In all fairness, to put it in the context of the Reformed theology, they were not His children because God ordained them before they were even born not to be His children. They couldn't be His children even if they wanted to! And, because they were not His children, they were human cattle for slaughter.
Once dehumanized, the destruction of God's refuse in the Old Testament genocides become God's "justice."
Three are God providing a ram to Abraham at the key moment
Another way of looking at that is that what the OT God did to Abraham was cruel and sadistic. God would have known Abraham's faith and that Abraham's love for God was stronger than for his son. God did not have to test Abraham to know that.
God leading the Jews out of Egypt in response to their prayers
From the Reformed point of view, that is an oxymoron. The Reformed can't say that payers change what God predestined. If the prayers were predestined, then the Jews prayed not because they wanted to but because they had to. And God did not "respond" to their prayers, but simply did what His "plan" envisions would happen, since obviously even God is helped captive by His own "plan."
God testing the mettle of His son Job, and then MORE than fully restoring him
God had no reason to test Job. God would know what's in Job's heart. God was making a bet with Satan, who said he could make Job curse God.
What I see in all this is Zeus, not Christ, not even a foreshadow of Christ. What I see is a deity that acts like a man would, a God made in man's image.
For Jesus, being 100% God, to have personal relationships with His followers was nothing new
Christ had a very select group of followers, a dozen of men and a few women, that you could say had any personal interaction with Him, none of which was a friendship of any kind, but a strict relationship. He told them what, when and where to do, where not to do, where to go, where not to go, how to pray, etc., etc. That was a very relationship. I never thought of my relationship with my teachers and professors as "personal," although I spent a good part of my days and years with them.
God is not out chum. St. Thomas' words "You are my Lord and my God" does not have the possessive meaning Protestants and Baptists assign to it. He is our God, but He is not ours. Rather we would be His.
Very good. This is all correct. :)
Once dehumanized, the destruction of God's refuse in the Old Testament genocides become God's "justice."
Oh well, it was nice while it lasted. :) BECAUSE God is personal, ALL humans are above the rest of God's creation, even the reprobate. ALL humans have significance.
Another way of looking at that is that what the OT God did to Abraham was cruel and sadistic. God would have known Abraham's faith and that Abraham's love for God was stronger than for his son. God did not have to test Abraham to know that.
One possibility is that Abraham didn't know it, and this is how he found out. He obviously grew spiritually as a result of this experience. How many of us can say with absolute certainty what we would do in his sandals then? I believe I have a strong faith, but I can't say I KNOW what I would do in THAT situation. In addition, God knew that this story would be recorded as a testament to faith for all future believers of all time. This story has certainly helped me with my faith.
FK: ......... God leading the Jews out of Egypt in response to their prayers.
From the Reformed point of view, that is an oxymoron. The Reformed can't say that prayers change what God predestined. If the prayers were predestined, then the Jews prayed not because they wanted to but because they had to. And God did not "respond" to their prayers, but simply did what His "plan" envisions would happen, since obviously even God is [held?] captive by His own "plan."
This is fairly close, but not spot on. The prayers were ordained, BUT that does not mean they were not genuine and heart felt when they were made. Of course they were. They absolutely did look to God for help. Also, God is not held "captive" by anything. A perfect God makes a perfect plan and then executes it perfectly. Therefore, there is no need for deviation and no forcing. If God DID deviate from His plan, or even want to, then He wouldn't be God. He would be something else.
FK: ... God testing the mettle of His son Job, and then MORE than fully restoring him...
God had no reason to test Job. God would know what's in Job's heart. God was making a bet with Satan, who said he could make Job curse God. What I see in all this is Zeus, not Christ, not even a foreshadow of Christ. What I see is a deity that acts like a man would, a God made in man's image.
You have said something like this a few times. Is it the case that if it doesn't make sense to YOU that the OT account must be false? It sure seems that way. Of course God did not "need" to test Job, but He obviously wanted to for His reasons alone. I do not question those reasons, whatever they were.
Christ had a very select group of followers, a dozen of men and a few women, that you could say had any personal interaction with Him, none of which was a friendship of any kind, but a strict relationship. He told them what, when and where to do, where not to do, where to go, where not to go, how to pray, etc., etc.
Wow! :) I totally disagree. My vision of those times is that Jesus was the leader of a brotherhood of followers. I think they shared stories with each other, laughed together, cried together, and shared everything together. What do you think they talked about as they shared thousands of meals together, the weather? :) No, they shared as any family would. Christ loved and treated His disciples as His spiritual children, ..... because ...... they WERE His children.
When we read the NT, we do not get the impression that Christ was a standoffish, elitist, ruler-type. He was humble and He was caring for His flock. He LOVED them in a familial way. Your description does not fit the text at all. As just one example of dozens, in a "strict relationship", as you term it, would Christ have washed the feet of the disciples?