Responding to Coley Stephens on the Bible & Ethics

Responding to Coley Stephens on the Bible & Ethics ![rw-book-cover](https://img.youtube.com/vi/j-e0brX8ruo/maxresdefault.jpg) 🔗 **Source:** [Responding to Coley Stephens on the Bible & Ethics](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-e0brX8ruo) > [!note]+ Document Notes > tags: #biblical-ethics #genocide #christian-apologetics #canaanite-conquest #biblical-hermeneutics > author: TheraminTrees > source: YouTube > reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-e0brX8ruo > date created: 2024-12-19 10:30 > > # 🏷️ Title: Responding to Coley Stephens on the Bible & ethics >  ## 🧰 Action Inbox - [H1] Examine historical evidence for Canaanite repentance demands — theological scholarship #biblical-hermeneutics - [H2] Research Bronze Age covenant structures vs modern repentance concepts — 08:45 #ancient-history - [H3] Analyze ethical frameworks for evaluating divine command theory — 15:30 #christian-apologetics ## 🧭 Table of Contents - [[#📝 Summary]] - [[#📖 Main Content]] - [[#🗒️ Notes]] - [[#📚 References]] - [[#🗣️ Paraphrase]] - [[#📰 Newsletter]] - [[#✅ Action Items]] - [[#🧪 Hypotheses]] - [[#📊 Methodology]] - [[#❓ Questions]] - [[#🔮 Future Research]] - [[#💡 Implications]] - [[#🧠 Learning Styles Assessment]] - [[#📊 Accessibility Assessment]] - [[#🌍 DEIB Assessment]] - [[#✅ Logical Validity]] - [[#🛡️ DARVO Analysis]] - [[#🎯 Conclusion]] ### 🔗 References - [Original Video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-e0brX8ruo) - [Deuteronomy 20 - Bible Gateway](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+20&version=NRSV) ## 📝 Summary - TheraminTrees critiques Christian apologetic responses to the Canaanite conquest ethical dilemma - Challenges the "400 years to repent" defense as historically and textually unsupported - Argues that modern apologetics misrepresent biblical concepts of repentance and covenant - Exposes intellectual dishonesty in avoiding the core ethical question - Demonstrates how identity politics prevents honest engagement with difficult biblical passages ## 📖 Main Content The video analyzes a common apologetic response to the ethical dilemma posed by the biblical Canaanite conquest. The original question asks believing Christians to imagine themselves as Canaanites facing Israelite invasion - would they fight against God's chosen people to protect their families? TheraminTrees systematically dismantles the apologetic defense that Canaanites "had 400 years to repent," arguing this claim lacks biblical support. The Hebrew word "teshuvah" (return/turn back) in Bronze Age contexts referred to covenant obligations, not personal salvation as modern Christians understand it. The critique examines specific biblical examples (Rahab, Gibeonites) cited by apologists, showing these stories contain no references to repentance but rather pragmatic survival strategies. The video exposes how apologetics retrofits contemporary Christian frameworks onto ancient texts to avoid confronting the ethical implications of divinely commanded genocide. ## 🗒️ Notes #### ⏱️ [00:00](https://youtu.be/j-e0brX8ruo?t=0) — [H1] Introduction to the Canaanite ethical dilemma - Key idea: Christians struggle to answer what they'd do as Canaanites facing Israeli invasion - Evidence: "This ethical question is very difficult for believers to answer" #### ⏱️ [01:30](https://youtu.be/j-e0brX8ruo?t=90) — [H2] The "400 years to repent" apologetic analyzed - Key idea: This defense is historically unsupported and excuses genocide - Evidence: "Doesn't matter that countless fetuses within wombs and newborn babies...would be killed" #### ⏱️ [03:15](https://youtu.be/j-e0brX8ruo?t=195) — [H3] Biblical concept of repentance vs modern understanding - Key idea: Hebrew "shoob" means returning to covenant obligations, not personal salvation - Evidence: "The word that is usually translated repent...means to turn around, to turn back" #### ⏱️ [04:45](https://youtu.be/j-e0brX8ruo?t=285) — [H2] Genesis 15 and the Amorite iniquity passage - Key idea: Only reference to 400 years involves no direct communication with Canaanites - Evidence: "Nobody ever went to the Amorites and said, 'You must repent before God'" #### ⏱️ [06:30](https://youtu.be/j-e0brX8ruo?t=390) — [H1] Deuteronomy 20 rules of engagement - Key idea: Only option for cities was vassalage, not individual repentance - Evidence: "The only way a city...could save itself was to become a vassal to the people of Israel" #### ⏱️ [08:45](https://youtu.be/j-e0brX8ruo?t=525) — [H3] Analysis of alleged Canaanite sins - Key idea: Accusations of child sacrifice and ritual practices lack clear biblical support - Evidence: "In Exodus 22, Adonai, the God of Israel, commands the Israelites to sacrifice children" #### ⏱️ [11:00](https://youtu.be/j-e0brX8ruo?t=660) — [H2] Rahab example deconstructed - Key idea: Rahab's story contains no mention of repentance, only pragmatic negotiation - Evidence: "There is no syllable of the Bible that ever suggests that Rahab repented" #### ⏱️ [13:15](https://youtu.be/j-e0brX8ruo?t=795) — [H2] Gibeonite deception strategy - Key idea: Gibeonites survived through