RicOlie_2 said:
Post Praetorian said:
RicOlie_2 said:
Post Praetorian said:
RicOlie_2 said:
Post Praetorian said:
1) Is it then your view that God chose to align Himself with Abraham because Abraham demonstrated a willingness to murder for God?
To clarify, was it not Abraham who appeared willing to murder Jacob in order to show obedience? If so, is such a level of obedience key to God later deciding which of his people might murder which other people (as in, who might possess the promised land by force and who might die in its defense)?
The reason God instructed the Israelites to kill the inhabitants of Canaan was because the Israelites had proven they weren't capable of living alongside other nations without falling into idolatry. God allowed it for Israel's benefit, not because those nations were evil (that was not the main reason, anyway).
Is it possible that life might hold so little value to a loving god? If one's fate might fall to the disposition of one's neighbors is this likely to be a sign that justice is held in particularly high regard?
Further, if the Canaanite people might have proven to be the more faithful (as in, their religion appears to have been more persuasive to the Israelites than vice-versa), why might a loving god have chosen to reward them with destruction? In essence, why offer a promised land to a people of lesser devotion at the expense of a people of greater devotion?
I can't claim to know what God's logic was, but if those people ended up in heaven, then their lifespan on earth doesn't matter. If they ended up in hell, it's a different story, but they doubtlessly were headed that way anyway if that was the case.
Canaanite worship involved ritual prostitution and child sacrifice in many cases. God didn't want his people going down that path. The Canaanite religions were religions of pleasure for the most part (especially the sex worship part) and therefore it seemed very attractive compared to the strict Mosaic law.
How likely might one expect the arrival of any among the Canaanites into Heaven given the seemingly strong judgment upon them while still alive? Alternately, how pleased may have been expected the reactions among any of said Canaanites were they to have discovered themselves confronted by the possibility of a forced eternal existence with the same god who slew their families in such dramatic fashion?
Further, is it not somewhat difficult to comprehend the rationale that might cause a god of love to first command Abraham to sacrifice a child, while later exterminating an entire nation for allegedly following through with the same act?
To clarify, if the purpose of God's initial command to Abraham seemingly was to test him by determining his willingness to sacrificing that which he might hold most dear, would it not equally be considered that the sacrifices endured by the Canaanites might be of equal value in their apparent difficulty to carry out (hence the concept of sacrifice)? If so, could not a god of love have more simply resolved the error of their understandings by encouraging them to abandon the practice through a great act of love rather than one of unimaginable terror?
Given the view of ancient peoples at the time, I think the Caananites would have just been sorry for what they did and be fine with spending their time in heaven. I don't really know if they did or didn't get to heaven, so I probably won't answer further questions about that. I just believe that God did whatever was the just thing to do.
I see the prevention of the sacrifice of Isaac as a sign that God does not allow child sacrifice. God stopped Abraham from completing the sacrifice, and therefore showed that he did not want such sacrifices (which other nations at the time performed regularly).
Having multiple options for halting said sacrifices, why might one consider God seemingly chose the most brutal?