughter in law and son🤱🏻

I really want to drive this point home: Michael is correct when he says that situational awareness is necessary when it comes to any of these moral quandaries. There may be a moral situation in which an innocent child being murdered, might indeed be the best thing. Here is the rub God is in a position to know those things so therefore, even if he commanded such a thing he would do it because he would know that it was for the best according to his purposes.

Innocence women and children die in war. Its unfolding in Gaza right now. God is the author of life. If He is holy, just and love as the bible teaches then any innocent life that died in the conquest of Canaan is taken to be with the Lord. That would be consistent with God's character. If it was complete genocide as atheists presume then the passage is not consistent with rest of scripture which means God wanted to drive out the evil practices in Canaan. Either or circumstance would be permissible with a sovereign God.

Unlike Sodom and Gomorrah and even Noah's flood where we were shown a full picture of the situation that warranted God's extreme judgment, here in the Canaan story, we are not. The absence of the backstory doesn't mean God's command was unwarranted. The previous examples show that God never resorts to extreme measures without good cause and good outcome. Humility requires that we trust our all knowing, all just God ultimately.

Two additional factors to consider: (1) the special role of Israel and (2) the potential of creating an eternal source of revenge actions (Hatfields and McCoys) , if the children were not eliminated. Nevertheless, I prefer InspiringPhilosophy’s explanation and find it quite compelling. It shows the limitations of pure reason ( a la Kant) when unlinked from historical-literary facts.

God doesn’t kill innocent children, he relocates them. So what if he takes them out of what’s temporary and puts them in eternity.

Love these 2 together

I believe this is explained by God choosing to move within a world with free will. Thus anytime he has to make a hard choice it is because of the limitations of his people. If God removed free will he can infact save everyone. This is why he has chosen to move the way he does and with the foresight that every soul can be saved in the grand analysis. This is where the trust and faith that God has chosen every path for a end result we can be happy with. The only problem is our own desires and free will that commit atrocities. We can choose to make this world sinless but it is beyond our power currently due to our rejection of the commandments.

One has to ask how many more innocent children would have suffered and died if God had allowed them to continue their sacrifices for another 400 years? Atheists complain when God doesn't do something about the evil in the world but then scream foul when he does.

Wise analysis, Mr Daily Dose💥.. Christ’s suffering and death is the worst imaginable but God decreed it for the good and salvation of many..

Great conversation! Nice job, gents.

Does the fact that the Canaanites sacrificed, in the cruelest way, so many of their own, innocent children to Moloch, for no better reason that to win the lottery, basically, affect the idea of them as innocent victims (i mean the grownups, not the kids)? Wouldn't there be a case for stopping their child-sacrificing society, or at least, giving it a severe setback? And if we consider that it is perhaps a good thing to stop their domination of the land, when we think of the welfare of children, let's not serve own selves and our self-images in this, like a child welfare social worker, who takes kids from loving pstents, just to put them with possibly a much worse and depersonalizing situatuon And they feel llike they have done good because they have won one for the team, and not even willing to think about addressing the problems with their placements. They won, as if the important thing is that the social workers "win". There are such people, right? Well, consider that there would be more children than Israel could properly take care of. Someone condemned me for saying this the other day (he pretended to be a worshipper of Jesus, to get me to say this, then becomes the enemy of the Bible's God when I did, stretching and mischaracteriing what I said.) But it is still true, that Israel would have to move in, clean up, and get their own crops in the ground, feeding themselves and their own children. It's not just a matter of "should" they feed, clothe, house, or eliminate the kids, who nedd them to be capable, from day one, when the help, food and shelter would be needed, but it is also *would* they even try to do it,a d wouldthry do it successfully? If God told them to raise the kids with mercy and kindness, would they? They are people who have bascally nothing. If they still had some of the jewelry or livestock they left Egypt with, that doesn't mean that they could convert that to a way to feed and care for the children, in as timely manner as the kids would have needed their help. They couldn't just say "let us get our act together, and well get back with you when we do," but under the circumstances, that's probably a best case scenario: the best case in such a set of circumstances. You'd have this massive group of traumatized hungry, lonely, angry kids,who just lost the life they have always known, as crude and mean as it was, and every adult they knew, either by death or through abandonment and escape . They would want to retaliate against Israel, and they'd have had a kid's lifetime of experience doing so. No matter whether the kids had been treated horribly, even if they were next in line on the sacrifice list, they would feel a loyalty to the ones who'd died or escaped and left them, and would be a child guerilla army against them, right in their midst. When you combine that with the reality that Israel is not equipped to feed and shelter them, much less deal with their emotional problems, as adoptive, surrogate parents, maybe it was more a matter euthanasia, on Gods part, than killing them without mercy. They would, after all, go immediately to heaven, nit endure an earthlylife that would have been more chaotic and cruel for them for 28:07 quite awhile, than it had been with their child sacrificing, child emolating parents, when daddy needs a new pair of shoes. Look at how Rahab the harlot was willing to side with the israelis, so that Joshua actually marries her, and she becomes the grabdnmother or great grandmother of David, or was it Jesse his father? Hadn't she seen the ways of the Canaanites all her life? See, it is not just a matter of what israel could have done, if everything worked together or thst is the correct thing to do. God says He "hates divorce", yet he established in it their law, as a way to release pressure on those who we're not really believers, and wouldn't have done anything to obey the Bible in the their arrangement with Canaan.. tbc

