Was God Racist When He Commanded The Destruction of Canaan?

The accusation has been made that God was racist when He commanded Israel to destroy the people of Canaan in The Old Testament

The problem is that it is rather hard to be racist when both Israel and Canaan were of the same race. The two nations descended from Shem and Ham, two brothers with the same parents, as described in the genealogies back in Genesis 10-11.

To claim racism in such a situation reinforces the theory that atheists and critics pass around proof texts without really reading the story of the Bible and finding out what is going on (For more, see here). At a minimum, they are more interested in finding critical faults than in discovering what the text actually says.

Christianity is not racist, for it teaches that all humans are of the same race: the human race. What is actually racist is evolution, which says that all physical and mental differences are due to evolutionary processes, and must therefore maintain differences between people groups. For more, see here.



About humblesmith

Christian Apologist & Philosopher
This entry was posted in Atheism, Morality. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Was God Racist When He Commanded The Destruction of Canaan?

  1. Mike says:

    I’ve been noticing a lot of Christians reacting very defensive on the genocides and harmful stories in the OT that were commanded by god. I would hate to have to defend such stories but I see Christians and Jews trying to employ clever tactics. Certainly the killing of the Canaanites is ethnic cleansing, there’s just no way to get around that. And by the way, you can be racist towards your own race or ethnicity.

    But how do you say that the physical and mental differences are not due to the evolutionary process? There’s no scientific consensus on mental differences, but physical differences are evolutionary in origin. If not, what alternative method do you propose for why there are white people, black people and asian people? Were they all separate creations according to god? If not, what process could result in different physical appearances of human beings if not an evolutionary one? You’re kidding yourself humblesmith and you know it.

    • humblesmith says:

      See a book called “The Bell Curve” which attempts to show distinctions in intelligence by race. If there is a lack of evidence, it is because the issue is too politically sensitive. If evolution caused every physical difference that we see, it would also cause mental. To deny this is kidding yourself and you know it.

      Variations in species happens all the time. This does not prove evolution, as has been demonstrated with all the favorite introductory textbook examples, such as the finch beaks and peppered moth. This has been demonstrated for quite a number of years.

      • Mike says:

        So you’re saying that we all literally came from Adam and Eve 6,000 years ago, but then some of us somehow turned black, and some of us turned white, and some of s turned asian? In order to believe that you’d have to believe that evolution actually works about 6 times faster than it does, since science tells us the different racial physical appearances took somewhere around 20-30,000 years. So you’d be arguing that evolution is faster than it actually is.

        I know about the Bell Curve, doesn’t mean it’s correct. Physical adaptations, like skin color happen much faster than mental ones, like brain power. So while our skin color can change rather quickly (20k yrs) mental adaptations take much longer. IQ scores have been going up every year, and children of immigrants to 1st world countries score on average about 5 points higher than their parents. There’s no way a single generation can jump 5 points. It indicated that it is environmental not genetic.

        If you’re trying to disprove evolution, you should try using scientific evidence, not fear tactics about potential negative social consequences. The social consequences of a belief say absolutely nothing about whether that belief is true or false.

  2. Nate says:

    At a minimum, they are more interested in finding critical faults than in discovering what the text actually says.

    It’s equally likely that many Christians are more interested in maintaining their beliefs at all costs than in discovering what the texts (and doctrines) actually say.

    But I’m already hogging up “air time” on several of your other posts, so I won’t clutter up this one any further. 🙂

  3. Allallt says:

    A group of people have been considered unworthy of life based on their home town, but this is not racism…

    Evolution teaches us that we are all interconnected, and that is racism…

  4. portal001 says:

    Gotta agree that evolution does not teach racism, it can be used as a vehicle for racism, but as a science it is not value based on a particular “race”. People place value on the data after, and make those cultural distinctions. In fact evolution teaches we are all human beings, the distinction is not big enough for any sort of deviation. In fact, every creature that successfully thrives, right down to a snail is a success from an evolutionary perspective.

    Through this lens, many types of insects are more effective species than us, although humans as a whole do a pretty decent job as well 🙂 to the determent of other species.

    • humblesmith says:

      By definition evolution teaches there are differences in races of people, which is a type of racism. I find it interesting that people do not distinguish between racism and discrimination. But to deny that evolution does not generate survival of some races over others is to deny evolution.

      • portal001 says:

        Where is the distinction between racism and discrimination?

        Evolution does generate survival of some human beings over others – but even if we don’t call that evolution, its still what happens.

        Call it whatever you want. I know its not nice to think that some people are more adapted to survive over others, but this seems to be the world we find ourselves in. And if God exists – then this is the world He is in control of – a world where some humans survive over others.

        It may not be what we want, but what we want is not always what is. Furthermore, since from an evolutionary perspective we are all Homo sapiens (Latin – wise man) the labelling of races is more social Darwinism than it is the science of evolution. Human beings are of the same “race”. We are so genetically similar that ethnicity really isn’t a great difference. They are just labels we use to separate people who look different from us. But genetically, we all are of the same species. look it up if you don’t believe me.

        • portal001 says:

          Proponents Social Darwinism sought to apply evolutionary concepts to society. But this happens naturally anyway, without humans trying to manufacture it. The only difference is that the focus is then based on the environment. And in the natural world, it’s not necessarily a negative. Different species even build partnerships and complement each other for both their survival. If evolution exists, then it permeates all nature, including human politics for example.

          For example – nations working together because they are so heavily invested into one another’s resources are a type of adaptation. I know it’s far more intrinsic and complicated than this, but I assume you get the picture. If one nation breaks an agreed treaty, dominance from the “developed world” is asserted on it. I think it may be harder to appreciate this if we are looking at these interactions from within a “developed country” or “World power”. Then I think some people (I’m form Australia btw) are more likely to their countries dominate in the world as just the way it is, eg: America has always and will always be awesome, and is here to establish order and justice to the world – i.e. we are the top dogs, everyone listen to us, and as top dogs we will assert ourselves, so people know who is boss. Or conversely, in another era – the UK has always, and will always be the best, we will assert ourselves to secure stability…ect

          If resources, over population or other environmental factors change, then countries adapt to it, based on their ties to other countries, there cultural heritage, their values – and the consequences are not always pleasant.

          Adapting through economic systems, what countries share based on preference and necessity is complex, but it doesn’t escape evolution. Since it’s in a countries best interest to work together with other nations close to them in order to survive, then the positive trait is co-operation. And since the world is more interconnected now, we have more reason to work together, and not stigmatise or demonise other nations.

          Developed nations have less reason to make land grabs, purge other countries, and kill the “outsiders”. 3rd world countries are still establishing themselves and trying to assert themselves. The emphasis seems to be more on security for most developed nations – since more nations are heavily invested in one another and now have established collective norms. We are not outside and the standing over evolution, we are participants, whether we like it or not 🙂 and its not all doom and gloom.

  5. portal001 says:

    We are all of the same species, this is like saying some breeds of dogs are better than others, but this is more based on our preference rather than an evolutionary perspective. Some breeds of dog may be more effective at surviving, but all have unique and valuable attributes that contribute to their survival, on of the main ones being human preference.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s