This debate explores whether divine commands can override human moral intuitions, using Old Testament passages about the conquest of Canaan as a case study. The discussion reveals that even committed Christian apologists struggle to reconcile biblical commands to destroy entire populations with their own moral intuitions, suggesting that morality may exist independently of divine commands. The hypothetical scenario of waking up as a Canaanite forces participants to confront whether they would defend their families against God's commands, exposing tensions between religious authority and moral reasoning.
Deep Dive
Prerequisite Knowledge
- No data available.
Where to go next
- No data available.
Deep Dive
Alex O'Connor PUSHES Cliffe Knechtle Into Impossible Moral Dilemma
Added:Before I just I I'll ask you a question that I asked to William Lane Craig. I'm interested in your response, which is Suppose you woke up tomorrow and you were a Canaanite.
>> Hey everyone, welcome back to the channel. Really happy to have you here today. So, in this video, we're watching Alex O'Connor sit down with Christian apologist Cliff Knechtle and things get intense. They're going head-to-head on some of the most difficult questions in the Bible. We're talking Old Testament violence, the morality of divine commands, and whether religious texts can justify what most of us would call genocide.
Alex doesn't hold back and Cliff's responses are going to surprise you.
This is one of those debates where you absolutely need to stick around until the final moments because there's a question near the end that completely shifts everything. Trust me, you don't want to miss how this plays out. Before we jump in, drop a comment and let me know where in the world you're watching from.
I love seeing how global this community is and it's always cool to connect with you all. All right, let's get into it.
>> I benefited from going to Davidson College and a lot of people sacrificed to put Davidson together. You benefited from going to Oxford University and there were a lot of people who have over many years given sacrificially to build that. So, there are real consequences that stretch down through the generations of our decisions. And also, the Bible never says that those children or all those people go to eternity separate from God. I'm convinced that we will see those children in heaven if they were killed before an age of accountability. So, the justice of God will ultimately triumph.
>> Yeah.
>> But, do I have problems with the text?
Yes, of course I have problems with the text. I don't understand it exactly. I don't understand what God is doing exactly there, why he says that kind of thing. But, I'm also convinced that hyperbole is being used and I think that's a very important thing. For instance, when I was in high school, we used to say, "We're going to kill >> Yeah, yeah.
>> team that we're going to play that weekend." Not meaning we're literally going to kill them.
And and the whole idea of in in the Hebrew herem, h e r e m, of clearing out >> Mhm.
>> these people from the promised land. The whole idea that God had given them 400 over 400 years to repent, and they had chosen not to, and now God clears them out.
You know, I I think it's a complex issue, more complex than the person would would allow it to be who just says, "I just can't believe that God would do something like that."
>> Do Do you believe that to be clear do do you believe that innocent children were killed by Israelites on the command of God as a historical fact?
>> I believe that innocent children were killed by Israeli bombs, and they happen to be Palestinians, part of Hamas maybe or Hezbollah.
I believe that there are consequences to human decisions that stretch down through the generations and then impact a lot of innocent people.
>> Mhm.
>> And I think we're a little naive if we think that we can go into Iraq or fight a Desert Storm and no innocent people are going to be killed. Um it's it's one of the tragedies of war, which is the result of the sinful human heart.
>> But but suppose, you know, the Israeli government said "Leave alive nothing that breathes.
Kill kill the soldiers, but then once you've done that, turn around, go back, kill the women, kill the children, kill their animals, because this land is yours."
>> Mhm.
>> I think that people would would would wouldn't >> Mhm.
>> be satisfied >> Yep.
>> on falling back on the defense of, "Hey, this is the consequence of war. This is what happens." I think people would say, "Okay, but the fundamental rule of just war, which I'm told is sort of stems out of the Christian tradition, is, you know, proportionate response.
And and >> Yes.
>> And >> And I agree with you.
Okay, but here but here's another problem.
>> Mhm.
>> God told Abraham to take Isaac up on Mount Moriah and sacrifice his son.
>> Mhm.
>> Now, if someone interprets that as being God's laying down wise principles for good parenting, they're an idiot.
>> Sure, yeah.
>> That is not what Genesis chapter 2 is communicating. God gave Abraham a very specific command.
And it was not to give an example of wise parenting. It was Abraham, who's number one in your heart? Is it going to be God or is it going to be your son?
>> Mhm.
>> Who are you going to build your future on? Your son or me?
Similarly, what Israel does there in the Old Testament is not examples of just war theory.
No, it is unique example of God using a theocracy, and we don't live in a theocracy. We don't have a theocracy in Israel now. We're definitely not a theocracy in the United States or in UK.
God using a theocracy to carve out a land that he brings then Messiah into.
That's a one-time deed cuz you're absolutely right. It is not an example of just war. No way.
>> Mhm.
>> I recoil at that as you do, I'm sure.
>> Yeah, because of course >> This is where Cliff starts throwing out every defense he can think of. And watch how quickly they all collapse. He's trying to justify Old Testament genocide by comparing it to modern warfare, and Alex is about to dismantle that completely. So, Cliff says, "I believe that innocent children were killed by Israeli bombs, and they happened to be Palestinians, part of Hamas maybe or Hezbollah." And right there, he's already lost the argument. Because you know what he's doing? He's admitting that the killing of innocent children happened, but then he's trying to make it sound acceptable by wrapping it in modern geopolitics. That's not a defense. That's a confession with a bow on it. And then Alex hits him with the hypothetical that destroys this whole line of reasoning. He says, "Suppose the Israeli government said, 'Leave alive nothing that breathes. Might kill the soldiers, but then once you've done that, turn around, go back, kill the women, kill the children, kill their animals because this land is yours. And suddenly, Cliff can't hide behind the tragedy of war anymore, because this isn't collateral damage. This is intentional, systematic extermination.
What makes this so powerful is that Alex brings up just war theory, which actually comes from Christian tradition.
He says, "The fundamental rule of just war is proportionate response."
