back in OT times, they were a nation. And to be precise, the Israelis might argue with that

article here

well, the unpopular response is, God has to judge wickedness. I find it funny that people who have no account of what the Canaanites crimes were can sit and say they deserved to live. What if they were a nation of pedophiles (I have read many comments on this site that pedophiles don't deserve to live) what if they were mass murderers or as stated in the article, sacrificed their children in religious observations to other gods? The reality is, all of us have been rebellious and gone against God at some time, (If not all the time) and we all deserve to be judged wicked. But because He enacts judgement on a group all at once he is unfair? Not able to be respected? So when we decided to sweep in and destroy Nazi Germany and hold the populous of the nation accountable for it's leaders actions as well, were we (the allies) unrighteous? Dropping the bomb on Japan....twice? Was that unfair?The atom bomb killed the people, not the governors. Guess I don;t understand the selective application of who is allowed to meet out justice

I guess I'm confused by some of your answers. Who is she?

I'm assuming Christ is your reference, His sacrifice was volitional, no one forced him o do that. He says I lay my life down, no one takes it from me.

I'm not sure where you are referring to (not being argumentative, don't know the reference)

I would agree that man has used "God's will" as an excuse many times. But there is a difference in the RCC saying that they interpret scripture selectively vs a prophet saying "Thus says the LORD" in that the prophet is saying they audibley heard God command this. I understand the idea that we must trust the prophet to be actually hearing this, but inj some instances, they weren't standing alone when the command came.

My thought on that is the command differs from OT to NT times. The command of the church has never been of the sword. That was commanded of the Nation of Israel, not the "church" as we know it. That is given to the state. But in OT times, they were one and the same because Israel was God's "people". In NT covenant, that is now a universal call, not a singular cultural command

wow, a little argumentative aren't we. God is never referred to as a woman. The tenses in the original languages are all masculine, and the reference you cite is about mankind male and female in God's image, meaning their attributes capacity to reason etc. not that we are a physical image, as God doesn't have a body, He is spirit.

Abraham wasn't required, and Lot sinned, He should have let the Angels of death take care of those people themselves, he didn't have to do any of that. So that act is Lot's mistake, not Gods.

The OT is a shadow of what is to come. The purpose (according to those who are scholars in the field) is that the OT shows that mankind can't live up to the requirements of God's law. The NT is a new covenant. There are parts of the NT that change the situation, for example the dietary laws. They were 1) for Israel alone as any converts that joined the nation later in the OT weren't expected to keep the dietary laws ( I believe) 2) Jesus spoke to the whole issue of food making someone clean vs unclean. Matthew 15. The lesson was, the focus for the OT laws were probably for health reasons, but the people were interpreting that the food or animals made them spiritually unclean. That wasn't the case. Jesus reiterates that the wickedness of a mans heart causes him to be spiritually unclean.

Christians today use the nomenclature that "We aren't under the law, we are under grace" meaning that the law can't save us, only God's forgiveness can, and this is true. But any Christian that says the OT is no longer applicable, doesn't remember the passage that says