« Last post by jdawg70 on Today at 12:59:03 PM »
But it's been pointed out time and time again that God gave the Canaanites PLENTY of chances to repent and they kept refusing. Why should God allow people to enjoy what He has given them if they are just going to spit in his face?
The rules were broken. They have to deal with the consequences.
Well, let's be honest - they didn't have to deal with the consequences. God could have chosen to not dole out this particular consequence.
I mean, if god did not intervene, would there have been negative consequences for the Canaanites to face? If so, shouldn't that have been the consequence that they suffered? If not, what exactly is the point of the rule?
If you try to teach someone to not to touch fire, how do you do it? Do you try to get them to understand that the consequence is that they'll get burned, and if they don't want to get burned, they shouldn't touch the fire? Or do you try to get them to understand that the consequence is that you'll kill their family, and if they don't want their family killed, they shouldn't touch the fire?
If you want to try to teach someone how to not get burned by touching a fire, you should go with the former. If you want to try to teach someone that they shouldn't think for themselves and should just do whatever it is you want them to do, you should go with the latter. One of these motivations is substantially less moral than the other. I leave it to you to figure out which one looks like it comes from an egotistical control freak and which one comes from someone who gives a sh*t about the other person.