Are acts inherently good or evil?

[Verity1]

My references are from the Douay Version, edited by Bishop Challoner.

In Deuteronomy Chapter 23, verses 19-20 permission is given to steal from Gentiles.
The editor notes: “This was a dispensation granted by God to his people, who being Lord of all things, can give a right and title to one upon the goods of another. Otherwise the scripture everywhere condemns usury, as contrary to the law of God, and a crying sin.”

In the First Book of Kings Chapter 15, verse 3 the King of Israel is commanded to perform racial murder of the most ferocious sort by the holy man Samuel, who claims divine inspiration and warrant for the order.

The editor notes: “The great Master of life and death . . . has been pleased sometimes to ordain that children should be put to the sword in detestation of the crimes of their parents . . . But without such ordinance of God it is not allowable, in any wars, how just soever, to kill children.”

In Judges Chapter 4, verses 18-21 Jahel the wife of Haber pretends to offer sanctuary to the fleeing and exhausted enemy general. She gives him refreshment and a bed to rest. While in the deep of sleep of exhaustion, she drives a “tent nail” through both of his temples using a hammer!

In Judith Chapters 10 and 11 the heroine’s sexual attraction is greatly increased by God himself, so that, as it turns out, she may seduce a very successful enemy general. To promote her scheme of assassination she lies frankly about her motives and God’s plan for the general. When he is drunk, she hacks off his head!

The editor notes: “In this and the following chapter some things are related to have been said by Judith, which seem hard to reconcile with the truth. But all that is related in scripture of the servants of God is not approved by the scripture; and even the saints in their good enterprises may sometimes slip into venial sins.” (My emphasis) If the editor is right then why is Judith referred to as an “illustrious woman” and indeed we are told that she foreshadows Our Blessed Lady? I’m also puzzled by the reference to “venial sins”. Surely none of Judith’s actions were trivial?

The picture given is that good and evil are not absolutes: what is an evil act may become a good act depending on the circumstances, those circumstances being the plan of God at any given time; ergo acts are not inherently evil.

I should be grateful for some enlightenment here please.

 

[RyanL]

Verity1:

The picture given is that good and evil are not absolutes: what is an evil act may become a good act depending on the circumstances, those circumstances being the plan of God at any given time; ergo acts are not inherently evil.

I should be grateful for some enlightenment here please.

I’m not sure what you’re looking for - so I present three options:

1. Refutation of moral relativism
2. Refutation of the relativist interpretation of these Scriptures
3. An example of an absolutely evil act which is absolutely evil at all times

Answer 1:
Simply (and based on the presupposition that you are already a Catholic), if there is a God, and God is perfectly good, there is an absolute good and an absolute evil. God has revealed to us that He is perfectly good, and therefore there is an absolute good and an absolute evil. There can be competing goods as well as competing evils, but there is no doubt that certain acts are intrinsically good or intrinsically evil.

Answer 2:
As there are several verses, I will further enumerate:
i. Deu 23 - is charging interest intrinsically evil? Is it ever revealed as such? I do not believe so. Deu 23:19-20 can be easily reconciled by permitting a morally neutral act (charging interest) and commanding a morally good act (withholding interest charges to your brother in an act of charity and love). I don’t see a problem here.

ii. 1 Kings 15:3

And he walked in all the sins of his father, which he had done before him: end his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, as was the heart of David his father.

Eh?
Assuming you posted a correct verse, how could this be explained?
a. Even a lifetime of ultimate suffering on earth would seem like no more than a night in an uncomfortable motel compared to eternity with God, and therefore what is perceived as a grave injustice in this life is vastly outweighed by the benefit which may be conferred by God.
b. Furthermore, we have no right to our own lives - they are a free gift of God, to which He alone possesses claim. He may do with our lives as He wishes, and make them as short or long as He so desires.
c. Additionally, there are four senses to Scripture - the literal, the allegorical, the analogical, and the moral. Not all stories are meant to be taken literalistically (which is the error of the fundamentalist). The extermination of whole tribes is often seen to be the extermination of sin from our lives, with each tribe representing a particular sin.
d. Finally, the tribes which are exterminated in the OT are typically those with extremely sinful practices (child sacrifices to pagan gods, sodomites, etc.). From Scripture, we know that the wages of sin is death, and that is just.

iii. Judges 4: Is the contention that killing an enemy combatant is wrong? This would seem to need no refutation. If so, see Just War. It is also a prefigurement of the ultimate triumph of good over evil (see Gen 3:15).

iv. Judith 10-11: Again, it is not a sin to kill an enemy combatant in a just war. The venial sin would be deception to serve the end of victory.