Skeptics always citing the Bible “a book” they don’t even believe in. That’s called conviction.

God is 4th dimension while we are 3 dimensional. God is outside of time, he can see every time in history all at once

What these guys seem confused about is we are talking about the words and actions of men, just claiming the commands are “from god”. Therefore we have to judge them as men. We’re not judging god. That would be like judging natural disasters, even though we do do that too. This is judging the words and actions of men who are using “divine commands” as their justification..

Its always funny to me that people presume they can outsmart God, or critique his morality.

God is a judge of righteousness. So his decisions are righteous. And God isn't bond by his own law. His law is for his creations not him but yet he is the law, The great judge

24:29 Are you not assuming a God exist. It’s easy to know more than your made up God character.

Holy smokes this was a good conversation. Nice work 👍

The Canaanites were Nephilim/giants… literal giants who killed and ate humans.

Mike Jones believes you can be saved without Jesus therefore not a Christian

In response to IP saying that they were using hyperbole, do you think God was using hyperbole as well in Deuteronomy. 20:16-18? I am open to that interpretation, but I don't know exactly how to reconcile it with this passage. Edit: listened a little longer and you guys addressed it. Thanks!

I'm an advocate for having a diverse investment strategy. I grew to a 7 figure mark with my portfolio having exposure to different areas of the market, including small and large-caps of the ETF index, blue chip stocks, coins, grade bonds and alternatives like cryptocurrency markets, as this helps manage the overall risk on my portfolio managed by my FA.. Credits to my adviser, Jeffrey, i have no doubt investing more

"The Creator gives life, and thus is entitled to take it away." Pro-Choice Argument

1. God doesn't "kill" people. He moves them from this life to the next. 2. There are many reasons to think there is an "age of accountability" for innocent children. If these kids were to grow up, they would go to hell. God is actually saving them! 3. God gave life. It was a gift. God has every authority to take it back away when he wants. He is the only one who has this authority, but sometimes he directs us to do it. 4. We, humans have a limited amount of justice we are authorized to do in very specific circumstances. But the LORD holds all vengeance (Romans 12:17-19). If this is part of his vengeance, then yes, it would be *very* wrong for humans to do on their own initiative, but not for God. 5. This entire situation isn't significantly different than the end of times in the Book of Revelation.

Appreciated the philosophical elements of this conversation. I think the killing baby Hitler debate is made fraught by the issue that Minority Report raises. An infant fuhrer never oversaw the Nazi party’s rise to power, never started WWII and never perpetrated the Holocaust. Yes, I understand the preventative aspect, but can we arrest or kill criminals for things they have not done? Killing baby Hitler could only be right assuming some kind of rewritable timeline, IMO, in which he DID grow up and do these things, but then time is changed and rewritten so that atrocities don’t happen. I think there is a lack of biblical evidence to suggest God orders actions to prevent terrible future realities EXCEPT for Jesus’s need to fulfill Scripture, which results in the world’s redemption rather than it’s condemnation.

God and all of his judgments are perfect.

I'm glad this was raised. Good vid. "Moral intuition" comes into play in many places, but not in the revelation of God to mankind. God told us "thou shalt not kill," (which we can also guess by moral intuition) because we didn't give life. God can kill because He is the Giver of Life (revelation). No contradiction, no conundrum.

Michael Jones and the rest of you seem to conveniently forget all the first born children of Egypt.

If you're going to make content from others, can you at least link their videos in your description?

amazing content

2:58 I want to know if this guy is okay with abortion. I'm thinking he is okay with abortion. Even though that's an innocent child.

You can not use philosophy (a creation of man) to understand and judge God's ways. That is a foolish endeavor in the extreme. You may lead people away from the true God, replacing him with one that seems reasonable to you. That is a sure fire way to ensure that your name will not be found in the Book of Life. To understand this topic, you must really understand Genesis 3, and Genesis 6. These are the descendants of Ham's son that Noah cursed. Of course, it helps to understand why Noah cursed Canaan and not Ham. Gen 9:3"...and covered the nakedness of their father..." Gen 9:24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son (Ham) had done unto him. Gen 9:25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

"I have eaten my lunch until my plate disappeared and then I went to wipe clean my plate."

The problem with ALL of these discussions is that EVERYONE is looking at this all from a man-centered perspective rather than a God-centered perspective.

Without science, what the boss does, isn't for us to question, since the boss dictates stanards to his creation, not the other way around. Calling God immoral, is playing God.

2:41 “we all know there is such a thing as morally right and morally wrong.” No, we don’t all know that. That’s why the Holy Spirit guides us and the Word tells us. Also….I lose respect for people who go outside the Bible to talk about biblical stories.

So two things first Canaan had 400 years to repent, and they didn’t, they continued to understand so it was 400 years of God‘s mercy upon that nation. The can are almost presumed to be innocent and loving, Israelites didn’t have to kill the candidate children because the canon were already killing their children. They were sacrificing them to moloch

Wanna keep thanking you, I’ve been falling short and doubting a lot and this channel along with some others helps out a lot. Love you and thank you time and time again❤️🤝

Two of my favorite chsnnels together!

“Judeo-Christian faith” Me: Huh??

Imagine, listening to a sports commentator stating, he annihilated the other team, they decimated them, they slaughtered them, they butchered them, they wiped the floor with them... and thinking that it was an actual blood bath...

Great conversation! Thank you. I recently listened to Gavin Ortlund's thoughts on this topic. Definitely worth checking out. It's titled, "The Conquest of Canaan: Genocide or Just?" His RU-vid channel is called, " Truth Unites."

I don't think it's a problem of "modern lenses" when people are reading the scripture literally. We use similar vernacular in modern language as well. In the US we use that kind of language for sporting events and a sporting event is far from actual battle no matter how much we use that kind of hyperbole.

Even if we assume that morality is objective, and comes from a sky daddy, we'd have to have the same access to those moral truths that sky daddy does. Without the mind of god, all we have is how we feel about certain actions, so it goes right back to being subjective

The “innocent babies” assumes they were fully human babies, not Nephilim descendants. (I wonder if Alex is pro-life.) Genesis 6:4 KJV - There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

It amazed me that Yahweh has been so crafty that he's convinced nearly the whole world to worship him as though he were actually God. I suggest the remedy for this would be to reread John chapter 8 . Listen to the son of the true God (our Father in Heaven) explain who Yahweh really is.

This question plagued me for a long time as a new Christian. How could a loving, just God kill innocent children. UNTIL I read the book of Enoch and COMPLETELY understood the context. Enoch makes so many unexplainable things in the Bible clear as glass.

I wish the real God would just show up and straighten out this mess called Christianity. Why do we need people to explain obvious errors, and fall for such simplistic thinking the Bible is full of.

Michael first saying that God commanding children to be killed is hyperbole and then spending the rest of the video justifying why it might be ok slaughtering children ☠️ I’m glad Brandon pushed back about God speaking in “hyperbole” with killing children. Sorry Michael, there’s a big difference in hyperbole by saying flying down the road to go fast and killing children. Not a good example. Michael’s explanations continue to reassure me I made the right choice to walk away from Christianity. The mental gymnastics believers have to do to justify what the Bible says as moral is astounding

I never want to hear that the Bible is the literal word of god again if you can save yourself from confronting biblical inaccuracies by claiming it is “hyperbole”

I don't understand why the teachings of the bible are misunderstood so often. When you read all the best interpretations and really exam the syntax it is clear that God is all loving. Those people who read it prima facia and don't know what is hyperbole and metaphor are fools and/or liars.

I think it’s all a lesson. God cannot be faulted. He is not bound by our moral objectivity that’s to us by his existence. God was going to wipe out the entire Sodom and Gomorrah. He told Abraham. Abraham pleased on thier behalf Does this mean Abraham is more loving than God or it was a lesson. The expression of love from Abraham was acknowledged.. a Part of God in Abraham God told Moses, step aside let me destroy the Israelites after they offended him. Moses pleased on Israel’s behalf and made a case Does this mean God was short sighted or not as loving as Moses? I will assume it was a lesson. More also God instructed Abraham to kill his own son. Abraham did not object, but God intervened . Does this mean Abraham was not loving ? No it was a lesson. Following the instruction, a plea could have been made, But they had not grown to that level of love in God. They sought the extermination as well.

