In a post entitled “A Seriously Warped Moral Compass,” Ebonmuse at Daylight Atheism relates a discussion he had with an evangelical fellow. The topic? Hosea, chapter 13, a Bible passage in which God promises that for the crime of disbelief, the city of Samaria’s “infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.” This is one of those many Bible passages that the anti-abortion demonstrators refuse to display on their signs as they march in front of clinics.
I’ve often been in discussions similar to the one described by Ebonmuse. Such discussions are highly predictable, actually. They all lead to the same conclusion. The fundamentalists all end up insisting that whatever God does, He is still “good” or “just.”
Here’s how the encounter of Ebonmuse with his fundamentalist acquaintance:
“You’ve said that it’s perfectly okay for God to command genocide. You’ve said it’s okay for him to condemn people to be tortured for all eternity because they had some sincere doubts about his existence. And now you’re saying it’s perfectly okay for him to order the slaughter of pregnant women and their unborn children! So what would you consider immoral? Is there anything you think he can’t do and still be good? Is there any act – anything at all – that a good god would never command?”
For the first time, a shadow of disgust passed across John’s face. “Yes. A good God would never say that it’s okay for people to be gay. Homosexuality is disgusting and unnatural and God would never permit it.”
Here’s how I see it. Either God is not “good” or one can still be good even though one slaughters babies. Now, maybe those babies (some of them being unborn babies) were morally deficient and “had it coming,” but I doubt it.
In my heathen view, babies are not capable of doing anything capable of earning the death penalty. In the meantime, we’ve got a language problem. If fundamentalists keep insisting that God is good when He kills babies, we’ll just have to advise all of the dictionary makers that there is a new definition of “good.” We’ll call it “good #2” (or something like that) and it will mean something like this: evil, depraved, morally obtuse and dangerous. Once this new definition of good (#2) is commonly accepted, we can start using it commonly. For instance, if someone sticks a gun in your face to rob you, you can say, “Hey! You’re good #2!”
Here is how Ebonmuse ends his post:
People such as this have a seriously warped moral compass. They have their priorities precisely backwards, they are obsessed with precisely the wrong things. Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg once said: “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
As long as fundamentalists can’t shake off the effects of the LSD they apparently take, they rest of us will just have to understand that they give God a free pass, morally speaking. He gets all the credit but none of the blame. Although He’s sometimes good, he’s often good #2. He’s always “just.” He is incapable of doing evil even when he’s busy slaughtering innocent babies. And perhaps it is because God is so good (#2) that the fundamentalists are “inspired” to be good (#3), namely, they (sometimes) refrain from killing and stealing because they’re afraid that God might be good (#2) to them too.
BTW, I’d highly recommend that you check out Ebonmuse’s site. Lots of thoughtful analysis and good clear writing.
He comes at the topic of religion from many angles, always with new fruitful observations. Here’s how he describes himself:
Part-time computer hacker, part-time freethought activist; optimist and skeptic rolled into one; a poet at heart but a scientist at mind; a thorough-going atheist who admires religious music and architecture. I contain multitudes, as Walt Whitman put it. And anyone who suggests that I’m only an atheist because of a dysfunctional family or a bad experience with church gets fifty lashes with a wet noodle blessed by the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
[Note: This is not the original version of this post. While I was correcting a typo, the original post got “eaten” by an airport Internet connection].
As regards Fundie (and other) bigotry toward homosexuals, readers might appreciate this post:
http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=264/.
Also, the selective attention (which we often call "selection bias") that Believers give to the god of the Bible has been the subject of several posts:
http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=449/ http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=206/ http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=417/.
Likewise, the availability heuristic, which causes people to accept simple answers to complex questions, also helps shelter the god of the Bible from rational questions about why he slaugters innocent babies:
http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=88/.
The Fundie suggestion that "we cannot judge God even if God slaughters innocent babies" also raises the issue of cognitive dissonance:
http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=224#comment-3….
In sum, the suggestion that a "good" god can still slaughter innocent babies demonstrates a wide variety of distorted thinking.
"There’s no substitute for actually picking up the Bible and reading the words yourself."
Man, you said a mouthful there. There is also no substitute for studying the original languages and even the original writings of the prophets and apostles. When this is done {and learning to hear from God for yourself} you get beyond the idols of men against which you are arguing.
