B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
What is the official Catholic interpretation of Deuteronomy 20:10-20 (and like):
- Status
N
nickybr38
Guest
I don’t know the official Church teaching but I would suggest you look up Scott Hahn’s Understanding the Scripture series. He has some interesting and logical takes on the Old Testament verses that most people have a difficult time swallowing.
Basically though God was speaking to a people who were not like we are now. He had his reasons… but when we look at these thing through 21st century eyes it just seems so barbaric and wrong… it’s difficult to understand when we are so removed from the culture of that time.
Basically though God was speaking to a people who were not like we are now. He had his reasons… but when we look at these thing through 21st century eyes it just seems so barbaric and wrong… it’s difficult to understand when we are so removed from the culture of that time.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
It sounds, though, like you are accepting that these were actual historical commands given at the time. I ask because some try to interpret the verses as symbolic to avoid the discomforting thought that God had ordered genocide.
I’m familiar enough with ancient history to know that what is described in the above verses is not the least bit unusual and it is entirely plausible that it was necessary under the circumstances. The verse actually provides an explanation for the action which, though consistent with the times, is regarded by modern (i.e. Christian) standards as barbaric.
N
nickybr38
Guest
I’m a newbie (and NOT well studied!!! So feel free to correct me please.
but it is my understanding that yes they were historical commands given at the time BUT they still have relevance today, just in a different way. When you were a child I fed you milk (what God expected of His people in the Old Testament) but when you grew I gave you meat (what He expected of His people in the New Testament). Potentially offensive, I know, and I’m sorry for that…The New does NOT negate the Old, the New sheds light on the Old and helps us to see what God was really trying to teach us… I think?For example, God worked diligently to keep the Isrealites pure. He wanted no outside religions seeping their way into the minds of His people, so He ordered that they not marry outside their clans (basically) - and He set some pretty strict commands in place to ensure this purity was maintained. Today we have inter-marriages between religions and as a result we have luke-warm religious people (maybe not the people who married but their children - their children’s children… etc. The faith gets diluted…).
Just my opinion, but that’s kind of what I see going on.
Of course I could be completely off the wall here.Anyway, I think I strayed off topic for a second there.
We cannot dismiss or explain away the Old Testament. At times our God allowed and even commanded actions that seem completely bizarre to us… but He definitely had His reasons… and I daresay we can’t and won’t ever fully understand what those were.
B
Bookcat
Guest
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
Thanks, Jimmy Akin seems to have covered the bases in that article.
M
Mark77
Guest
**Father Robert Barron gave some great insights on this exact subject in his weekly sermon from last Sunday found here;
wordonfire.org/WOF-Radio/Sermons/Sermon-Archive-for-2010/Sermon-510-Moses-and-Amalek-An-Icon-of-the.aspx
**
**To summarize, Fr. Barron calls us to examine all of Sacred Scripture in light of the Book of Revelation, “Weep not; lo, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals.” (Rev 5:5). In other words, history is revealed by Jesus throughout all time.
**
He writes; “**The church militant is the church at war with all the destructive powers that want to undermine its unity…But our fighting is unusual: we fight with peacemaking, forgiveness, education, etc. Our fighting is only sustained through prayer and the prayers of others. Please pray that the Church is strengthened in its fight against evil in the world. **”
Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!
mark
wordonfire.org/WOF-Radio/Sermons/Sermon-Archive-for-2010/Sermon-510-Moses-and-Amalek-An-Icon-of-the.aspx
**
**To summarize, Fr. Barron calls us to examine all of Sacred Scripture in light of the Book of Revelation, “Weep not; lo, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals.” (Rev 5:5). In other words, history is revealed by Jesus throughout all time.
**
He writes; “**The church militant is the church at war with all the destructive powers that want to undermine its unity…But our fighting is unusual: we fight with peacemaking, forgiveness, education, etc. Our fighting is only sustained through prayer and the prayers of others. Please pray that the Church is strengthened in its fight against evil in the world. **”
Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!
mark
R
rcjones
Guest
God killed all men except eight in a flood. He is certainly within his rights to kill fewer than “all men except eight” for their evil.
What gives anyone who has not created their own universe and run it successfully for even a few weeks the right to imply that God has done anything wrong?
What gives anyone who has not created their own universe and run it successfully for even a few weeks the right to imply that God has done anything wrong?
C
Crumpy
Guest
A “scorched earth” policy is hard for a layed back person like myself to understand, under normal circumstances.
Jewish commentaries ahd Jewish sensibilities are very ambivalent about mass deaths, like the destruction of the Egyptian army in the sea. While they enjoy a victory, it is subdued by the obvious destruction of children of God, made in His image and likeness.
Following a Divine command like that both requires and develops faith and tests faith. It’s one thing to be there and carry out such a command, and it’s another to read about it and absorb its impact and to learn what obedience to God is all about.
