Post Praetorian

OK, I've reset my board. Ric, it's your serve.

It might be easier to simply re-start at this point.

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

I assume you're promoting (is that optional or obligatory in Kokusai Sannin)?

Actually, I think I'll have to take that back because it is running on the wrong plane. I have changed it to R-13lm (promoted)

 In the future, please make a new post to either note your edit or update your move, because I missed this. :(

I'm hesitant about changing my last move, since that would mess up the last move each of you made, but I think I'm going to have a rough game ahead of me if I don't. Would you let me exchange P13xy-12yz for L-14kl? If so, do your moves remain the same, or will they be different?

Sorry... :P I hate to mess up the game again. If you deny my request, my move remains L-14kl, and I'll just have to deal with the lance I wouldn't have had to worry about earlier.

 Bad timing. I had realized my mistake within 5 minutes of posting so thought an edit would avoid confusion. I have no problem with you modifying your last move, but of course mine would be to take your lance instead of moving mine so I'm not sure if that's what you have in mind?

This is a bit of a rocky start!

darth_ender said:

I agree.  A promoted king is such a powerful piece that it frightens me to actually form an alliance.

...that and the lack of future promotions...keep at arm's length the both of you!

L-9hi

RicOlie_2 said:

I assume you're promoting (is that optional or obligatory in Kokusai Sannin)?

Actually, I think I'll have to take that back because it is running on the wrong plane. I have changed it to R-13lm (promoted)

R-13lm

OK, so now I think we are all on the same page.

First-Ric, Middle-Post, Last-Ender

1. L-14yz, P10ij-10kl, P-7vw

2. P13no-12op,

So my next move will be: P5no-5pq

Post Praetorian said:

 I also noticed it was a stradled move. Ric, I think maybe you inserted a column into your board. Your furthest most black cell should be 3 columns in.

 Strike this...I think I understand what happened (should have been xy to yz). Do you want to take this move back?

darth_ender said:

By the way, it is nice that you could join us, and I hope you have fun.  I love shogi, and I've played far more since your son showed interest than I have in the many years since I discovered its existence (1996 I believe).  I've had a hard time finding true converts, so this has been a true pleasure for me :)

 Thank you. I used to play Shogi many years ago (before the age of the internet). It was a challenge to find people willing to play. This will be my first experience with the 3 player version though. It should prove interesting.

RicOlie_2 said:

Are we continuing from where we left off, but with you two on opposite sides, or going back to the beginning of the game, making ender's move the second of the first round?

darth_ender said:

And Ric, I think your pawn move is confusing.  Unless the cells are differently lined up with the hexes (a distinct possibility), you could move Pxy or Pzaa to the cell indicated, but Pyz actually straddles two cells.

Are you sure I'm wrong? All the moves made so far work for me, including my pawn move, which works just fine on my board.

I'd make my move now, but I want to make sure we're all on the same page first.

 I also noticed it was a stradled move. Ric, I think maybe you inserted a column into your board. Your furthest most black cell should be 3 columns in.

darth_ender said:

Hey, aren't you that jerk who kept giving my young friend a hard time for his religious beliefs???  Who invited you here?!  ;)

P6mn-7no

 Quite!

Noted your move after posting my updated one. Care to move that off to the red side? I cannot swirl backwards, it will interfere with my balance.

I'm fine with going clockwise as that is what my brain is going to keep wanting to do...and I thought we were going to do anyway. So Rick, if you agree I will take possession of Blue and go:

(P)i/j10-k/l10

I guess that makes me red...

(P)10aa/ab-10y/z

RicOlie_2 said:

Yes, it would, and I suppose I could easily find out about the other religions on the internet. I guess I haven't had a real interest in other religions until recently, which is why I haven't made many previous inquiries. Fairly recently I began reading the Book of Mormon and the Qur'an, but I have yet to read up on most other religions.

I had no idea I had mentioned my uncle's religion on this forum... :)

Quite, well and good. Of interest might also be:

tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LukeIAmYourFather

RicOlie_2 said:

Same here. I hardly know a thing about it. I know a decent amount about Mormonism and Islam, and a fair bit about Atheism and Agnosticism, and quite a bit about Christianity, but not much about Buddhism or Taoism or Sikhism or Hinduism, etc. so it would be interesting to learn more about them.