Answer 3:
Hating God is an intrinsically evil act for which there can be no justification.
Taking sexual pleasure in cruelly inflicting harm upon an innocent victim is an intrinsically evil act for which there can be no justification.
Abortion is an intrinsically evil act for which there can be no justification.
Sodomy is an intrinsically evil act for which there can be no justification.

Those are just off the top of my head - I could think of more if you need.

God Bless,
RyanL

Oh, and how could a sinful woman prefigure Our Lady?
There doesn’t need to be an exact parallel - if there did, Adam, Moses, King David, and Solomon could not prefigure Christ (which we know they did) because they are all sinful men.

 

[Verity1]

Thank you for taking the time and trouble to reply Ryan.

Answer 2:

According to Fr Fahey the charging of interest is inherently sinful and can never be justified, but I accept that this was just his opinion and as far as I am aware, not official Church teaching.

ii. 1 Kings 15:3

According to my bible (Douay) the verse reads:

“Now therefore go and smite Amalec and utterly destroy all that he hath. Spare him not, nor covet anything that is his but slay both man and woman, child and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ***.”

‘b. Furthermore, we have no right to our own lives - they are a free gift of God, to which He alone possesses claim. He may do with our lives as He wishes, and make them as short or long as He so desires.’

Of course. My problem is that God allegedly told others to kill without mercy innocent children (and indeed seems to have incited rape on more than one occasion). I simply cannot reconcile these commands with the all-loving God I know and serve. Please help me to understand how God can order rape. Even if I accept that the sufferer may be rewarded in Heaven surely the perpetrator will also be “rewarded” in a different place if not repentant. And why be repentant of something God has told you to do? My head hurts trying to work it out.

‘iv. Judith 10-11: Again, it is not a sin to kill an enemy combatant in a just war. The venial sin would be deception to serve the end of victory.’

So are you saying that the ends justify the means?

Answer 3:

‘Hating God is an intrinsically evil act for which there can be no justification.
Taking sexual pleasure in cruelly inflicting harm upon an innocent victim is an intrinsically evil act for which there can be no justification.
Abortion is an intrinsically evil act for which there can be no justification.
Sodomy is an intrinsically evil act for which there can be no justification.’

Agreed. I am honestly not trying to pick an argument. The Church tells me that I must believe everything in the Bible, and that if I don’t I am a heretic. I don’t want to be a heretic, but God would know I was lying if I said I believed Him capable of such commands. To me there is an inexplicable difference between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New.

Thanks.

Verity1

 

[RyanL]

Verity1:

Thank you for taking the time and trouble to reply Ryan.

For you, the universe. BTW, I feel much better now that I know your reasons for questioning - I often run into skeptics and folks who just want to prove Holy Mother Church wrong. I am pleased to know you are not of that ilk.

Answer 2:

According to Fr Fahey the charging of interest is inherently sinful and can never be justified, but I accept that this was just his opinion and as far as I am aware, not official Church teaching.

I believe it can be reconciled by thinking of it as charging for a service, and would therefore be morally neutral. Excessive interest, (commonly called usury, but with a slightly distinct difference) would in fact be sinful. It’s taking advantage of the circumstances of another, and that cannot be right. So, by that measure, Fr. Fahey is not wrong.

ii. 1 Kings 15:3

According to my bible (Douay) the verse reads:

“Now therefore go and smite Amalec and utterly destroy all that he hath. Spare him not, nor covet anything that is his but slay both man and woman, child and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ***.”