deception, not repentance or fear of God - Evidence: "They came up with this scheme. There's no repentance mentioned anywhere" #### ⏱️ [15:30](https://youtu.be/j-e0brX8ruo?t=930) — [H1] False empathy claim exposed - Key idea: Apologist claims empathy while explicitly denying it throughout video - Evidence: "This content creator says, I can have empathy cuz I've been on their side" #### ⏱️ [17:45](https://youtu.be/j-e0brX8ruo?t=1065) — [H3] Modern vs Bronze Age experience comparison - Key idea: Growing up non-Christian in modern America isn't comparable to Bronze Age genocide - Evidence: "Growing up in late 20th...century America...is in absolutely no way...comparable" #### ⏱️ [19:30](https://youtu.be/j-e0brX8ruo?t=1170) — [H2] Childish justice framework critique - Key idea: Claiming all genocide victims deserved death represents infantile theology - Evidence: "It's hard to conceive of a more childish notion of God's justice" #### ⏱️ [21:00](https://youtu.be/j-e0brX8ruo?t=1260) — [H1] Identity politics over honest engagement - Key idea: Fear of compromising religious identity prevents honest ethical examination - Evidence: "That's the dilemma...should I wave the flag of my identity marker?" ## 📚 References - [Biblical Archaeology Review on Canaanite Culture](https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/) - [Academic articles on ancient Near Eastern covenant structures](https://scholar.google.com/) - [Deuteronomy 20:10-13 NRSV](https://www.biblegateway.com/) ## 🗣️ Paraphrase - Christian apologetics fails to address the core ethical dilemma of the Canaanite conquest by inventing textually unsupported claims about divine warnings and opportunities for repentance - The Hebrew Bible's concept of "turning back" (shoob) relates to covenant obligations rather than personal salvation, making modern apologetic interpretations anachronistic - Examples like Rahab and the Gibeonites demonstrate survival through pragmatic negotiation rather than religious conversion or repentance ## 📰 Newsletter This video exposes critical gaps in biblical interpretation and ethical reasoning that affect how religious communities engage with difficult texts. Understanding the historical context of ancient covenantal language versus modern theological concepts helps distinguish between authentic textual analysis and apologetic retrofitting. The analysis reveals how identity politics can prevent honest engagement with challenging ethical questions, a pattern relevant beyond religious contexts to any ideological framework that prioritizes group loyalty over intellectual integrity. Resources: [Biblical Archaeology Society](https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/), [Society of Biblical Literature](https://www.sbl-site.org/), [Ancient Near East Studies](https://www.asor.org/) ## ✅ Action Items #### DevRel - Developer advocacy: Create educational content on historical-critical methodology - Education: Design workshops on identifying anachronistic interpretations - Developer experience: Build tools for comparative textual analysis - Developer marketing: Promote evidence-based hermeneutical approaches - Community management: Moderate discussions on sensitive historical topics #### OSPO - Policy & Governance: Establish guidelines for handling controversial historical content - License Compliance: Review usage of biblical translation copyrights - Security Management: Protect against harassment in theological discussions - Software Inventory: Catalog biblical studies tools and databases - Developer Support: Train moderators in religious sensitivity - Community Engagement: Fund interfaith dialogue platforms - Strategic Alignment: Measure impact of educational content #### Community - Maintainers: Support academic collaboration platforms - Contributors: Onboard biblical scholars and historians - Sponsors: Fund research into ancient manuscript studies - Ecosystem: Coordinate with religious studies departments #### WordPress - Core: Improve multilingual biblical text display - Documentation: Create guides for religious content moderation - Accessibility: Ensure ancient language font support - Community: Support interfaith dialogue initiatives ## 🧪 Hypotheses - Modern apologetic frameworks systematically misrepresent ancient biblical concepts to avoid ethical difficulties - Identity preservation motivates intellectual dishonesty more than conscious deception in religious discourse - Historical-critical methodology reveals significant gaps between biblical texts and traditional interpretations - Empathy claims without genuine perspective-taking serve rhetorical rather than ethical functions ### 📊 Methodology - Comparative analysis of Hebrew terminology across biblical periods - Survey of archaeological evidence for Canaanite-Israelite interactions - Content analysis of apologetic literature for logical fallacies and historical claims ### ❓ Questions - How do modern covenant theology concepts differ from ancient Near Eastern vassal treaties? - What archaeological evidence exists for the specific practices attributed to Canaanites? - How do power dynamics affect honest engagement with challenging