I apologize for the interjection, as our discussion seemingly has come to an end, but feel it opportune to question: is not your uncle Sikh? Would it not be possible to inquire of him?

Best Regards,

Post Praetorian

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

 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),

Were these not too obscure for the understanding of the general populace, but aimed primarily at proving the might of God relative to the power of Pharaoh's wizards? Indeed, were not these wizards capable of emulating most of these in turn? Ultimately was not the final plague one of death claiming the lives of countless innocents who had taken no previous role in the conflict?

If those who died were truly innocent, then they went to heaven, so that probably worked out well for them in the end. The wizards were not able to replicate only the first two plagues.

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.

Do not death, destruction, and misery seemingly comprise the majority of these very numerous examples? Wherein might one discover primarily positive reinforcement?

RicOlie_2 said:

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,

 God promised good things, and they likely happened, but the Biblical authors didn't mention many of these since more positive and subtle things would, for the most part, not come in the form of events.

 OK

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

 It is my understanding that Moses commanded the butchering, not God.

"{The Lord said to Moses, ² “Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites"⁷ They fought against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every man. ⁸"

¹⁴ Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.

¹⁵ “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. ¹⁶ “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. ¹⁷ Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, ¹⁸ but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."}"

If God did not provide in the above the specific details for the means by which the Midians were to be dealt with, where might be found His countermand? Specifically, where might the displeasure of God over the corruption of His commands be in evidence?

This is one I can't answer. If I find an answer I will post it, but now that I've had a bit more time to look at this chapter, I can see where the seeming inconsistencies come in. Well, you stumped me...I could give a speculative answer, but it likely wouldn't be satisfactory.

That isn't to say that there is no answer, but if there is, I don't know it.

I appreciate all your questions, they were very thoughtful and respectful. Unfortunately, I don't think I'm any match for you in a debate, so you're coming close to backing me into all sorts of corners and I don't think I will be able to satisfy your answers myself.

Also, there is nothing said about forced sex, and the virgins may have been taken as wives (or not, I didn't see any mention of what happened to them), in which case they would have become part of the Israelite's religion and perhaps spared the fate of any Canaanites who went to hell. If that is the case, then I see it as an act of mercy.

Essentially, what alternate purpose might have served the command to save for themselves every female virgin from the campaign? How different may have been the forcing of marriage upon a young nubile--who may have recently witnessed the butchering of her mother by the very soldier now set to claim her as bride--from that of outright rape? Was her permission sought in the matter?

You have a point. :)

Finally, is it your view that a forced conversion (perhaps under pain of death) might be preferable to allowing a dissenting individual the possibility of stumbling into Hell?

 Because I believe in free will, I don't think anyone should be forced to do or believe something. I also believe it is impossible to actually force someone into a true conversion, but some of them may have made such a conversion and their descendants would have belonged to that religion.

Your humility and candor do you great credit. I have gained in insight through this discussion...surely if all Catholics might be as honest and forthright many a misunderstanding might be avoided!

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

 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),

Were these not too obscure for the understanding of the general populace, but aimed primarily at proving the might of God relative to the power of Pharaoh's wizards? Indeed, were not these wizards capable of emulating most of these in turn? Ultimately was not the final plague one of death claiming the lives of countless innocents who had taken no previous role in the conflict?

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.

Do not death, destruction, and misery seemingly comprise the majority of these very numerous examples? Wherein might one discover primarily positive reinforcement?

TV's Frink said:

Post Praetorian said:

TV's Frink said:

Post Praetorian said:

TV's Frink said:

Someone once called me a weak atheist.

Ah, quite likely considered the loneliest of stances...

Were you always of the same mind as now?

 I had a brief flirtation with a bible study group and with a born again Christian girl, but I just was looking for friends and for a girlfriend.

Cut me some slack, I was only 14.

May it then be assumed that you were not raised in any form of faith?

 Sort of.

Neither parent religious? If not, what was your view of those possessed of religious fervor? Did the concept hold any appeal? 

As of now, is it your view that the world as a whole might be a better or poorer place without religion? Or might it merely depend on the religion in question?