How odd. Mine reads differently (1899 American Edition of the DR).

'b. Furthermore, we have no right to our own lives…

Of course. My problem is that God allegedly told others to kill without mercy innocent children (and indeed seems to have incited rape on more than one occasion). I simply cannot reconcile these commands with the all-loving God I know and serve. Please help me to understand how God can order rape. Even if I accept that the sufferer may be rewarded in Heaven surely the perpetrator will also be “rewarded” in a different place if not repentant. And why be repentant of something God has told you to do? My head hurts trying to work it out.

I don’t recall a command from God to rape - could you please provide the verse you’re looking at? As for the others…any temporal discomfort, no matter how severe, pales in comparison to eternal joy, happiness and completeness. If I were to steal one dollar from you and repaid you immediately with one million, would justice have been done? I believe so, and these are only with finite figures - God repays with the infinite. Remember, also, that God is a just judge with perfect foreknowledge - all evil-doers will get what they deserve, and the rest of us will get far better than we deserve. God can judge the heart of a child as easily as that of a man, and knows those to whom mercy should be given.

Furthermore, the greatest injustice that has ever been committed was committed against God in the Flesh. Everything else pales in comparison - even rape and genocide.

‘iv. Judith 10-11: Again, it is not a sin to kill an enemy combatant in a just war. The venial sin would be deception to serve the end of victory.’

So are you saying that the ends justify the means?

Nope. If they did, the deception wouldn’t be sinful at all. Because there were mitigating circumstances (the defeat of the enemy in a just war), what would otherwise be a mortal sin becomes venial - however, it is still a sin.

Hope this helps.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Todd_Easton]

1 Kings 15:3 in the Douay-Rheims is now called 1 Samuel 15:3 in modern Bibles.
Douay-Rheims / modern Bibles
1 Kings ======> 1 Samuel
2 Kings ======> 2 Samuel
3 Kings ======> 1 Kings
4 Kings ======> 2 Kings

 

[Verity1]

Thank you for that clarification Todd.

 

[Verity1]

RyanL:

For you, the universe.

I’’ ll take it, thanks!

“BTW, I feel much better now that I know your reasons for questioning - I often run into skeptics and folks who just want to prove Holy Mother Church wrong. I am pleased to know you are not of that ilk.”

I understand. I’m not sceptical about the faith at all. I love it - couldn’t live without it in fact, but I don’t think God wants blind faith, so when I come across something which I don’t understand I must try to find an answer. (That doesn’t mean I have to like the answer, because of course it’s NOT easy being a Catholic.)

“How odd. Mine reads differently (1899 American Edition of the DR).”

I think Todd has provided the answer below.

“I don’t recall a command from God to rape - could you please provide the verse you’re looking at?”

Just got in from work, so I can only find this example at the moment:

Douay Version:

Ch 2 Verse 15: Moses said (to his officers) “Why have you saved the women? Are not these they that deceived the children of Israel by the counsel of Balaam and made you transgress against the law by the sin of Phogor for which also the people were punished? Therefore kill all that are of the male sex, even of the children, and put to death the women that have carnally known men.

V. 18 But the girls and all the women that are virgins save for yourselves."

Are we to assume that Moses was speaking for God? In this he specifically orders his men to do what they like with the virgins. We don’t need pictures to know what that means. If we are to believe that Moses was speaking for God, then this is a clear incitement to rape.

“As for the others…any temporal discomfort, no matter how severe, pales in comparison to eternal joy, happiness and completeness.”

I agree 100% with this sentiment. My problem is that we are told to believe that God ordered this “discomfort”. That other human being were told BY GOD to perpetrate horrors upon these people.
This is my difficulty.

“Remember, also, that God is a just judge with perfect foreknowledge - all evil-doers will get what they deserve, and the rest of us will get far better than we deserve.”

Yes! And yet we are told that He orders the evil-doing!

“Furthermore, the greatest injustice that has ever been committed was committed against God in the Flesh. Everything else pales in comparison - even rape and genocide.”

Indeed. Although I thank God every day for this injustice.