3:08 William Lane Craig's respone regarding the killing of innocent childern "I would say that it is wrong in the absence of a divine command but the God has the ability to overwrite that by issuing a divine command which becomes our moral duty". Absolutely disgusting! So it's only OK to kill innocent children if your God says so, but you must as a moral duty! Is it OK if other religion's God/Gods command the killing of innocent children? "If you want to get good people to do wicked things, you need religion." Christopher Hitchens.

He's wrong; it's a literal translation, and it ties back to nephalem. 2 Peter 1:20-21, you believe all of it or none of it.

Alex O'Connor is very ignorant on the context of The Bible if this is what he thinks about God and morality. Michael Jones from Inspiring Philosophy and Professor William Lane Craig is an awesome mix. I think the Canaanites sacrificing children and babies to their idol god Moloch is enough for God to have them wiped out of He chooses to. Awesome videos from Brandon. I'm from Newark, New Jersey in The United States of America and I've met many Atheists, agnostics and secular humanists in my 24 years alive which helped me with countering atheist arguments. Regardless of the choices you make it's still a choice that's available to you because you have options within a limited capacity so Free Will still exists in human beings. This has nothing and everything to do with the video but please listen if you want to otherwise leave it alone and ignore it. Hello my name is Justin and I'm a fellow Christian and Apologist but I'm also a college graduate. I'm not a closed minded Theist as I have nothing against Atheists or unbelievers as I speak to them often to understand their reasons for unbelief but we as Christians are convinced of God's Existence due to many real factors). I'm not trying to convert anyone or convince anyone to become Christians as that's The Holy Spirit's job to help people believe but only explain why I believe in Jesus Christ. There's actually evidence of God's Existence in Christianity. First of all there's proof that Jesus of Nazareth existed in history since the writings of Tacitus, Josephus Flavius, Pliny the younger and other historical documents prove that He was living two thousand years ago that even scholars both religious and Atheists agree with historically speaking but not that He's The Divine Son of God because obviously they don't. I'm going to give you historical and archeological evidence for God's Existence as The Scriptures have prophecies that predate the events recorded in them by several millennia including Matthew, Hosea and Zechariah which prophesy accurately of the people of Israel becoming a nation again after over 1900 years of being scattered around the nations since the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 A.D. spoken of by Christ in Matthew 23:29-24:3 and returning to their homeland after The Holocaust with Jerusalem as their capital in 1948 exactly as Jesus The Christ said. The prophets including Daniel spoke of the time where several world empires would arise and fall including the Babylonian kingdom, Medes and Persians, Roman Empire, and Saladin and the Muslims which went in consecutive order for the past few millennia. The people of Israel becoming a nation after The Holocaust in 1948 (ironically the melting point of gold as God compares Israel to gold that's tested in fire in Zechariah 13:8 and Jeremiah 16:15) exactly how Jesus The Christ said would happen since God us everything to come in The Scriptures and not just because people were working towards as Atheists claim which are impossible for any regular man to predict. Just before anyone says Christianity is a white man's religion made to oppress blacks during slavery you obviously aren't aware that the first Christians were Jews in The Middle East and that Christianity just like any religion can be used by evil and corrupt people to oppress others but you forget that the first Abolitionists/Civil Rights activists were Christians who sought to abolish slavery, racism, segregation, injustice and prejudice throughout American history. Jesus The Christ loves you enough not to give you what we all deserve which is God's Wrath by His Own Blood. Charles Darwin didn't originally come up with The Theory of Evolution over 200 years ago as it is mentioned in the writings of Ancient Greeks who believed in Demons that gave knowledge to philosophers. Evolution makes no sense when nothing has evolved after thousands of years of human history and supposedly the first creature came from primordial sludge several millions of years ago funny how they won't believe that God an Eternal Almighty Spirit Being created us from the Earth) which came from a supermassive expansion of matter at high temperature that inexplicably created everything in the known universe that supposedly came from nothing billions of years ago. How did the organs evolve before there were bones, skin, substance and how did any creatures see before eyes evolved? I've studied evolution and abiogenesis in the past and read Darwin's " Origin of The Species" and I'm not convinced of macro Evolutionary biology whereas I accept micro Evolution like speciation and adaptation but not macro Evolution because there's no evidence of it nor clear observable examples of it where living creatures evolve into other kinds of species plus the fact that fossils don't show evidence of evolution and genetic entropy rules out evolution. The question begs how did two genders evolve from a common ancestor with a perfectly hospitable and sustainable environment with breathable oxygen and resources to survive on inexplicably? Atheists have the burden of proof to explain how everything came to be and why our existence is possible without the Existence of God from an godless perspective just as Christians have to provide evidence of God's Existence and the validity of His Word. Evolution requires life to already exist in order to take any effect in living organisms so it doesn't account for the existence of Life and reality. Also evolution is impossible because it goes against The Law of entropy and the second Law of thermodynamics because evolution makes things better whereas nothing continues to get better but decays and turns to absolute destruction in the end. Mark Ridley an Evolutionist said "No evolutionist whether gradualist or punctuationist uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of The Theory of Darwinian Evolution as opposed to special Creation". God's Existence is made perfectly known and observable in the universe as demonstrated in His Handiwork in the intelligently designed manner that Creation was made, human consciences and consciousness historical and archaeological evidence of God's Word being valid history, fulfillment of Bible Prophecies God in His Holiness and Righteousness could give us what we deserve in Hell for our since but He's merciful to give us free will to choose to accept or reject His gift of salvation by grace through faith in His Son Jesus. I don't mean this is any condescending manner but if you'd like to discuss The Scriptures with me or have me listen to your view on anything my instagram account is Savage Christian Kombatant

In general, I really like hearing the things that Dr. Craig has to say, but I think he kind of dropped the ball on this one. He was placed in a trap of having to choose A or B. He should have proposed a choice C, but instead he played right into the trap. A: It's okay to kill babies sometimes B: The Bible is wrong. Craig went with A. Mike Jones proposed a choice C: It's always wrong to kill babies, so maybe there's something else about this passage that we don't know: either it's hyperbole or death doesn't mean exactly what we think it means. Personally, since I'm not an expert I usually just say, "Look, it's above my pay grade, but all I know is this: follow the teachings of Jesus, and it will make your life better." Side note: I'm not sure what O'Connor's views are on abortion, but if he's for it, he's not allowed to make this argument.

How does the clay say anything to the potter. Our ways are not His ways. Our thoughts are not His thoughts. All I know is He is Holy and Sovereign. He knows everything. He can do anything and what He does is righteous.

Answer: God can be as evil as he wants. LOL

Craig is pushing me away from Christianity

Okay, so, first, Christain and Athiests, don't, like, destory this thread with a massive argument or sorts because I'm just here to learn. I'm a Christain. I mean, I probably missed something because I'm just trying to get a protection IV villager in Minecraft while listening to this. So, if God is all good. Doesn't he break his own ten commandments by saying, "Thou shalt not kill". Yes, if it is a choice of the lesser of two evils. But what about love your enemies. Yes, the Cannanites were heathen. But like... I hope you can see where I'm going with this. I think I have sort of an idea, God is a just God; so therefore, sin must be punished. So, then the wages of sin is death. Again, please don't swarm me with massive arguments, I just want information from both the athiest side and the Christain side.

What if they were hybrids? Not what God created and called good but a creation of the enemy? Would God not be justified in His command? Does not God have the right to fight the enemy?

Here is an analogy to consider: You are a sniper in a warzone. Your sight is set on a child confronting your unit, but you can't see anything more. Your commanding officer is down there among 10 of your friends in your unit. Your commanding officer can see the full picture including the fact that the young child has a grenade he is about to lob and kill your entire unit. Your officer demands you take the shot. What do you do? Couple things to consider. First, morally you understand under all other circumstances taking that shot would be immoral. The one giving you command is not only a greater authority, but he is an authority that can see the whole picture. Just as God not only sees that circumstance but also the future of everyone involved. Something to consider.

I'm always amazed at the lack of understanding not just by skeptics but also Christians. The objection to the conquest of Canaan completely misses the fact that God is the singular ultimate source of both the life and death of every living creature that has ever existed. It doesn't matter if it's a car crash, cancer or wartime combat. There's not a single event that occurs apart from his will and purpose. This is literally what it means to be God. Deuteronomy 32:39 [39] See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me; It is I who put to death and give life. I have wounded and it is I who heal, And there is no one who can deliver from My hand.

If God was a human leader and we take account what he has done from the old testament to new. Nobody will say he is a good leader even christians

Imagine you own very expensive earphones. One day you drop it by mistake and someone picks it up, knows its yours and keeps it. He never returns it and eventually throws it away with the knowledge that it belongs to you. Now imagine those earphones was actually a ring and Frodo returned it to Gollum because he knew Bilbo stole the ring from Gollum. Would Frodo's actions be morally correct even if it meant the death of everyone in Middle Earth? Unless and until we have all the same information God has, it stupid to judge His actions. Who knows what would've happened if those Canaanites survived?