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?

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?

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

If God knew it would be passed, wherein may have existed the need for the test? Equally, is it more or less likely that one might gain greater trust in a father who might, at a random moment of time, demand a blood offering made up of a member that one might hold dear?

Further, is it not likely that the ordeal may have at the very least caused Isaac repeated nightmares as well as a certain reluctance to join his father on any further wilderness excursions?

Finally, how might an accurate assessment be made as to God's true concern regarding this particular father-son relationship while later actions seemingly show Him holding little regard for the numerous father-son relationships brought to a bloody end during the invasion of Canaan?

 I already answered your first question as I anticipated it in advance.

Yes, I apologize for the duplication.

The answer is that it was for our benefit, showing that if we trust God we will not come to harm. I can answer your questions based on my personal experience, but that may not have been applicable in that situation. I wasn't there, so I don't know what exactly happened. I think that if I had been in Isaac's position, based only on what we know from the story, I think I would my relationship with my father would have been shaken. However, it also depends on whether or not Isaac saw God/the angel who stopped Abraham from completing the sacrifice. If Isaac saw that, then he likely would have forgiven his father because he would have known that his father was doing God's will. If I were in the same situation and I saw the angel I believe I would have been able to do the same.

Fair enough.

I don't know all of God's reasons for allowing genocide in the invasion of Canaan, but I trust that he knew what he was doing and did not cause more harm than would have been caused if he hadn't allowed that.

Ah, but would it not have been far more indicative that a loving deity of omnipotent might and infinite patience had been involved in the episode had all supporting evidence been equally consistent? Was it not Jesus who made claim that a tree might be determined by its fruits?

 Perhaps, but since I view the fruits (so far) as being made manifest in the form of my Church, I think that the fruits have been good, and are getting better (or will at least get better in the future).

 OK

TV's Frink said:

Post Praetorian said:

TV's Frink said:

Someone once called me a weak atheist.

Ah, quite likely considered the loneliest of stances...

Were you always of the same mind as now?

 I had a brief flirtation with a bible study group and with a born again Christian girl, but I just was looking for friends and for a girlfriend.

Cut me some slack, I was only 14.

May it then be assumed that you were not raised in any form of faith?

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

I think everything should be done for the glory of God (unless it has no moral consequence), so that doesn't leave much room for too much worship.

 Might the slaying of one's own son have a moral consequence?

 Since God told Abraham to do it, it would not, theoretically, have had moral consequence. It was, however, God's intention to stop Abraham from the beginning, and he knew the result beforehand. God would not have allowed Abraham to carry through with the sacrifice because of its immorality (just because he tested Abraham in that way doesn't mean that he was contradicting his own laws because of the fact that there was no intention to allow Abraham to follow through).

As to why God bothered if he knew the result beforehand: the test was for our benefit, to show that if we trust God then things will work out in the end.

Might then the butchering of women and male children and the enslavement of young female virgins for the purpose of forced sex cease to have a moral consequence if purportedly commanded by God (as evidenced in Numbers 31)?

 It is my understanding that Moses commanded the butchering, not God.

"{The Lord said to Moses, ² “Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites"⁷ They fought against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every man. ⁸"

¹⁴ Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.

¹⁵ “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. ¹⁶ “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. ¹⁷ Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, ¹⁸ but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."}"

If God did not provide in the above the specific details for the means by which the Midians were to be dealt with, where might be found His countermand? Specifically, where might the displeasure of God over the corruption of His commands be in evidence?

Also, there is nothing said about forced sex, and the virgins may have been taken as wives (or not, I didn't see any mention of what happened to them), in which case they would have become part of the Israelite's religion and perhaps spared the fate of any Canaanites who went to hell. If that is the case, then I see it as an act of mercy.

Essentially, what alternate purpose might have served the command to save for themselves every female virgin from the campaign? How different may have been the forcing of marriage upon a young nubile--who may have recently witnessed the butchering of her mother by the very soldier now set to claim her as bride--from that of outright rape? Was her permission sought in the matter?

Finally, is it your view that a forced conversion (perhaps under pain of death) might be preferable to allowing a dissenting individual the possibility of stumbling into Hell?

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?