And Cliff has to agree with him. He says, "Yes, I agree with you." So, now we've established that even by Christian moral standards, what's described in the Old Testament violates the rules of ethical warfare. But, here's where Cliff tries his escape hatch. He pivots to the Abraham and Isaac story, then claims what Israel does there in the Old Testament is not examples of just war theory, it is unique example of God using a theocracy. So, basically, he's saying the normal rules don't apply because God said so. But, that's exactly the problem. If morality comes from God's commands, and God can command genocide when it suits his purposes, then morality isn't actually based on unchanging principles, it's just might makes right with a divine stamp of approval. And notice how Cliff ends this section. He admits, "It is not an example of just war. No way. I recoil at that as you do." So, even the Christian apologist is morally disgusted by what his own scripture describes. That tells you everything.
>> The difference in this case is that you have the orders from the top the top man.
>> Mhm.
>> It's sort of if there is some extraordinary circumstance in which this kind of otherwise morally condemnable behavior can be justified, >> [music] >> you better have the authority to know that you're making the right decision.
And in this case, you know, the Christian will be able to say that they did have that authority.
But, I mean, it's it's a struggle, you know?
We're talking about the intentional killing of non-combatant children here.
We turn and I read this text as a land dispute.
I read in Deuteronomy where God gives instructions when you march up onto a city to attack it like in in in the in the broad sense um when you march up to attack a city make its people an offer of peace.
If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you.
Some peace.
If they refuse to make peace and engage in battle, which you know, isn't entirely unreasonable given what the terms of peace are lay waste lay siege to that city.
When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, and the livestock, and everything else in the city you may take these as plunder for yourselves.
And you may use the plunder the Lord gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat the cities that are in a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby. Women and children being described as plunder, plunder that can be used because God has given them to you as plunder.
Because those are the people who you're attacking not because they're in the promised land and it's just well, it's look, we gave them a chance to leave.
What are we supposed to do? This is God's chosen No, these are these are other cities.
Because it goes on however, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them. The Hittites, the Amorites Canaanites but then lists, you know, the Jebusites as the Lord your God has commanded you.
Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all detestable things that they do in worshipping their gods.
And you will sin against the Lord your God. So clearly what you're saying about them being these detestable characters and God is issuing his judgment must be true here because it's saying that otherwise, if you don't destroy them completely you know, they will they will teach you their ways. You will fall into sin.
But this idea of you know marching up to a city and even if they accept you, they're going to become, you know, your your indentured servants. And if they don't, then you may take the women and children as plunder and you may use the plunder the Lord gives you. But, of course, if you're marching into a city of one of the nations that you've been promised by God, oh well, then don't leave alive anything that breathes. Kill all of the children. Kill all of the women. I mean, I uh it's the difference there, in other words, about like the the people in the inherited lands and the people outside of it tells me that the the explanation for why need to be completely and utterly destroyed is because this is our land, you know, we want this land. Seems to be I I and when I when I read about somebody intentionally driving out or killing nations of people so that they can sort of essentially ethnically cleanse a land. I don't know what else to call that other than a genocide.
Before I just I'll ask you a question that I asked to William Lane Craig. I'm interested in your response, which is suppose you woke up tomorrow and you were a Canaanite.
You just sort of woke up in someone else's body. You traveled back in time. You're a Canaanite now.
>> Now, Alex is about to do something absolutely brilliant. He's going to read directly from Deuteronomy and there's no spin, no interpretation, just the actual words that are supposedly divinely inspired. Listen to what the text says.
Alex reads, "When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor. So, the offer of peace isn't actually peace. It's surrender into slavery. That's the starting point. And if they refuse that generous offer, here's what happens next." Alex continues, "As for the women, the children, and the livestock, and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves."
Women and children described as plunder, not as human beings with inherent dignity, not as people made in the image of God, as spoils of war that you get to use however you want. And this isn't some fringe interpretation.
This is what the text actually says.
But it gets worse because that's just for cities outside the promised land.
For the cities inside the land God promised to Israel, the command is even more extreme. Alex reads, "Do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them. Total annihilation. Every man, woman, child, and animal. And the reason given is so they won't teach you their detestable ways and cause you to sin." Here's what makes this so devastating. The justification isn't that these people are an immediate military threat. It's not that they're actively attacking Israel. It's that they might influence the Israelites to worship different gods. So the solution is ethnic cleansing. Remove them completely so their culture can't contaminate yours. And Alex brings it full circle when he says, "I don't know what else to call that other than a genocide." Because that's exactly what it is. It's the systematic elimination of entire populations based on their ethnic and religious identity for the purpose of territorial conquest. There's no way to sugarcoat it. The text describes genocide, commands it, and attributes those commands to God. This is why reading scripture directly is so powerful. You can't hide behind theology or context when the words are right there in black and white.
>> You live in that community. You're surrounded by temptations. And you're sinful men. You give in some of them.
Then the Israelites come marching in and start attacking you. They start trying to kill you and your family. Would you fight back?
Yes.
I'd probably fight back. I would try to defend myself and defend my family.
>> Would you be wrong to do that?
Cuz it was supposed Probably not.
Suppose that you go back now and you retain the knowledge you have.
You think it's very strange that I've just woken up in the body of a Canaanite. But I remember I remember where I was. I remember doing that podcast with Alex. They don't believe you. They don't even know what a podcast is.