I hope I’m not boring you with these questions - this may seem to be a trivial matter to you and very clear, but it’s not to me.

With thanks

Verity 1

 

[Evan]

Ch 2 V. 18 But the girls and all the women that are virgins save for yourselves."

Are we to assume that Moses was speaking for God? In this he specifically orders his men to do what they like with the virgins. We don’t need pictures to know what that means. If we are to believe that Moses was speaking for God, then this is a clear incitement to rape.

There is often a problem when you start assuming more than is written. The verse does not say do what you like with the virgins rather it says girls and women that are virgins save for yourselves

This is not a call to rape the girls or the virgins (from birth to mariagable age?). In that culture it could simply mean they were to be taken as slaves; taken into your household where they could be sold, or retained. If you so desired they could be taken as wives.

Your choice, but there were still the admonitions of the Torah to be observed.

 

[Verity1]

Evan

Although I do thank you for your reply, I find the interpretation that you present impossibly naive and optimistic. We all know what was meant.

Verity 1

 

[Lazerlike42]

What verse are you talking about? Chapter 2 V 18 of what book?

EDIT - The quote is from Numbers 31:15-18, not chapter 2 of anything.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Understandig Numbers 31 requires a person to have read all of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. You can’t just pick up in this chapter and get the proper understanding. You can’t do this with any Bible verse.

What is going on here is a matter of the various formulas of instruction that was being used to convey information to the Israelites during the period of Moses’ lawgiving. In this case, the key phrase is, “save for yourselves.” Property or livestock or whatnot that was to be gathered or dispersed was classified as “for God” or “for yourself(ves).” When, for instance, another military was destroyed in battle, some of the property (or in other cases all of it) that was taken was made a sacrifice to God. In this case, it was indicated that it was “for God.” The remainder of the property which was not expected to be given as a sacrifice was “for yourself” or “for yourselves.” This language was also used of the tithes that were given. Those portions of the tithes that were for sacrifice to God were designated “for God.” Of the other portions, Moses told the Levites that they may, “take for themselves.” This language was used quite frequently.

In Numbers 31, when Moses tells the men to save the women for themselves, he was not using some sort of inuendo or refering to some sort of sexual action, but was rather indicating that these women were not meant as a sacrifice to God but rather meant for the people. This is even seen in practice because the various women were first purified outside of the camp for seven days, in order that they might be brought into the community clean as was the requirement of all those whom were to be called the people of God, and then they were dispersed all about the Israelites and given to various families. This is clearly not the treatment due sex slaves, or women taken to be raped.

More background makes the situation even clearer. The reason that the Israelites were attacking the Midanites in the first place is because of a plan of Balaam’s. Balaam attacked Israel by having all of the Midanite women seduce the Israelite men sexually. They had sex with the men, and then drew them to begin worshipping fertility gods. When the men bring these women back to camp, Moses is angry because these are the very women whom seduced the men in the first place. These are the women whom sinned most against Israel. For this reason, they are to be killed.

But what about the younger Midanite women, those whom did not sin against Israel, those who did not seduce the men? God does not want them killed, because they have done no wrong. In fact, they were probably all around 12 or 13 given the age at which people married in that day, so by and large they were too young to really be culpable for anything anyways. Moses’ command to take these girls “for yourselves” was a command of mercy, not rape. It was a command to take these girls into the Israelite community so that they may have food, shelter, and people to care for them. Remember that all of their fathers, mothers, brothers, and sisters had been killed. The attack had essentially killed all of the Midanite’s whom were older, leaving a mass of children with nobody to care for them. In His mercy, God accepts these girls into His people, even though they were not born of Israel, because they have nobody else to care for them.

 

[Verity1]

Evan:

There is often a problem when you start assuming more than is written. The verse does not say do what you like with the virgins rather it says girls and women that are virgins save for yourselves

This is not a call to rape the girls or the virgins (from birth to mariagable age?). In that culture it could simply mean they were to be taken as slaves; taken into your household where they could be sold, or retained. If you so desired they could be taken as wives.