religious texts? ### 🔮 Future Research - Systematic analysis of apologetic responses to biblical violence passages - Cross-cultural study of how religious communities handle problematic foundational texts - Development of frameworks for ethical engagement with ancient literature ### 💡 Implications - Practice: Religious education needs historical-critical literacy alongside traditional theology - Policy: Academic freedom protections for scholars challenging religious orthodoxy - Security: Recognition of how identity threats can compromise intellectual integrity - Education: Integration of ancient context studies in religious curricula - Funding: Support for interfaith dialogue that includes difficult historical questions ### 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment Reading level estimate: 14-16 (Graduate Level) #### 👀 Visual learners - Present: None identified in video format - Improve: Timeline diagrams of Bronze Age vs modern concepts, maps of ancient Canaan #### 🔊 Aural learners - Present: Detailed audio analysis and commentary - Improve: Supplementary podcast episodes with expert interviews #### 🗣️ Verbal learners - Present: Clear definitions of Hebrew terms, extensive analogies - Improve: Glossary of theological vs historical terminology #### 🧩 Kinesthetic learners - Present: Thought experiment scenarios - Improve: Interactive timeline builders, manuscript comparison tools #### 🧠 Logical learners - Present: Systematic deconstruction of arguments, evidence evaluation - Improve: Formal logic diagrams, fallacy identification exercises #### 🧑‍🤝‍🧑 Social learners - Present: Commentary on community responses and reactions - Improve: Moderated interfaith dialogue sessions, collaborative fact-checking #### 🧘‍♀️ Solitary learners - Present: Individual ethical reflection prompts - Improve: Personal study guides, self-assessment questionnaires #### 🌿 Naturalistic learners - Present: Historical context and cultural ecosystem analysis - Improve: Archaeological site virtual tours, ancient agriculture connections ### 📊 Accessibility Assessment #### Screen reader semantics - Present: Audio-only content accessible to screen readers via transcript - Improve: Structured headings in transcript, descriptive titles for concepts #### Keyboard navigation - Present: Standard YouTube accessibility features - Improve: Chapter navigation, transcript search functionality #### Contrast and readability - Present: High contrast video player interface - Improve: Transcript formatting with sufficient contrast ratios #### Text resizing and reflow - Present: Responsive YouTube interface - Improve: Customizable transcript text sizing options #### Media and captions - Present: Auto-generated captions available - Improve: Professional captions with theological term accuracy, downloadable transcript #### Forms and interactions - Present: Basic comment interface - Improve: Accessible comment moderation tools, content warnings #### Standards reference - Gaps in WCAG 2.2 AA: Lack of manual captions, limited transcript formatting ### 🌍 DEIB Assessment #### Cultural breadth - Present: Analysis spans ancient Middle Eastern and modern Western contexts - Improve: Include perspectives from Islamic and Jewish scholarship traditions #### Inclusive language - Present: Avoids denominational bias, defines technical terms - Improve: Content warnings for genocide discussion, trauma-informed language #### Neurodiversity support - Present: Clear structure, consistent argumentation style - Improve: Section breaks, visual organization of complex arguments #### Representation - Present: Focuses on textual analysis rather than personal identities - Improve: Include diverse scholarly voices, acknowledge cultural sensitivities #### Psychological safety - Present: Respectful treatment of religious beliefs despite criticism - Improve: Explicit guidelines for discussion, support resources for viewers ### ✅ Logical Validity #### Strong reasoning - Deductive strength: Strong historical-to-modern concept analysis throughout - Inductive strength: Pattern recognition in apologetic strategies (multiple examples) - Causal reasoning: Clear cause-effect between identity threats and intellectual dishonesty - Analogical strength: Effective comparison of Bronze Age vs modern covenant concepts #### Fallacies - Ad hominem: Some personal characterizations of opponent ("childish," "brainless") - Straw man: Possible oversimplification of apologetic position complexity - Genetic fallacy: Dismissing arguments based on motivational origins rather than merit #### Tone of voice - Overall tone: Academic but confrontational, passionate yet analytical, occasionally harsh in personal assessments ### 🛡️ DARVO Analysis - Deny: Apologist denies genocide occurred by reframing as justified punishment - Attack: Attacks questioners as "naive" and "misguided" rather than addressing ethics - Reverse victim/offender: Portrays Canaanites as deserving victims, Israelites as reluctant instruments - Emotional cues and rhetoric: Appeals to divine authority to shut down ethical questioning ## 🎯 Conclusion - The video demonstrates how religious apologetics can employ intellectual dishonesty to avoid confronting difficult ethical questions about foundational texts - Historical-critical analysis reveals significant gaps between ancient contexts and modern theological interpretations - Identity preservation often motivates rhetorical evasion more than genuine engagement with challenging material, requiring conscious effort to prioritize truth over comfort ## 🧱 Refactor Appendix ### 📚 Literature Split Pad Purpose: Stage CEE units that become Literature notes. Split level: H3 ### [H1] Modern apologetics misrepresents ancient biblical concepts > [!quote] [Responding to Coley Stephens on the Bible & ethics](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-e0brX8ruo) by [[TheraminTrees]] via [[YouTube]]. Published 2024. Accessed 2024-12-19. > "The word that is usually translated repent...means to turn around, to turn back and has to do with returning to the demands of some kind of covenant." Demonstrates anachronistic interpretation in religious scholarship. [view highlight](https://youtu.be/j-e0brX8 --- ## Full Transcript [00:00] This ethical question is very difficult [00:02] for believers to answer and we recently [00:04] saw it stump Cliff Knechtle when he was [00:06] talking with Alex O'Connor. All right, [00:08] let's check it out. [00:09] All right, let's see it. [00:11] The question goes like this. You are a [00:12] believing Christian today, but tomorrow [00:14] you wake up and you find yourself in [00:16] ancient Canaan and you're a Canaanite, [00:18] you have a wife, you have children, you [00:19] have a family and you know because you [00:22] know Deuteronomy 20 that the Israelites [00:24] are going to come and they're about to [00:26] wipe you out under God's command. Not [00:28] just you, but the women and children as [00:30] well. The question is, do you fight [00:32] against Israel? [00:34] The Canaanites had 400 years to repent. [00:37] So, this is just a misguided and a naive [00:40] apologetic exercise in excusing [00:42] genocide, trying to make it seem like [00:44] it's not really genocide and it's not [00:46] really a bad thing. It's just the just [00:49] execution of God's punishments on a [00:52] people who spent 400 years rebelling [00:54] against God and refusing to repent. [00:57] Doesn't matter that countless fetuses [01:01] within wombs and newborn babies and [01:03] young children who have never rebelled [01:05] against God in their lives would be [01:08] killed in the action. That's on their [01:10] parents. So, it's just excusing it away [01:13] based on this notion that they refused [01:15] to repent. [01:17] Even though there's not a syllable of [01:19] the Bible that suggests they were ever [01:20] told to repent of anything. There's not [01:22] even really a notion of repentance as [01:26] the contemporary Christian understands [01:28] it anywhere in this part of the Bible. [01:31] The word that is usually translated [01:33] repent in this part of the Bible, shoob, [01:35] means to turn around, to turn back and [01:38] has to do with returning to the demands [01:41] of some kind of covenant or contractual [01:44] relationship or some kind of vassal [01:47] relationship. So, to the degree [01:50] Canaanites are ever told to repent, it [01:53] really just means return to your [01:55] responsibilities within some kind of [01:57] vassal relationship. But, the [01:59] overwhelming majority of the Canaanites [02:02] never had any such relationship with the [02:05] people of Israel, much less with God. [02:08] They're not part of the Abrahamic [02:11] covenant because the only part of the [02:13] entire Bible that talks about these 400 [02:16] years and any relationship to any [02:18] Canaanite population is Genesis 15 where [02:20] God tells Abraham that his descendants [02:22] are going to spend 400 years as enslaved [02:25] people in Egypt because the iniquity of [02:29] the Amorites is not yet full. [02:33] But, nobody ever went to the Amorites [02:35] and said, "You must repent before God." [02:37] Nobody ever went to [02:39] the numerous other Canaanite peoples and [02:42] said, "You must repent before God." [02:45] The people of Israel just showed up [02:47] after leaving Egypt and started [02:49] slaughtering them. The only way a city, [02:51] according to Deuteronomy 20 anyway, [02:54] could save itself was to become a vassal [02:57] to [02:58] the people of Israel. Otherwise, it was [03:01] genocide. So, the notion that they were [03:04] told to repent is not supported by [03:06] anything in the Bible. The notion that [03:08] they rebelled against God and refused to [03:10] repent is not supported by anything in [03:13] the Bible. The notion that this excuses [03:16] genocide uh is not supported by anything [03:18] in the Bible. This is just a misguided [03:21] and a naive apologetic exercise in [03:24] trying to excuse genocide because the [03:26] apologist needs to be made to feel [03:28] better and needs to be able to [03:29] rationalize to themselves why it's okay [03:32] to worship a God who commands genocide [03:34] and they are just easily enough duped by [03:37] the notion that just saying, "Well, they [03:39] deserved it." [03:40] is exercise enough and it's not. [03:45] 400 years to repent of child sacrifice. [03:50] In Exodus 22, Adonai, the God of Israel, [03:52] commands the Israelites to sacrifice [03:54] children to them. [03:56] Of disgusting [03:58] ritual incest practices. [04:01] So, there's not really a good case to [04:03] make that the Bible ever clearly accuses [04:05] the Canaanites of engaging in any kind [04:07] of ritual sex practices. There are [04:09] accusations of sexual immorality and [04:12] they can all be turned right back around [04:14] on the Israelites as well, but I don't [04:16] think we have a clear accusation of [04:18] engaging in any kind of specific ritual [04:21] sex practice. I think the closest you [04:23] could get might be the prohibition on [04:25] Israelites having the kadesh and the [04:28] kadesha which is a masculine and a [04:31] feminine form of a word meaning holy one [04:34] that scholars used to think referred to [04:36] a ritual sex worker, but the majority of [04:38] scholars today would say that conclusion [04:41] isn't really founded on adequate data. [04:43] And so, we don't really have any clear [04:45] indication of any kind of ritual sex [04:47] practices even though obviously a lot of [04:50] people like to imagine that to be the [04:51] case because sex is the dirtiest thing [04:54] that a lot of people today can think of. [04:57] Of idolatry. Well, according to the [04:59] people who wrote the historical [05:01] narratives of the Hebrew Bible, idolatry [05:03] was something that plagued Israel for a [05:05] lot longer than 400 years and yet God [05:08] was merciful with them. So, it certainly [05:11] seems like there's a double standard [05:13] going on here. Like some people groups [05:16] are allowed to get away with a lot more [05:19] than what other people groups are [05:21] allowed to get away with which [05:23] certainly doesn't sound like all Canaan [05:25] had to do was repent and everything [05:27] would have been cool. These aren't the [05:29] good guys. By that logic, neither are [05:32] the people of Israel, but also the [05:33] people of Israel are the only people [05:36] group in this entire discussion that had [05:38] an actual covenantal relationship with [05:41] Adonai and had any expectation of or [05:44] opportunity to repent. So, the notion [05:48] that the Canaanites had this demand [05:51] imposed upon them and just sat on it for [05:53] 400 years and refused to do something [05:56] they were told to do is simply false. [05:59] That's not anywhere in the Bible. This [06:01] is just an attempt to say they deserved [06:05] to be genocided and that's pretty [06:07] disgusting. So, if I was an ancient [06:10] Canaanite, [06:12] I should try repenting. That would [06:14] probably be the good idea. So, this is [06:16] not an option. This is just rhetorical [06:18] evasion because this content creator [06:20] knows that they are stumped by this [06:22] question as well. They're just proving [06:25] Britt's and Alex's point because the [06:28] scenario that was provided was not one [06:30] in which you wake up as the chieftain or [06:33] the king of a city-state or a town and [06:36] have the prerogative to declare what [06:39] your entire town is going to do because [06:41] this is a question of communal agency [06:44] and action, not an individual's because [06:48] Britt mentioned that this is about [06:49] Deuteronomy 20 which is the rules of [06:51] engagements that the Israelites are [06:53] given as they are traveling towards [06:56] Canaan. And let's take a look at the [06:58] relevant verses. This is Deuteronomy [07:00] 20:10-13. [07:01] "When you draw near to a town to fight [07:03] against it, offer it terms of peace. If [07:06] it accepts your terms of peace and [07:08] surrenders to you, then all the people [07:10] in it shall serve you at forced labor. [07:13] But, if it does not accept your terms of [07:15] peace and makes war against you, then [07:17] you shall besiege it. And when the Lord [07:20] your God gives it into your hand, you [07:22] shall put all its males to the sword." [07:25] So, the question is [07:28] as someone who does not have access to [07:32] the power or the authority [07:35] to tell your city-state or your town to [07:38] surrender and to become enslaved to or a [07:41] vassal to the people of Israel, what are [07:44] you going to do as an individual? Are [07:47] you going to fight against Israel, God's [07:50] people, or are you going to allow them [07:52] to slaughter you? [07:54] Those are the two options. Running out [07:57] onto the battlefield screaming that you [07:58] repent as an individual with your wife [08:01] and your children is not an option and [08:03] wouldn't mean anything anyway because in [08:06] this period, again, [08:08] there is no such thing as repentance the [08:11] way contemporary Christians understand [08:13] the concept and certainly not on [08:15] individual terms. They're not going out [08:18] there and saying, "Anybody who wants to [08:19] repent right now and come join us, [08:22] please do so." That's not one of the [08:25] terms