What a glorious time to be alive. Um and [snorts] and you know where you are. You recognize it. You're like, "I've been put here. This is a test. God is testing me somehow. I don't know what's what's going on, but I'm I'm a Canaanite now, and the armies of of Moses are coming towards you, and you know that they're the Israelites. You know that they've got God on their side.
Do you still fight back?"
>> Well, I think the problem with your use of the word genocide or ethnic cleansing is that a few hundred years later the God used first the Assyrians and then the Babylonians to punish the Jews for their immorality.
So, this is not just a land squabble that we're reading about in the Old Testament. We're reading about a God who is a judge, judges the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, and then a few hundred years later he judges the Jews, and they're swept into captivity, and that was the judgment of God according to the Hebrew prophets. That was the judgment of God.
>> So, would you accept that judgment? I mean, especially if you were transported back with your family.
And you know you know for a fact that Okay. I'm not a Canaanite. I'm a sinful man. You know, maybe maybe I have the strength to say, "Okay.
God is issuing his judgment on me.
I'll repent in my last moments. I'll let that soldier put me to the sword as God has commanded, and hopefully I'll be shown the grace of God."
But would you be willing to say, "Oh, yeah, my my my child my 2-year-old child. Yeah, sure. Yeah. No, this is what God wants. This is what's going to happen."
You know, like it seems to me an absurd request to make of somebody.
Of course they couldn't do that. And yet we're we're painting these these Canaanites as these terrible immoral people. I mean, maybe they were, but like I I struggle to think that even if that were the case that the right thing to do is to just sort of accept the judgment of God and say, "Okay. Yeah."
>> Mhm.
>> That's my child.
>> Mhm.
>> That's my In fact, I'll I'll point them out to you. You know, they're hiding in the room upstairs because I know that it's the will of God that for some reason you know, they all be killed. I know that for some reason even the children even the innocent children God for some reason that I'll never understand, wants them to be put to the sword. And so I tell you what, Mr. Mr. Cain, don't kill me yet because I'm first going to betray my family and tell you where they all are because I know that's the will of God. You know, I think it would it would be an insane prospect to even consider.
>> That would be insane.
It's also kind of difficult to think about Jesus Christ bleeding and dying on a cross to make atonement for human sin.
That's kind of repugnant in one sense.
So, there are a lot of things when it comes to dealing with the problem of sin and the judgment of God that are very difficult. My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
I mean, is that really necessary? Why can't just God wave a wand and say you're all forgiven?
Why is the cross so necessary? Is that not morally repugnant in some ways?
Well, in some ways I think it is morally repugnant.
And yet that is how God brings justice and mercy together there at the cross. And so yes, God is a God who judges and I have a problem with his judgment often. I don't like it.
And I struggle with the Old Testament wars.
I struggle with the cross in terms of Jesus absorbing the hit for my sin.
And at times I'm like Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, Father, if it's possible, take this cup from me. And why shouldn't it be possible?
So there you know, there are a lot of deep questions that I don't have easy answers for.
But I think that Job we started off with is quite an example. Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him. I don't understand why he judges the way he does, why he allows certain things to happen exactly the way they happen. I don't understand exactly why Christ had to sacrifice his life on a cross. That was an incredibly painful experience, obviously.
And yet I am committed to justice being a real value that flows from the character of God and the way God dispenses justice is really often outside my understanding at this point.
>> This is the moment where the entire Christian defense collapses.
Alex asked Cliff the simplest possible question and Cliff's answer destroys everything he's been trying to argue.
The hypothetical is straightforward. You wake up as a Canaanite. The Israelites are coming to kill you and your family.
Alex asks, would you fight back? And Cliff says, yes, I'd probably fight back. I would try to defend myself and defend my family.
Then Alex asks the follow-up. Would you be wrong to do that? And Cliff admits, probably not. Do you understand what just happened? Cliff Knechtle, a Christian apologist defending the Bible, just admitted that resisting God's explicit command would be morally justified. He's saying that if God ordered your death and the death of your children, the right thing to do would be to fight against that command.
That's a complete contradiction of divine command theory because if morality comes from God, then whatever God commands is by definition moral. So, resisting God's command would be immoral, but Cliff can't bring himself to say that because his human moral intuitions are screaming that defending your family from genocide is obviously the right thing to do. So, he admits it and in doing so, he accidentally proves that morality exists independent of God's commands. Then Alex pushes it even further. He asked about the 2-year-old child. Would you accept your toddler being put to the sword as God's judgment? And even in the hypothetical, Cliff can't bring himself to say yes.
Alex phrases it sarcastically. Would you be willing to say, oh yeah, my 2-year-old child? Yeah, sure, this is what God wants. And the absurdity of it is impossible to deny.
Here's what this reveals. Even the most committed believers recognize that some things are wrong regardless of who commands them. Killing innocent children is wrong, not because God says it's wrong, but because it is wrong, and we know it's wrong through our moral reasoning and empathy, not through divine revelation.
And then at the very end, after all of this, Cliff makes another devastating admission. He says, "I don't understand exactly why Christ had to sacrifice his life on a cross."
So, the central doctrine of Christianity, the atonement, the whole reason Jesus supposedly had to die, even the apologist doesn't actually understand it. He just accepts it on faith. That's the pattern throughout this entire conversation. When pressed on the hard questions, the response is always some version of, "I don't fully understand it, but I trust God anyway."
But that's not reasoning. That's just choosing to believe something despite the evidence, despite the moral problems, despite the logical contradictions. And calling that faith doesn't make it any less intellectually dishonest.
So, what do you guys think of this?
Leave your thoughts down in the comments. Please like and subscribe, and I will see you in the next video.
Related Videos