"You’ve said it’s okay for him to condemn people to be tortured for all eternity because they had some sincere doubts about his existence."
Eternal Punishment is against the Law. Since God obeys His own Laws, we should consider the possibility that "an eternal lake of fire" is of man-made origin because of his own heart bitterness. God has made propititation for the sins of the whole world, so why would He condemn them for eternity?
http://www.goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=2127...
I think the whole "is God good" argument is misplaced. The more important question is "Is God Just?".
People–specifically the people to whom you're referring–want everything to "mean" something. Especially the horrible stuff that happens for no apparent reason. We humans have the capacity to reason and in a way it handicaps us because we make the basic assumption that everythng therefore has a reason. But it's a misuse of language. Everything has a cause. It may be, in some self-aware sense, pointless, but there is a cause. Earthquakes just happen, it has nothing to do with gods or demons. And people occasionally die in them. Bad luck.
But then this leads to a hypertrophied notion of a law-dispensing god who is control of all this happening stuff that has A Plan. It is easier for some people to believe even the worst things happen according to divine plan than to accept a chaotic, pointless universe that could care less if they have to attend their neice's communion next week and therefore ought to listen to their prayer to keep them safe till then.
Larry said: "Eternal Punishment is against the Law. Since God obeys His own Laws, we should consider the possibility that “an eternal lake of fire” is of man-made origin because of his own heart bitterness. "
Then why not just assume everything in the Bible is made up? I write fiction professionally. I make up stuff all the time. In order for it to sell, I have to make it as plausible as possible. We have no problem these days assuming that the classic myths are mere yarns to metaphorically explain stuff the ancients could not otherwise explain. Those yarns could as easily have been their version of science fiction–done for entertainment–which we now take as having represent for them Great Answers to Cosmic Questions.
Larry writes: "There’s no substitute for actually picking up the Bible and reading the words yourself…There is also no substitute for studying the original languages and even the original writings of the prophets and apostles. When this is done {and learning to hear from God for yourself} you get beyond the idols of men against which you are arguing."
There are two sides to this. On the one hand, people who claim to believe in the Bible should indeed study it for themselves and understand what it says; otherwise, they risk making fools of themselves (see http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=245/).
On the other hand, this practice has already resulted in more than ten thousand different versions of Christianity in the two thousand years since the time of Jesus (an average of five new versions per year, see http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=195/), indicating that personal interpretation of the Bible is notoriously untrustworthy.
The way to resolve these two competing problems is for Believers to read the Bible for their own individual edification and spiritual growth, but to refrain from trying to impose their resulting interpretations on others. Indeed, any declaration of universal theological truth beyond their own personal beliefs is virtually certain to be wrong.
Jason's comment discusses several crucial questions. First, does human life have meaning beyond the same survival imperative that affects all other animal species on our planet? What determines some peoples' answer to this question appears to be a strong *desire* on their part to believe that it does, even in the absence of any confirming evidence. This desire gives rise to a wide variety of spiritual beliefs, virtually all of which have as their main goal assuring Believers that their lives, in fact, do have meaning. Curiously, this holds true even though Believers have no idea what that meaning is.
Which brings up Jason's second question: is there a divine Plan for the Universe or is it just driven by chance and chaos? Again, the same observation applies: many peoples' answer often reflects what they *desire* to be true, no matter what the objective evidence indicates and no matter that the divine Plan is unknown. It is sufficient for them to believe that a Plan exists, even if they have no idea what it might be.
(Perhaps this is one reason why so many of these same people still support President Bush — who claims to have a Plan for Iraq, but never says what it is.)
Finally, Jason's third question, and the foundational question of Christianity: is the Bible truth or fiction? As I pointed out in another comment (see, http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=668#comment-6… redemption stories — namely, Greek tragedies — were a well-known and highly-developed form of entertainment many centuries before the Bible was written. Every accomplished writer of the time knew these stories were compelling, knew they were cathartic and undoubtedly aspired to write them, so the Bible certainly could be no more than the pinnacle of that fictional genre, just as High Gothic cathedrals were the pinnacle of Renaissance architecture. That the Bible has many different authors, and borrows heavily from other religions of the time, further supports this thesis. Certainly, if writers of the time wanted to write stories of epic (viz. Biblical) proportions, they had both motive and opportunity.