Jewish commentaries ahd Jewish sensibilities are very ambivalent about mass deaths, like the destruction of the Egyptian army in the sea. While they enjoy a victory, it is subdued by the obvious destruction of children of God, made in His image and likeness.
Following a Divine command like that both requires and develops faith and tests faith. It’s one thing to be there and carry out such a command, and it’s another to read about it and absorb its impact and to learn what obedience to God is all about.
R
rcjones
Guest
I can appreciate that. But it helps to realize first that God is good. Since he knows everything, he knows if someone will ever repent and be saved. If not, then what is the purpose of life on this earth? It is merciful to those around people who will never repent to remove them.
He alone is capable of making the call.
We live in a time after the cross where we now are to love our enemies even to the point of dying for them. This is why I think I am a passifist in theory. Practicing it is more difficult
F
Fidelis
Guest
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
I understand your point, and I am a big fan of Jobian arguments for God’s righteousness.
However, there is a key difference between the flood and the Caanan genocide: in the later case humans were directed to do the killing.
Suppose, for example, a politician claimed that God had instructed him that we need to commit genocide. It would be convenient if we could dismiss him by saying: God would never do that. But if the biblical command is literally correct, we cannot be sure of that. We cannot say, categorically, that genocide is always morally wrong and dismiss anyone who claims otherwise. Instead we have to now consider what, precisely, justifies genocide. (Yikes!)
One can always argue that the circumstances of the Caanan genocide were unique (and Jimmy Akin puts this argument forward nicely) but if it can happen once, it can happen again.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
Excellent article, thanks. Jimmy does address my above point brifely (too briefly I think, to satisfy me).
S
SnakeMauler
Guest
amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-Bible-Guides/dp/1596985208
That book will give you a way better answer than that Jimmy Akins article.
Basically, genocides a word that’s thrown around a lot these days. I personally say screw the UN definition, I believe that the Holocaust is a unique event because literally the Nazi’s were trying to destroy every man woman and child of a particular group, and everything else is something different. Such is the position of Jewish scholar Stephen T. Katz.
God’s commandment is far from genocide. Telling people to first go up to a city and allow them the ability to surrender isn’t quite what I’d call genocide. And besides, regardless of what God said, the Israelites didn’t kill everyone anyway obviously.
Read the first few chapters of “Genocide” by William D. Rubinstein. You’ll find that he, as a secular scholar, actually agrees that the ancient Hebrews were basically the first culture with any notion of human rights whatsoever. And, if you compare that with the slavery, disgusting violence, human sacrifice, cannibalism, etc. in ancient societies and pre literate societies, you’ll find that our God is a pretty reasonable God in weening Christian morality into the human psyche.
Again, I recommend that Politically Incorrect Guide to the Bible book for more of what I’m talking about.
That book will give you a way better answer than that Jimmy Akins article.
Basically, genocides a word that’s thrown around a lot these days. I personally say screw the UN definition, I believe that the Holocaust is a unique event because literally the Nazi’s were trying to destroy every man woman and child of a particular group, and everything else is something different. Such is the position of Jewish scholar Stephen T. Katz.
God’s commandment is far from genocide. Telling people to first go up to a city and allow them the ability to surrender isn’t quite what I’d call genocide. And besides, regardless of what God said, the Israelites didn’t kill everyone anyway obviously.
Read the first few chapters of “Genocide” by William D. Rubinstein. You’ll find that he, as a secular scholar, actually agrees that the ancient Hebrews were basically the first culture with any notion of human rights whatsoever. And, if you compare that with the slavery, disgusting violence, human sacrifice, cannibalism, etc. in ancient societies and pre literate societies, you’ll find that our God is a pretty reasonable God in weening Christian morality into the human psyche.
Again, I recommend that Politically Incorrect Guide to the Bible book for more of what I’m talking about.
N
Nooj
Guest
Where does it say in the book of Joshua that they were allowed to surrender?
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
You realize that that is promoting a system of moral relativism right?
S
SnakeMauler
Guest
And it shall be that if they accept your offer of peace, and open to you, then all the people who are found in it shall be placed under tribute to you, and serve you.
LIke that guy said in his first post, from Deuteronomy.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
This argument below from the article is particularly interesting. Because it is essentially the same one most often used by advocates for allowing women to become priests when asked why Jesus only picked male disciples:
- On one interpretation, God himself may have decided that the people of Israel were not yet at a stage of moral-religious development in which they could approach the question in the nuanced manner that we today can (and must!) approach it. Therefore, he gave them blunt orders, these being the only kind they could effectively implement.
N
Nooj
Guest
Excuse me, but perhaps you missed this:
And this series of genocides is described in Joshua.
S
SnakeMauler
Guest
I’m aware of that. I’ve been over this issue a million times.
Let me ask you this, why were those people to be destroyed? Was it “just because”? Was God “racist”?
Were those people “innocent”?
- Status