RicOlie_2

G-4b

Post Praetorian said:

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?

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.

Post Praetorian said:

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?

 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.

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).

Sure, everyone has different personalities and thinks differently, but there are certain differences between the two genders in the actual structure of the brain. Another biological factor that contributes to the different roles of man and woman is the higher amount of testosterone in men, etc. which affects their behaviour.

B-3a

Jaitea said:

RicOlie_2 said:

 Men are naturally aggressive and protective while women are more compassionate and gentle by nature. 

 I would think that females would be perfectly suitable for the job then.....but I understand that it is not in your beliefs

J

 I appreciate that you are not being so condescending anymore. Overall, I just think that men are better suited for the role than women, but the way you see that depends on how you view the priesthood, I guess.

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. 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.

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).

Correct. Also, with no offense meant to women, I tend to find that male speakers are usually better than female speakers (my mother shares this opinion) and I attribute that to some of the differences between the sexes.

EDIT: To clarify what I'm getting at, I think this is one attribute that I think goes in favour of male priesthood.

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

 I believe that God rewarded Abraham for his faithfulness to him, but that preceded Abraham's test of faith. God had already promised that Abraham would get an heir and that a great nation would come of him. Also, the key point in Abraham's test of faith was the test, not the willingness to kill. God would not have let Abraham kill his son, but wanted to give an example of faith to the world (not the contemporary world). Abraham loved God more than anything else, including his only son which God had given him and his wife as a gift.

If God had already rewarded Abraham's faith with the gift of a son, why might He have chosen to administer this further test?

How might one's image of one's father change should he make such an equal example of his faith?

I think God administered a further test so Abraham would continue to trust God and not be satisfied with his earthly blessings.

I highly doubt God would have done this if it would have ruined the father-son relationship between Abraham and Isaac. Isaac went along with it, demonstrating that he also had great faith in God, so it was a test for him as well which God knew they would both pass.

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. 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.

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.

N-1c

Oops! Thanks, I will probably take that back. I was aware of the vulnerability that created a few turns ago, but I guess I forgot. :P

darth_ender said:

Well then, I'd only speak for myself, not for Catholics (which I am not), nor even Christians in general.  I believe that if the flood did take place, it was probably a local phenomenon.  But that's just me.

 That is also my stance. The word used in the book of Genesis can mean both "world" or "land," the latter implying that it extended from horizon to horizon and only looked like it covered the entire world from Noah's POV.

At Ur, there is a layer of flood deposit which shows that the city has been destroyed by flood at one time. Abraham came from Ur, so he may have brought the story of that flood with him when he left. Another theory is that since the Black Sea was once isolated, the flood may have been an event (probably caused by a big storm which flooded the area in a few days) which joined it to the Mediterranean. Towns have been discovered on the floor of the Black Sea, backing up this theory.

I do however believe it was a historical event of some kind, because the story is so widespread and so many similarities exist between the stories.

Also, studies have shown that men and women's brains are wired differently. They think differently and act in different ways. Men are naturally aggressive and protective while women are more compassionate and gentle by nature. It is because of these biological/psychological differences that Mormons, Catholics, etc. believe that men are naturally the providers in a family while women are best suited to take care of children. Women and men are definitely different, so why not give them separate roles? Exceptions can be allowed of course, but the genders shouldn't be blended into one because they are not one.

Ah, well, the game will get exciting soon enough.

K-6a

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.

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

 I believe that God has, and always will love everyone equally, no matter what. That is why I believe that non-Catholics who are searching for the truth can get to heaven. I don't believe God changes because God is in every point of time at once, so he can't change over time.

 May I pose 3 somewhat related questions?

1) If God is considered to love all equally, and is unchanging in this regard, how might you explain His alleged aligning with a "chosen race" during portions of antiquity? Further, could He have equally chosen to have aligned against them and still been considered "good" by their prophets?

2) If God is to be considered to love all with equality, may it be considered acceptable that He might, at some period in future, determine you and your loved ones to be worthy of a treatment similar to that which he bestowed upon the Canaanites for reasons equally obscure?

3) Finally, is it possible that the term "loves all equally" might merely suggest His love might not be particularly strong or that the concept hold a markedly different consideration for such a being than it might for ourselves?

 1) Abraham and others' fidelity to God caused God to bless their descendants, and that certainly appears to be favouratism. When God judged those people after they died, I'm sure he accounted for the way they had been raised, so I don't think he condemned anyone to hell simply for not being one of his chosen people. I think his equal love for everyone is less apparent in this world, but I am sure that he judges everyone fairly and mercifully in the afterlife.

 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.

Frink, you catch on pretty slow. ;P

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

 I believe that God has, and always will love everyone equally, no matter what. That is why I believe that non-Catholics who are searching for the truth can get to heaven. I don't believe God changes because God is in every point of time at once, so he can't change over time.

 May I pose 3 somewhat related questions?

1) If God is considered to love all equally, and is unchanging in this regard, how might you explain His alleged aligning with a "chosen race" during portions of antiquity? Further, could He have equally chosen to have aligned against them and still been considered "good" by their prophets?

 1) Abraham and others' fidelity to God caused God to bless their descendants, and that certainly appears to be favouratism. When God judged those people after they died, I'm sure he accounted for the way they had been raised, so I don't think he condemned anyone to hell simply for not being one of his chosen people. I think his equal love for everyone is less apparent in this world, but I am sure that he judges everyone fairly and mercifully in the afterlife.

 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)?

 I believe that God rewarded Abraham for his faithfulness to him, but that preceded Abraham's test of faith. God had already promised that Abraham would get an heir and that a great nation would come of him. Also, the key point in Abraham's test of faith was the test, not the willingness to kill. God would not have let Abraham kill his son, but wanted to give an example of faith to the world (not the contemporary world). Abraham loved God more than anything else, including his only son which God had given him and his wife as a gift.

If God had already rewarded Abraham's faith with the gift of a son, why might He have chosen to administer this further test?

How might one's image of one's father change should he make such an equal example of his faith?

I think God administered a further test so Abraham would continue to trust God and not be satisfied with his earthly blessings.

I highly doubt God would have done this if it would have ruined the father-son relationship between Abraham and Isaac. Isaac went along with it, demonstrating that he also had great faith in God, so it was a test for him as well which God knew they would both pass.

I've never seen it, so I can't really say. From what I've read, it sounds like it contains ideas I agree with, but it also sounds like it contains material that is either objectionable in itself or is presented objectionably. I could probably find a Catholic review on it, but if you want my personal views, then I'm afraid I have none to give.

Jaitea said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Jaitea said:

What do you think about the passage in 2 Kings 2:23-24 when God sent two bears to maul to death 42 youngsters because they mocked prophet Elisah for being bald?

Is that part of the Bible that gets skipped nowadays

J

 When bad things are attributed to God in the Bible, I think that is because of the way people viewed God at the time. The author of 2 Kings knew about a couple of bears that had mauled some children, and those children had earlier been mocking Elijah, so he attributed the maulings to God taking action against the children.

I don't have my Bible handy and I'm not familiar with that passage, but that's how I understand it. Did Elijah ask God to do something to the children? If so, then I don't know the answer to the question. The first sentence of my answer is still relevant to other situations though.

 Oh....yes, so in that everything that happened good or bad in the Bible could be just Man attributing events to God?

This is what I think really happened,...man trying to explain things, beyond his knowledge....there must be an invisible God....like the wind, like gravity

J

 This is what I believe is the case in instances where it says "God hardened so-and-so's heart" or "God struck down so-and-so because of this." When God specifically says something in Scripture, either announcing something, telling something to do something, or giving a warning, then I don't think it's just divine attribution being applied to something as a literary device or because the author believed it was an act of God.

What I'm saying applies in specific circumstances/phrases in the Bible.

Jaitea said:

What do you think about the passage in 2 Kings 2:23-24 when God sent two bears to maul to death 42 youngsters because they mocked prophet Elisah for being bald?

Is that part of the Bible that gets skipped nowadays

J

 When bad things are attributed to God in the Bible, I think that is because of the way people viewed God at the time. The author of 2 Kings knew about a couple of bears that had mauled some children, and those children had earlier been mocking Elijah, so he attributed the maulings to God taking action against the children.

I don't have my Bible handy and I'm not familiar with that passage, but that's how I understand it. Did Elijah ask God to do something to the children? If so, then I don't know the answer to the question. The first sentence of my answer is still relevant to other situations though.

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

 I believe that God has, and always will love everyone equally, no matter what. That is why I believe that non-Catholics who are searching for the truth can get to heaven. I don't believe God changes because God is in every point of time at once, so he can't change over time.

 May I pose 3 somewhat related questions?

1) If God is considered to love all equally, and is unchanging in this regard, how might you explain His alleged aligning with a "chosen race" during portions of antiquity? Further, could He have equally chosen to have aligned against them and still been considered "good" by their prophets?

2) If God is to be considered to love all with equality, may it be considered acceptable that He might, at some period in future, determine you and your loved ones to be worthy of a treatment similar to that which he bestowed upon the Canaanites for reasons equally obscure?

3) Finally, is it possible that the term "loves all equally" might merely suggest His love might not be particularly strong or that the concept hold a markedly different consideration for such a being than it might for ourselves?

 1) Abraham and others' fidelity to God caused God to bless their descendants, and that certainly appears to be favouratism. When God judged those people after they died, I'm sure he accounted for the way they had been raised, so I don't think he condemned anyone to hell simply for not being one of his chosen people. I think his equal love for everyone is less apparent in this world, but I am sure that he judges everyone fairly and mercifully in the afterlife.

 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)?

 I believe that God rewarded Abraham for his faithfulness to him, but that preceded Abraham's test of faith. God had already promised that Abraham would get an heir and that a great nation would come of him. Also, the key point in Abraham's test of faith was the test, not the willingness to kill. God would not have let Abraham kill his son, but wanted to give an example of faith to the world (not the contemporary world). Abraham loved God more than anything else, including his only son which God had given him and his wife as a gift.

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).

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.