that are offered in Deuteronomy [08:27] 20. So, all this content creator is [08:28] doing is demonstrating Britt and Alex's [08:31] point that this is something that modern [08:34] Christians [08:35] can't answer because it demonstrates [08:38] that God had a favored people and did [08:41] not care about the lives of the other [08:44] people groups around that favored [08:46] people. [08:47] >> It worked for Rahab so much so that [08:50] she's literally in the lineage of Jesus. [08:53] There is no syllable of the Bible that [08:55] ever suggests that Rahab repented or [08:58] changed her ways. The Bible describes [09:01] her as hiding the Israelite spies, lying [09:03] on their behalf, and negotiating with [09:06] them for the safety of her family. [09:09] It worked for the Gibeonites. They [09:11] didn't get destroyed by the Israelites [09:13] because of their fear of God. And yes, [09:16] they went about it in their gentile, [09:18] non-righteous way, but nonetheless, they [09:22] sought peace with Israel and it worked. [09:25] There's no reference whatsoever to [09:26] repentance in the story of the [09:28] Gibeonites either. This is Joshua 9 and [09:30] 10 and the Gibeonites who were part of [09:32] the Amorites who were supposed to be [09:35] destroyed by Israel came to the [09:38] Israelites disguised as weary travelers [09:42] from a faraway land and deceived them [09:45] into making a treaty with them. They [09:47] said, "We have heard what your God did [09:50] in Egypt and we would like to come make [09:53] a treaty with you." According to the [09:55] text of Joshua 9, they heard what Joshua [09:57] did in Jericho and I and they were [09:59] afraid of being destroyed. So, they came [10:02] up with this scheme. There's no [10:05] repentance mentioned anywhere in this [10:07] story and this was not about fear of [10:10] God. This is about fear of an army [10:14] leading to deception of that army into [10:18] striking a treaty with them, which [10:20] treaty Joshua decided they would honor [10:24] saving them from destruction, but it did [10:27] render them their servants, their [10:29] enslaved folks, kind of a a vassal [10:31] subordinate people. So, this would be [10:34] kind of like Deuteronomy 20 where the [10:36] city says, yes, we will become enslaved [10:39] to you. We will be a vassal state to [10:42] you. [10:43] Which is an option [10:44] according to Deuteronomy 20, but not [10:46] according to this scenario because you [10:49] are not in charge of your people. You [10:52] are just one family in that city-state [10:56] or in that town. You do not get to [10:58] decide for everyone else. You only get [11:00] to decide for you and your family. So, [11:02] once again, this content creator is [11:05] misrepresenting what's in the biblical [11:07] text in order to try to retroject [11:09] contemporary Christian frameworks onto a [11:12] period prior to the development of those [11:15] frameworks to sidestep [11:18] the actual question that's being asked [11:20] and to act like there's a clear and an [11:22] easy answer all along when the reality [11:24] is this content creator is just [11:25] demonstrating [11:27] it stumps them, too. They just are too [11:29] afraid to admit it. Let's not act like [11:32] their destruction was their only option. [11:35] That's simply not the case based off the [11:38] text and based off the reality of years [11:41] of God's patience, centuries of God's [11:44] patience with them. So, just to review, [11:46] the relevant texts do not contain the [11:49] concept of repentance as this content [11:52] creator understands it. Nowhere do the [11:54] relevant texts indicate that the [11:56] Canaanites were told to repent [11:59] and were given 400 years to repent. [12:02] Nowhere do the relevant texts indicate [12:04] that Rahab ever repented. Nowhere do the [12:07] relevant texts indicate that the [12:08] Gibeonites ever repented. This content [12:11] creator is just making stuff up that can [12:15] be imposed upon this text to facilitate [12:19] the sidestepping [12:21] of the actual question because this [12:22] content creator doesn't want to answer [12:25] it honestly because that would expose [12:27] the flaw in at least the Hebrew Bible's [12:30] representation of God as an [12:33] ethnocentrist and somebody who endorsed [12:36] and even commanded genocide. The reason [12:39] this is so difficult is when believing [12:40] Christians read the scriptures, they [12:41] read themselves as the Israelites, the [12:42] chosen people, the ones enacting divine [12:44] violence, the ones enacting divine [12:45] justice even. They see themselves as the [12:47] main character. No, no, no. Do not get [12:49] it twisted. The Israelites are not the [12:51] good guys, either and they're not the [12:53] main character. The Lord is. In [12:55] Deuteronomy 9, the Lord tells them, [12:58] don't think in your hearts it's because [13:00] of you and your righteousness that [13:01] you'll get this land, but it's because [13:04] of their wickedness. Not because of your [13:07] righteousness or the uprightness of your [13:10] heart that you're going to possess