Your choice, but there were still the admonitions of the Torah to be observed.

I think rather that it’s your choice to reach such an implausible explanation.

‘“Simply” means they were to be taken as slaves."’ Any woman who is to be taken as a slave will tell you what their fate will be. For a woman to be owned body and soul by a man? One hardly needs any imagination at all, not to mention knowledge of human nature.

If slaves were required, why kill the male children? Surely they’d be more use for manual labour in a few years? And why kill the married women? Wouldn’t they be useful as slaves? No. The virgins were saved for the obvious reason.

I fear you are trying to square a circle.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Verity1:

I think rather that it’s your choice to reach such an implausible explanation.

‘“Simply” means they were to be taken as slaves."’ Any woman who is to be taken as a slave will tell you what their fate will be. For a woman to be owned body and soul by a man? One hardly needs any imagination at all, not to mention knowledge of human nature.

If slaves were required, why kill the male children? Surely they’d be more use for manual labour in a few years? And why kill the married women? Wouldn’t they be useful as slaves? No. The virgins were saved for the obvious reason.

I fear you are trying to square a circle.

Have you read my post?

 

[Verity1]

“Have you read my post?”

Yes, thank you very much. I was replying to Evan’s. I didn’t have time to answer yours at the time (busy making supper), but I thank you for it.

Lazerlike42:

Understandig Numbers 31 requires a person to have read all of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. You can’t just pick up in this chapter and get the proper understanding. You can’t do this with any Bible verse.

OK. I bow to your superior understanding (I mean this sincerely and not sarcastically, truly. I want to understand this properly.)

"What is going on here is a matter of the various formulas of instruction that was being used to convey information to the Israelites during the period of Moses’ lawgiving. In this case, the key phrase is, “save for yourselves.” Property or livestock or whatnot that was to be gathered or dispersed was classified as “for God” or “for yourself(ves).” When, for instance, another military was destroyed in battle, some of the property (or in other cases all of it) that was taken was made a sacrifice to God. In this case, it was indicated that it was “for God.” The remainder of the property which was not expected to be given as a sacrifice was “for yourself” or “for yourselves.” This language was also used of the tithes that were given. Those portions of the tithes that were for sacrifice to God were designated “for God.” Of the other portions, Moses told the Levites that they may, “take for themselves.” This language was used quite frequently. "

Understood.

“In Numbers 31, when Moses tells the men to save the women for themselves, he was not using some sort of inuendo or refering to some sort of sexual action, but was rather indicating that these women were not meant as a sacrifice to God but rather meant for the people. This is even seen in practice because the various women were first purified outside of the camp for seven days, in order that they might be brought into the community clean as was the requirement of all those whom were to be called the people of God, and then they were dispersed all about the Israelites and given to various families. This is clearly not the treatment due sex slaves, or women taken to be raped.”

Well…, OK. I will give them the benefit of the doubt.

“More background makes the situation even clearer. The reason that the Israelites were attacking the Midanites in the first place is because of a plan of Balaam’s. Balaam attacked Israel by having all of the Midanite women seduce the Israelite men sexually. They had sex with the men, and then drew them to begin worshipping fertility gods. When the men bring these women back to camp, Moses is angry because these are the very women whom seduced the men in the first place. These are the women whom sinned most against Israel. For this reason, they are to be killed.”

Harsh, but I understand that this was acceptable for the times. (Although surely not ALL the married women were seducers?)

"But what about the younger Midanite women, those whom did not sin against Israel, those who did not seduce the men? God does not want them killed, because they have done no wrong. "

Neither had the baby boys. Why kill them?

" In fact, they were probably all around 12 or 13 given the age at which people married in that day, so by and large they were too young to really be culpable for anything anyways. "

Ditto the baby boys.

“Moses’ command to take these girls “for yourselves” was a command of mercy, not rape.”

But no mercy for the baby boys?

“In His mercy, God accepts these girls into His people, even though they were not born of Israel, because they have nobody else to care for them”

Are we to believe that God’s mercy is restricted to female virgins?

