I debate with myself- because I always lose

Recently I've begun to challenge myself to read things that are beyond my understanding from perspectives other than my own.  And I'm not just talking about 'The Cat in the Hat', either.

Today's reading: Anthropomorphism, Trisyllabic Meter, and Dr. Seuss- Why Mike Myers Isn't All That Funny

In the midst of one particular academic foray, I stumbled upon an article in which Richard Dawkins lays out a reason for refusing to engage in debate with William Lane Craig.  Heady stuff, to say the least.  After my brain temporarily shut down because of intelligence overload, I figured I could use this as a good segue into my struggle right now in regards to understanding the Bible and its role in my life.

I'll write more about this in much more depth later on (after lots of reading and research).  Suffice it to say that for a long time, I took the Bible as the true word of God because that's what I was told.  I was told that the Bible said it was the true word of God, and so therefore it was- perfect and infallible.

Lately I've been trying to think about it more objectively.  That is, if you look at it on an organic level, the Bible is a collection of history, legends, songs, and rules that were written by people thousands of years ago.  It has an elevated place because we are told it is God's direct word to His people- but is it possible that it is nothing more than the ongoing journal of one group of people from the Bronze Age?  Right now, I'm not sure either way.  But I intend to find out. 
That's all stuff for another day.  Let me get to the point of this blog- which is about the idea of genocide, and whether God is for or against it.  Actually, scratch that- I'll link you to William Lane Craig's response to a question about the genocide of the Canaanites, found in the Old Testament.  I'll let you read it.  Then I'll get to the point.

From the Christian perspective, I can see where you would say that God is the end-all-be-all, that He can do what He wants to whomever He wants.  Otherwise, He's probably not a God worth serving.  And I get it when Craig talks about us approaching this from a Western perspective. We tend to see the human race much differently (for the most part) than the Biblical writers did- and even though I think we are less xenophobic/ethnocentric than they were, I have to concede the fact that there is a bias in my viewpoint.
However, that still doesn't mean that there isn't some bias from the writers themselves.  Winston Churchill said it best- "History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it".  When you have power or obtain victory, you have the opportunity to spin the history however you want.  You get to decide who the players are and who gets ignored.  You can choose who plays the hero and who plays the villain.  It usually isn't until much later when people can look back more objectively (as much as is possible, anyways) to smell the BS.

And if you demonize certain populations, then certain actions can be justified.  Think about Hitler and his quest to exterminate the Jews.  Think about African-Americans and slavery.  Think about the Native Americans and Manifest Destiny.  Think about the Catholic Church and the Inquisition.  All of these events are simply appalling and horrific in our eyes today.  At the time, though, they were "justified" because of certain beliefs about the victims.  That's the power of labels. 

I feel like I'm having a hard time connecting the dots here, but the main point is that the slaughter of the Canaanites is the same thing in my opinion.  Historically, there is no reason to believe that this was a moral venture because it involves the demonization of a people (Canaanites) from the perspective of another group of people (Israelites) that were the more dominant military force.
So why would such an account have authority to make claims about the morality of genocide- it is already skewed to the perception of the author, right?  Maybe Israel just wanted to take the land of Canaan, so they did- forcibly, under the banner of Yahweh and the cause of righteous judgment.  We don't know, because we weren't there.  All we can do is apply our own interpretation (which is skewed no matter how we try to approach it because of our own worldviews).

There's a lot more we could talk about on this issue- the idea of grace in Old Testament/New Testament theology, the effects of domestication and civilization over the years, the Monkeysphere, etc.  And as I said before, the events could have happened as reported- God may have well wanted Israel to smote the Canaanites in retribution for their sins.  But that doesn't mean we should just assume so because we are told to assume so.  God gave us eyes to see.  He gave us ears to hear.  And He gave us brains to think about things critically.  Well, that and the many other things that the brain does, which is pretty much everything.