Adding weight to the 'Bible is fiction' argument is the fact that so many Believers exert so little effort to understand the Bible. They don't study it in any detail, they don't critically compare it to other religious texts (much less to scientific ones, such as those written by Darwin); indeed, many Believers don't even seem to read it. With such a low level of scrutiny, virtually any book could be erroneously labelled as true, causing me to wonder if belief in the Bible is, for many Believers, merely an expedient — the easiest path to self-help.
Indeed, is it not amazing that many Believers have spent more time and effort shopping for their spouse, their car, and even their cell phone plan, than in shopping for their religion; i.e., their pathway to eternal salvation? They latch onto the very first religion that tells them that their lives have meaning (even if it doesn't tell them what meaning is) and that their afterlife will be joyous (ditto) — and then, with just this one data point, they proudly declare that their religion is the One True Religion. It's like people who go on their very first teenage date and declare they have found their soulmate, or who walk onto a used car lot and buy the very first car they test drive. Why do we consider such dating behavior to be mere infactuation in every context except religion?
The answer, of course, is that many other Believers have done the same thing themselves, so they are eager to see others do it, because this lessens the embarrassment they would otherwise feel from having behaved so foolishly. No doubt this is why so many Believers get so defensive when their faith is challenged: it is not because they are secure in their faith; it is because they are very insecure. They haven't shopped around to compare religions, so — like your neighbor who made an impulse purchase — they blindly and vigorously defend the choice they have made, even if objective evidence suggests they have chosen foolishly.
Test this yourself: the next time you meet an unusually ardent Believer, ask him how many religions he investigated before he decided on the one he "bought."
Evil is definately subjective. Natural disasters can be seen as evil based upon it's effect to an individual or a nation. Huuricanes are a blessing to the glass business. Unique to God is His ability to bring good out of evil. Men sometimes believe they have this ability but it usually doesn't work out this way. The question of God in absolute "control" vs. a complete working knowledge of every event in history is more a function of His Sovereignity.
"Then why not just assume everything in the Bible is made up?" You already do this and it blinds you to the truths contained in the scriptures. When one takes the word of God and eats it he is nourished. When one takes the word of God after another has digested it he eats the word of God without much nourishment left in it {dung}. If you assume everything in the Bible is made up, you will starve. Your science fiction is like cotton candy, not very nourishing.
"…but to refrain from trying to impose their resulting interpretations on others."
I'm dissatisfied with this rule applying only to "believers". We live in a situation where, not having perfect knowledge, somebody's "interpretations" are going to be used to make decisions for all of us. Unbelievers "read the Bible" reject it, and then want to impose their unbelief on others.
You are making comparisons between absolute rejection and the process of aquiring knowledge. Science must also cast aside their theories when they are disproven. If it does not it should not be called science. Perhaps there are two thousand versions of christianity. You assume they are all 100% wrong. I wouldn't mind six billion, if partly right, but still learning.
There was once a little church of about fifty members studying the story of Nicodemas. The teacher read that Nicodemas came to visit Jesus at night. One elder said that Nicodemas was a member of the Sanhedrin and was a very busy man, therefore he came at night. Another man, a deacon, said Nicodemas was afraid of the other members of the Sanderin knowing that he visited Jesus and came at night to avoid detection.
The discussion continued the following week and other arguments were made, and the congregation was about half and half convinced toward each position. Pretty soon, personalities entered the mix and no quarter could be given. A committee was formed to consider the issue. They decided the church should split, so half the members went down the street and rented a building and put up a sign "Nicodemas was Scared Church". The remaining group changed their sign to read "Nicodemas Worked Hard All Day Church". All over something the Bible says nothing about.
Grumpy: speaking of shopping for a Deity, check out this "Post-Purchase Deity Evaluation Form." It's apparently designed to serve the future shopping needs of people who have carefully chosen a Deity. http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~ebeach/deity.h…
Larry said: “Then why not just assume everything in the Bible is made up?” You already do this and it blinds you to the truths contained in the scriptures. When one takes the word of God and eats it he is nourished. When one takes the word of God after another has digested it he eats the word of God without much nourishment left in it {dung}. If you assume everything in the Bible is made up, you will starve. Your science fiction is like cotton candy, not very nourishing."