 

[Verity1]

I meant female virgins BTW.

 

[Evan]

You can alway see evil if you look hard enough.

As Catholics we are called to always read people with the best of possible intentions (do not judge).

Consider Abraham, our father in faith. He had a slave, Hagar, and slept with her ONLY after 10-20-30 years with no child from his wife, ONLY after having prayed before the Lord as to what to do. Does this sound to you like a culture where female slaves were considered as concubines… and what then is the difference between a concubine and a slave. A concubine is for sexual use whereas a slave is for work… in the field or in the tent .

American slavery was quite a different slavery than found in ancient days. Even different than found in Catholic countries at the time of American slavery. Slaves had rights in the Carribian and South America, for a greivance could be brought against the owner at the local courts (see for example St Peter Clavier)

 

[Verity1]

Evan:

You can alway see evil if you look hard enough.

Oh, come on Evan! I came here for one purpose only: to understand what these verses mean, and (hopefully) to be assured that they do not mean WHAT THEY PLAINLY STATE. I wasn’t trying to find evil, it seems to slap me in the face. The truth is to the contrary. I am trying desperately to find the good. Of course I understand that we live in a completely different age, and that customs which may seem barbarous to us were the norm then. I will give your explanation about slavery the benefit of the doubt, as I am not sufficiently well-versed in ancient customs. This does not cover the killing of innocents, however, and I would like to know what does. I notice that you do not answer my questions about the killing of the baby boys.

“As Catholics we are called to always read people with the best of possible intentions (do not judge).”

Yes, I know that. But we are also called upon to judge actions.

"Consider Abraham, our father in faith. He had a slave, Hagar, and slept with her ONLY after 10-20-30 years with no child from his wife, ONLY after having prayed before the Lord as to what to do. Does this sound to you like a culture where female slaves were considered as concubines… "

To be honest I don’t know how you can judge a whole culture on an event in one person’s life. And to answer your question, YES, it does. (P.S. What if Hagar had refused? Did she even have the choice? That episode seems to point in entirely the opposite direction to the one you assume.)

 

[Verity1]

Also Evan(!) :

What was the logic of Abraham sleeping with Hagar to produce a child, only for his wife to then produce a child, thus causing 2,000 years of friction/war/death?

AND

Where is the morality in this story? What about the sanctity of marriage?

Henry VIII did the same thing for similar reasons and sparked off the Protestant Reformation in England.

 

[RyanL]

Verity1:

What was the logic of Abraham sleeping with Hagar to produce a child, only for his wife to then produce a child, thus causing 2,000 years of friction/war/death?

I’m not sure it was as cause-and-effect as you are making it seem. Also, please remember that there are 4 senses of Scripture. From Jimmy Akin:

The early Christians inherited from late Judaism a tradition of seeing allegorical meanings in the pages of Scripture, meanings that went beyond what the words of the text themselves conveyed.

Paul provides one of the clearest examples of this in Galatians 4:21–31, where he draws an analogy between the Old and the New Covenants and Abraham’s wives Sarah and Hagar. The concubine Hagar was a slave, and Paul saw in her a fitting symbol of the bondage of the Old Covenant, while he found in Sarah, the free woman, a fitting symbol of the liberty of Christ.

The allegorical method of reading the Old Testament was common in contemporary Judaism, though even if it had not been, Paul’s use of it here would have been sufficient to cement its place in Christian biblical interpretation. He even uses the term allegory for what he is doing, saying “these things are allegorized” (Gal. 4:24, my translation).

I think that helps to answer the next question:

Where is the morality in this story?

Morality is not the sole reason for *every *story in the Bible - some things serve to point us to the fulfillment.

What about the sanctity of marriage?

Henry VIII did the same thing for similar reasons and sparked off the Protestant Reformation in England.

Marriage was not a sacrament until Jesus made it one, therefore Henry VIII was wrong for reasons that are different than Abraham.

I hope this helps.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[RyanL]

Verity1:

Neither had the baby boys. Why kill them?

Briefly? Because boys become men.

God Bless,
RyanL