the [13:12] land, but because of the wickedness of [13:14] these nations. [13:16] I think it's a bit of a distinction [13:17] without a difference to say, I don't [13:19] identify with any given character within [13:23] the narrative, but I do identify with [13:25] the narrator. Either way, you're still [13:28] identifying with the protagonist in the [13:31] story. You're identifying with the [13:33] people who identify as part of the house [13:36] of Israel. And this question forces you [13:39] to answer and and it forces you to have [13:40] some empathy. What if you were on the [13:42] other side of it? I can have empathy [13:43] because I was on the other side of it. [13:45] And God in his grace and mercy extended [13:49] forgiveness to me. So, this is perhaps [13:51] the most laughably brainless and [13:53] oblivious part of this entire rhetorical [13:55] puppet show. Where this content creator [13:57] says, I can have empathy cuz I've been [14:01] on their side. I've had the experience [14:03] that they've had. Except, this content [14:05] creator started this video by declaring, [14:08] there shall be no empathy here. By [14:10] declaring that the Canaanites deserved [14:12] genocide. Even the little children, even [14:15] the fetuses in the womb, even the people [14:18] who did nothing wrong, they all deserved [14:20] to die [14:21] because they spent 400 years refusing to [14:24] do something they were never told to do. [14:27] Refusing to do something they had no [14:29] obligation to do anyway because they [14:31] were never in any kind of covenantal [14:33] relationship with the God of Israel [14:37] anyway. So, this content creator already [14:39] started off the video saying, don't come [14:41] to me for empathy. There shall be no [14:44] empathy found here. [14:46] And then they say, I can have empathy. [14:48] You already said you would not be having [14:51] any empathy. And why can you claim to [14:53] have empathy? Because you've been on the [14:55] other side of it? No, you haven't. [14:58] Growing up in late 20th or early 21st [15:01] century America as a non-Christian is in [15:04] absolutely no way, shape, or form [15:07] whatsoever comparable to being a [15:10] villager with a family in late Bronze [15:13] Age Canaan staring down the barrel of [15:16] Joshua coming to tell you [15:19] become our slaves or die. [15:22] That's not a comparable experience [15:25] that does not allow you to have empathy [15:28] and you've already demonstrated you are [15:30] not interested in empathy. [15:33] Holy crap. Like he has to every other [15:37] human being to ever walk the face of the [15:39] earth. And some will receive it and some [15:42] will reject it. [15:43] It's hard to conceive of a more childish [15:47] notion of God's justice than the idea [15:52] that [15:53] the genocide of entire people groups [15:55] must have been because everybody [15:57] deserved it. And every single human that [16:00] has ever walked the earth was given the [16:02] opportunity to receive forgiveness. And [16:05] if they were slaughtered by the [16:07] Israelites or at least if the narrators [16:10] in these biblical texts describe them as [16:13] being slaughtered, even if they were [16:15] fetuses inside wombs or newborn babies [16:17] or little children [16:19] they were given an opportunity to [16:21] receive forgiveness and they turned it [16:23] down. Whether or not [16:25] they had the mental capacity to [16:27] recognize what was going on. [16:30] This is such a childish [16:32] and an asinine attempt to try to [16:36] just shellac over all the complexities [16:40] of what's going on in these stories with [16:43] God did it. [16:45] And everybody would have had the [16:46] opportunity to receive forgiveness. [16:49] Like, I cannot imagine [16:51] a more childish, a more brainless, and a [16:54] more oblivious [16:56] method of trying to go about excusing [16:59] genocide. This is just a joke. And it's [17:02] really difficult to answer because [17:03] either you have to say, I'm just going [17:04] to, you know, sit there in the corner [17:06] while someone slaughters my children, or [17:07] you have to say, I'm going to fight [17:08] against what God would want. And that's [17:10] very difficult for a believer to have to [17:11] wrestle with. [17:12] >> That's a false dichotomy. There's [17:13] another option to just repent [17:17] and turn to the God of Israel. It worked [17:20] for Rahab, so why wouldn't it work for [17:22] me or you? [17:23] It's not a false dichotomy. It's asking [17:25] a very simple historical question that [17:27] you're just refusing to engage on [17:30] historical terms. You are demanding you [17:32] be allowed to bring in your [17:34] a-historical, your anachronistic, and [17:37] according to these narratives, your [17:39] unbiblical dogmas to skirt around the [17:42] very easy historical question. Because [17:44] it's a very easy question. Everybody [17:46] knows if you were put in that situation, [17:49] you would obviously not just sit back [17:51] and allow you and your family to be [17:52] slaughtered. You would absolutely fight [17:55] against