Two things–first is, one of the misapprehensions abnout fiction is that it is necessarily disconnected with truth. Truth is often far easier to reach in fable than in fact. We're talking philosophical truth, now. Even Jesus seems to have grasped this, hence his reliance on parable. But asserting the Bible is fiction, for my part, in no way should be taken as my dismissal of its capacity to impart truth. It just doesn't happen to be connected to Fact, which is a different color of a similar horse.
Secondly, you need to read more science fiction before dissing it as "cotton candy" that lacks nourishment. There is far more connecting ancient literature–including the Bible–in contemporary SF than you might assume. Besides, no one has a lock on truth, and as subjective as evil is, so too is personal truth. We still recognize that evil has certain attributes we may all commonly recognize. So too with truth.
To paraphrase Larry J: if you assume everything in the bible is made up, you are then blinded to the truth within.
The reverse statement is equally true. If you assume everything in the bible is true, you are then blinded to the truth without.
Oh, Deb, well put!
In religion, man does the choosing. In Christ, God does the choosing. That is one of the telling differences. Your own religion is a substitute for "Christ in you, the hope of glory". I have been where you are.
Truth {things that are true} is everywhere, it is not limited to the Bible. I do not mean to disparage science fiction, the cotton candy comparison was a bit overboard. Many truths can only be revealed though science fiction. If certain people thought you were trying to tell the truth you could end up in prison. Jesus spoke in parables to keep some people from understanding what He was saying and thereby being converted.
This age is not concerned with making converts of all people, it is men's religions that make this their concern. Right now, Jesus is training His administration, to borrow a common political term. The Kingdom of God is a government not a religion. Those who overcome the temptations of the world, the flesh and the pride of life are learning to walk as He walked.
The converts to man's religion do many silly things as grumpypilgrim has pointed out. Some have a *desire* to ignore religion thinking this also allows them to ignore God. Right now He is only whispering. If you can hear it, there is a great blessing.
"This age is not concerned with making converts of all people, it is men’s religions that make this their concern."
I wholeheartedly agree.
"The Kingdom of God is a government not a religion."
But so far, we only get told the structure and details by human beings, so this scares me more than perhaps it should–after all, you can't impeach god, and even less can you impeach the idea of god. Hence accountability becomes based in the irrational. The result? Auto da fe.
"Many truths can only be revealed though science fiction. If certain people thought you were trying to tell the truth you could end up in prison."
Again, I agree wholeheartedly.
In Ezekiel 2:8 to 3:14, God gave the prophet a scroll to eat. It represented the Word of God, specifically the message that Ezekiel was told to give Israel. It was a Word that was bitter to the nation. It brought out the resentment against God and against the prophet, because they could not see their own hearts and did not believe they deserved such harsh treatment.
The House of Israel was “rebellious.” The Hebrew word is meri, which is from the root marah, to be bitter or perverse. In Ez. 2:8 the prophet himself was commanded NOT to be as Israel in this way, but rather to accept the Word with a humble spirit.
"But thou, son of man, hear what I say unto thee; Be not thou rebellious like that rebellious house: open thy mouth, and eat that I give thee."
Ezekiel found that it tasted as sweet as honey in his mouth (3:3), but when he went to fulfill that calling in 3:14, he “went in bitterness” (marah). There is nothing more satisfying than hearing the voice of God and knowing that He was speaking directly to us. And yet that same Word will always test us. If there is any will of the flesh in us, the Word will always bring it to the surface where we must deal with it directly. And so His Word comes in sweetness, but we often fulfill it in bitterness.
Ezekiel shows us not only how God was dealing with rebellion in Israel, but also how God was purifying the heart of the prophet himself to make him an overcomer. God wanted Ezekiel to rule with Christ in His throne at the resurrection.
If one cannot offer God enough respect to at least believe that He MAY exist, despite the silliness of men's religions, how are you ever going to see the big picture. This whole thread is an illustration of "straining out gnats and swallowing camels". I find a lot more plausibility in the WORD than in man's fictions.
Here are 18 more atrocities straight from Bible, illustrated.