Open Tab is a new interview series hosted by Substack co-founder Hamish McKenzie
Hypeflicksss
1K views•2026-05-21

Street Epistemology: Maritza (1) | Student Demands the Truth (Valuation)
magnabosco210
124K views•2019-06-27

Nel Noddings | Feminist philosophy and education | Whiteboard Video
studioninety9110
3K views•2019-10-13

LEGAL METHOD CLASS: Law, Order, Justice & Freedom | Understanding the Concept of Law in Society
LAW-MADE-SIMPLE.c
371 views•2025-11-22

Does evolution DEBUNK morality?
MajestyofReason
7K views•2025-03-06

How the Gospels Pass the Historical Test | Tim and Lydia McGrew
TheAaronRennShow
713 views•2025-12-02

Pluriversal Design SIG Book Club 13: bell hooks' Theory as Liberatory Practice
pluriversaldesignsig2851
777 views•2022-05-24

NICK LAND MEETS THEORY UNDERGROUND (w/ Michael Downs and David McKerracher)
PhilosophyPortal
9K views•2023-10-23
Trending

WOW! Judge TURNS THE TABLES on Trump in His OWN $10B LAWSUIT!!!
MeidasTouch
197K views•2026-07-23

Playstation NO DISC/NO BUY Fight Is Over...
DavidJaffeGames
4K views•2026-07-23

Steam and Xbox Just Dropped The Hammer On PlayStation
OhNoItsAlexx
9K views•2026-07-23

Americans Confused in Australia for 17 Minutes Straight
IWrocker
17K views•2026-07-23