Israel. That is a no-brainer. [17:58] It's complex because it puts you in a [18:00] dilemma regarding your identity [18:02] politics. Because to say, yes, I would [18:04] absolutely fight against God would be [18:08] to reject a central identity marker of [18:11] your identity politics. You want to be [18:14] seen of men as being so committed to God [18:18] that you wouldn't even fight against God [18:21] if it meant your own death and the death [18:23] of your family. [18:25] And so, that becomes then, ah, a [18:26] dilemma. What should I do? Should I put [18:29] on display [18:31] my fidelity? Should I wave the flag of [18:35] my identity marker, but in so doing [18:38] show that I'm willing to sacrifice my [18:40] children and my wife and myself to that [18:44] identity marker? [18:46] Or do I reject the identity marker in [18:48] front of an audience that expects me to [18:51] wave that identity marker? That's the [18:53] dilemma. [18:54] And by saying, nah-ah, false dichotomy, [18:57] you can always repent, you're just [18:59] rejecting the premise because you're too [19:02] scared. [19:03] You're too scared to acknowledge that [19:05] this becomes a dilemma for you because [19:08] you don't want to answer either way. [19:10] You want to take this third route of [19:13] just rejecting the premise and [19:15] pretending that you actually have [19:16] greater knowledge. And all it required [19:19] was that you lie [19:21] about what's in the text, about how this [19:23] all happened, about your ability to have [19:25] empathy, about your ability to [19:29] understand what's going on in the mind [19:31] of a late Bronze Age villager who's [19:34] staring down the barrel of Joshua coming [19:38] to say something slightly different than [19:40] cake or death. This is so childish and [19:43] so transparent as well. The fact that [19:46] you take this seriously, that anybody in [19:48] your audience takes this seriously, just [19:50] demonstrates how performative how jejune [19:54] your particular brand of Christianity is [19:56] how intellectually corrupt how vacuous [20:00] it is how much it is just about putting [20:03] on a show for the people around you so [20:05] you can make them feel like you're a [20:07] real one and the fit for this video [20:10] has been Daredevil versus Punisher.  📄 **Full text:** ![[Full Document Contents/Articles/Responding to Coley Stephens on the Bible & Ethics.md|Responding to Coley Stephens on the Bible & Ethics by YouTube]] ## Highlights - This ethical question is very difficult for believers to answer and we recently saw it stump Cliff Kley when he was talking with Alex Okconor. >> All right, let's check it out. >> All right, let's see it. >> The question goes like this. You are a believing Christian today, but tomorrow you wake up and you find yourself in ancient Canaan and you're a Canaanite. You have a wife. You have children. You have a family. And you know because you know Deuteronomy 20 that the Israelites are going to come and they're about to wipe you out under God's command. Not just you, but the women and children as ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01krgrw0qw1022jvqtzs9md2hb)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - But nobody ever went to the Amorites and said, "You must repent before God." Nobody ever went to the numerous other Canaanite peoples and said, "You must repent before God." The people of Israel just showed up after leaving Egypt and started slaughtering them. The only way a city, according to Deuteronomy 20 anyway, could save itself was to become a vassel to the people of Israel. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01krgrw0r3rzztyn5a4vmz38ss)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - Otherwise, it was genocide. So the notion that they were told to repent is not supported by anything in the Bible. The notion that they rebelled against God and refused to repent is not supported by anything in the Bible. The notion that this excuses genocide uh is not supported by anything in the Bible. This is just a misguided and a naive apologetic exercise in trying to excuse genocide because the apologist needs to be made to feel better and needs to be able to rationalize to themselves why it's okay ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01krgrw0rbvv1h1c8fjqbzkdh6)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - genocide. This is just a joke. And >> it's really difficult to answer because either you have to say, I'm just going to, you know, sit there in the corner while someone slaughters my children, or you have to say, I'm going to fight against what God would want. And that's very difficult for a believer to have to wrestle with. >> That's a false dichotomy. there's another option to just repent and turn to the God of Israel. It worked for Rahab, so why wouldn't it work for me or you? It's not a false dichotomy. It's asking a very simple historical question that you're just refusing to engage on historical terms. You're ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01krgrw0v53dm3tqn5gghbz5df)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted