Post Praetorian said:
RicOlie_2 said:
Post Praetorian said:
RicOlie_2 said:
Post Praetorian said:
RicOlie_2 said:
Post Praetorian said:
RicOlie_2 said:
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?
The most brutal? Well, what would you have done instead?
Remember that this was not the only lesson God gave with his command to sacrifice Isaac and in the end his prevention of the sacrifice.
How might I, a mere mortal, instruct an omnipotent deity?
You catch on pretty quick! ;)
Perhaps one consideration might I be of sufficient boldness to suggest:
Were God to have rewarded only those who refused to sacrifice children would not sufficient evidence have slowly accrued to compel others to behave in as like a manner? To clarify, if a given farmer were to see his crops grow visibly stronger the closer he mirrored the commandments of God would not a suspicion grow that he was certainly on the correct path?
For is it not reasonable to assume that the Canaanites did not willfully sacrifice children for the pure pleasure of so doing, but more due to an errant belief that it was the will of God? If so, could not God have caused a storm with sufficient rain to dampen out each sacrificial occurrence while bestowing more benevolent weather during times when the practice was avoided? Would not such a harmless pattern have proven sufficient?
Arguably, this is what happened most of the time. I give you the examples of:
the ten plagues (Exodus 7:14-11:10),
the destruction of the Egyptian army and resulting deliverance of the Israelites from slavery (Exodus 14:23-31),
the Battle of Amalek (Exodus 17:8-13),
the Israelites being forced to wander in the desert because they didn't have enough faith that God would be able to gain them possession of the promised land (Numbers 14:26-35) and their defeat at the hands of the Amalekites and Canaanites because they attacked in direct disobedience of God (Numbers 14:44-45),
the sin of Moses and Aaron resulting in them being banned from entering the promised land (Numbers 20:6b-12),
the punishment of the snakes in the desert (Numbers 21:5-6) and the deliverance from the snakes upon the Israelites' repentance (Numbers 21:6-9),
the defeat of Sihon (Deuteronomy 2:31-34) and Og (Deuteronomy 3:1-7),
Deuteronomy 4 in which the advantages of fidelity to God are discussed,
Deuteronomy 7:12-26 in which God promises to bless the Israelites if they obey him,
several other chapters and verses in Deuteronomy in which promises are made by God and the past examples of the fulfillment of those promises are given,
the fall of Jericho (Joshua 6:15-21),
the defeat of the Israelites at Ai due to disobedience (Joshua 7:1-5),
the capture of Ai (Joshua 8:1-23),
another of Joshua's victories (Joshua 10:7-11),
other victories and conquests described in the book of Joshua,
the results of the infidelities of the Israelites in the land of Canaan (Judges 2),
the story of Samson (Judges 14-16),
the Philistine's troubles (Bubonic plague, one of their gods falling on the floor and breaking two days in a row) during the time they possessed the Ark of the Covenant (1 Samuel 5),
the defeat of the Philistines (1 Samuel 7:10-14 and again at 1 Samuel 14:20-23 as well as 2 Samuel 5:19-25),
Saul's loss of kingship (1 Samuel 15:10-23),
the story of David and Goliath (1 Samuel 17:41-51),
David's conquests (listed in 2 Samuel 8:1-14),
the defeat of the Ammonites and Arameans (2 Samuel 10:13-19),
the drought of Elijah attributed to Ahab's actions (it is announced in 1 Kings 17:1),
the cure of Naaman (2 Kings 5:1-15),
I only gave significant examples from the first quarter of the Bible. Take from it what you will, but you can see that it can easily be argued that God used that plan of action and it did result in some conversions and repentances.