For argument's sake - Let's assume the Bible's stories

The taking of the Promised Land is something that's still tough for me to swallow. I think what it boils down to -- for both the Israelites then and us now -- is a matter of trust. God said that the Canaanites', et al, time was up. His patience had run out with them, and He decided that the entire collection of cultures were to be wiped off the map, and He decided to use Israel to do it. Now, Israel had a choice to make -- either trust God's judgment and carry out His instruction to the letter, or not. They lost the stomach for it eventually, and ultimately it corrupted their own culture.

Today, we look at that situation and question God's instruction. Did He really tell Israel to wipe them out, or was it powerlust by the Hebrews? Could the cultures of that time and that area really be that worthy of destruction? Down to every last man, woman, and child?

God, by almost anyone's definition, has perceptive and discerning abilities far superior to our own. So taking that as a given, the question then becomes, "Do we trust His judgment?" Is it possible that God could see into the hearts, minds, and futures of every living soul in Canaan and knew the culture would hoplelessly corrupt them? That annihilation was the only possible way to kill a culture that practiced child sacrifice, among other things?

This is where the 'means vs. ends' argument enters the picture, as it does many times throughout Judeo/Christian doctrine.

Another thing to keep in mind, however, when comparing the taking of the Promised Land to the Sermon on the Mount (i.e. turning the other cheek, etc.), is that both the audience and the purposes for each set of instruction were very, very different. The invasion of Canaan was a specific instruction for a specific time and place, for a set of very specific purposes. Jesus' teachings were for an exponentially wider application, under a completely different set of circumstances.