I do have an ulterior motive in bringing up these stories time and again. I want the people who think that the Bible is the inspired word of God to admit that they are cherry-picking. If they would only admit this, I would leave them alone.
http://www.iheartchaos.com/content/18-fun-atrocit…
Larry,
I was tempted to go through this phrase by phrase, but frankly it would consume about ten thousand words. So let me just sum it up as succinctly as I can.
Poppycock.
p.s One point—since Ezekiel "ate" the scroll, it was his word against everyone else's what it actually "said." And this is the problem with this whole long collection of prophecy—only the prophet knows what god "said." We have to take his word for it. It is perhaps a silly point, but really, god could just switch on a loudspeaker and directly address everybody. Then we could disagree or agree with the source instead of all this roundabout nonsense with prophets and be done with it. Why does that not happen? My guess—because it doesn't happen with the prophets either. You may surmise why I think that.
The Bible contains clear instructions regarding what to do with non-believers: kill them. Even if they are babies, I suppose.
http://thebeattitude.com/2009/05/11/the-bible-ins…
Supposing is your prerogative, but it could be in error of course unless it is researched.
The Bible never condones "killing of people" of any sort under the simple prerogative of philosphical differences or for personal offenses.
The Biblical message really only condones, but also grieves over, the taking of another life from a human perspective if the worldview and moral values of the person or persons are openly offensive and agressive towards the lives and values of those belonging to the society under consideration.
The Bible is clear in what it expresses as the foundation for its worldview and as such, it flat out does not endorse the wanton willy nilly killing of those that don't hold this same worldview. Other worldviews and lifestyles do wish to force others into an acceptance of their rights to live as offensively towards others as they would like.
The Bible just does not endorse the purposeful killing of infants. The God of the Bible was outraged at Egypt's infanticide, at Canaanite and Israelite child sacrifice, and at the abandonment of unwanted newborns in the desert by wandering nomadic tribes (cf. Ezek 16).
Karl
You are a bald faced liar.
The bible (at least the OT) not only condones, it rejoices in the wanton destruction of people.
So Noah and his immediate family were the ONLY 'good' people on earth? Not even the children were innocent?
The multiple times that god ordered the destruction of entire nations and families 'unto the fourth generation' is the result of the worldview of those generations yet unborn?
The entire population of Sodom and Gomorrah were perverse? All of them? I find that alone stretched my credulity too far (especially when Lot is held up as the moral exemplar).
You may choose to believe your words, Karl. But your book does not support that belief.
If The Bible just does not endorse the purposeful killing of infants just what the hell is Passover supposed to be about?
Another fine example of Lying for Jesus™
Show me one place where God was happy or pleased to pass judgment upon anyone. You sound as though God is just waiting around to say, "Ha! I got you now!"
If that was truly God's character do you think any of us should be given opportunity for another breath?
God truly would be discriminatory if he took glee in being so righteous knowing that no one else could meet His standards. He has a standard, that is true, but he takes no pleasure in the death of anyone, not even Satan.
I dare you to show me one example of where what appears to be the judgment of God was delightful in any way to anyone other than those people with a perverse sense of how they would feel if their oppressors/enemies were beaten down.
The verses you claim that God passes "judgment" upon children as far as up to the fourth generation are simply the stark reality that it is possible to have four generations alive at one time when God has decreed judgment upon entire groups of people, be they families, tribes, nations, etc. It would indeed be macabre for your grandchildren yet to be born to have no chance to live a life out from under the shadow of their immediate ancestors, with no hope for being treated independently on their own.
God does not hold any infant responsible for the actions of his or her immediate family, but his or her immediate family can place a child squarely into the line of judgment which God has decreed.
BTW Adam and Eve were full grown adults, innocent from sin, but not little children in any sense of the term.
Noah and his family were the only ones who God could take pleasure in. They were friends of God and declared such to a perverse generation. The parents of the perverse generation placed their children squarely into the line of their judgments. God didn't say he was displeased with the thoughts and intents of the infants. He said he was displeased with the thoughts and intents of the men who were the leader of the families, tribes and nations. Their thoughts were continually wicked in the sight of God.
Yes, God could have told Noah to take any infants that the people wanted to give them once the flood waters started, but the infants would have been used as a tool for the unbelievers to try and force their way onto the Ark as well at that time.
God closed the door so Noah didn't need to feel responsible for the death of the people who would cry out for admission, including the children and infants.
The previous pharaoh’s disposition towards the Hebrew infants, plus the fact that God had already passed judgment upon the existing pharaoh and his entire household makes it possible to reveal a great truth that even most people today do not get.
To sum up Karl: When God murders innocent people, he doesn't enjoy it. It's just a job to him.
Karl: Is this the best that a person equipped with omniscience and omnipotence can do? I'd bet that if we could magically give omnipotence and omniscience to a person randomly chosen out of the phone book, he or she would make much better decisions than the God of the Old Testament.
How about starting out with this basic rule: Don't kill innocent babies. Or how about this: Given that you have such incredible power, try to rein in your nasty temper and your craving to be worshipped.
Quoth Karl (via subtext, mind you):
"I haven't actually read or comprehended the Bible, much the same as I constantly fail to understand or comprehend anything anybody here says. Some days I'm surprised I can get out of bed without harming myself."
I'm past being civil to this clown. There are only so many times you can stomach being fed pure Grade-A bullshit while being told it's ice cream.
Thomas Paine (who was not an atheist) did not believe in revealed religion:
The study of theology, as it stands in the Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authority; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion.
I agree with Paine. We don't actually know anything at all about the miraculous (or the disturbing) events described in the Bible.
When reading Karl's take on God killing all those rotten folk back in Noah's time, I could feel small veins pulsing harder in my temples. Fortunately, I got to Hank's response before they burst, and had I been drinking anything, I'd have spit it on the screen when I laughed. Then Erich pointed out that God doesn't like it when he has to kill our babies. Whew.
Again, like the abusive parent or spouse. "I didn't want to punch you in the face, sweetheart, but you made me. If you didn't make me so damned mad, I wouldn't have to beat the holy crap out of you."
Oh, right. Sorry Pops, I forgot. I am responsible for my own behavior AND yours, because you can't conrol your effin' temper. Sure, that's the God I want to answer to. No thanks, Karl. By trying to insist that the story of Noah is factual, you have destroyed any credibility you might've had. Oh, wait. You didn't. Never mind.
It was a simple request.
Show me where in the Bible God himself took delight in passing judgment upon the wicked. People sure express their feelings about such situations and circumstances, but other than Jesus (a substitutionary sacrifice) I just don't see where people have any prerogative to think God delights in having to follow through on judgments upon the wicked.
If Jesus was wicked then you've got me.
The Bible does say it pleased God to put Jesus through what He had to face at the hands of men, knowing that Jesus would not seek retribution.
Karl
The bible is stories. Written by people. People make shit up! People making shit up are rarely internally consistent.
I know this may come as a shock to you, but the bible contradicts itself regularly. It's probably the most consistent aspect of the whole book.
Those indoctrinated in Christianity read this as 'mystery' and part of the 'ineffable nature of god' – if they think about it at all.
God doing anything to Jesus is laughable. According to your doctrine Jesus is God. They are one (that's one of the mysteries, right?). And regarding Jesus seeking retribution — what's the deal with him judging sinners, returning with a sword, and so on. Sounds like a mighty lot of retribution to me!
Oh! You meant retribution from God?
Look – it's pretty simple. If Jesus is God, then Jesus is doing everything to himself. Even the worst human torture is nothing compared to what God will do to humans, so He must be pretty inured to pain and suffering, right? There is nothing that humans can do that God hasn't already thought of as an attraction in hell. And for an immortal being, a few hours or even days and weeks of human suffering is, in the grand scheme of things, less than you or I would suffer with a hangnail. Do I get pissed at myself for giving myself a hangnail? Do I seek retribution from myself? Do you?
Karl – your logic, isn't.
I'll take bronze-age goat-herder story time for $1000, please Alex!
Karl has a point. Yahweh doesn't actually gloat gleefully. But the Hebrews were the home team and he didn't balk at telling them to slaughter anyone that got in their way. The Canaanites were just sitting where Yahweh decided the Hebrews should be sitting and very efficiently provided for Hebrew hegemony. The killing of the children, of course, is a time-honored way of guaranteeing there will be no vendetta—since there won't, presumably, be anyone left to carry it through.
It's classic parental excuse-making: this will hurt me more than it hurts you.