Death & Destructions vs Ten Commandments

  • Thread starter Thread starter LoriEmard
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

LoriEmard

Guest
I’m at loss in explaining to teenagers why God destroyed communities of people in the Old Testament. In Genesis we see the Great Flood and the burning of Sodom and Gomorrah. In Exodus we experience the plagues and Passover Ritual of death of the first-born. When discussing the Ten Commandments, how can he He justify destroying all these people when it specifically states “Thou shalt not kill”? If he is a forgiving God, why did he not forgive them for the way they chose to live?
 
I’m at loss in explaining to teenagers why God destroyed communities of people in the Old Testament. In Genesis we see the Great Flood and the burning of Sodom and Gomorrah. In Exodus we experience the plagues and Passover Ritual of death of the first-born. When discussing the Ten Commandments, how can he He justify destroying all these people when it specifically states “Thou shalt not kill”? If he is a forgiving God, why did he not forgive them for the way they chose to live?
Does “thou shalt not kill” apply to God… or just humans? After all, what’s at the center of the prohibition? Who created us … and therefore, has the right to do with us as he pleases? (After all, that’s not mere arbitrary behavior – if God is omniscent, omnipotent, and all-good, then whatever God wishes for us… wouldn’t it be what’s best for us?)

Why does “forgiveness” need to equate with “long life”? When you forgive someone, do you automatically set them right back up where they were, or in wisdom, can situations change?

There are more answers, of course, and these speak to the particular interpretations of the Scriptures, but this is one way to approach the questions…
 
When discussing the Ten Commandments, how can he He justify destroying all these people when it specifically states “Thou shalt not kill”?
God says that WE shalt not kill. In doing so, we take what is not rightfully ours to take (the life of another person). But God is the author of all life - it rightly belongs to him, to do with as he pleases. It is not “just” (ie, deserved) when God grants life, and it is not “unjust” when he demands what is rightfully his to demand. And he does demand it - each and every day, from each and every one of us. He will demand it of us both, at some point in the rather near future.
If he is a forgiving God, why did he not forgive them for the way they chose to live?
God’s forgiveness is not automatic. Did any of these people REPENT and ASK for God’s forgiveness? No. There were some who repented and were saved - the people of Nineveh, for example. The prophet, Jonah, (eventually) preached God’s message of imminent destruction to these people, and every one - from king to pauper - repented, and they were saved.

Even in the case of the destruction of Sodom, the sole righteous man (Lot) was offered safety for himself and his family. Likewise, Noah and his family escaped the flood.
 
God says that WE shalt not kill. In doing so, we take what is not rightfully ours to take (the life of another person). But God is the author of all life - it rightly belongs to him, to do with as he pleases. It is not “just” (ie, deserved) when God grants life, and it is not “unjust” when he demands what is rightfully his to demand. And he does demand it - each and every day, from each and every one of us. He will demand it of us both, at some point in the rather near future.

God’s forgiveness is not automatic. Did any of these people REPENT and ASK for God’s forgiveness? No. There were some who repented and were saved - the people of Nineveh, for example. The prophet, Jonah, (eventually) preached God’s message of imminent destruction to these people, and every one - from king to pauper - repented, and they were saved.

Even in the case of the destruction of Sodom, the sole righteous man (Lot) was offered safety for himself and his family. Likewise, Noah and his family escaped the flood.
Were the babies given an opportunity to repent?
 
Were the babies given an opportunity to repent?
Clearly not (because it is impossible). But if the non-repentant parents died, then the babies (being completely dependent on their parents) would soon follow.

The life of the parents AND the babies BELONG to God. God will demand ALL of these lives, as he always has, and does today (he will demand your life and mine rather soon). The lives of both parent and child are his to demand - they belong to him, and to him alone. Why should it matter if God demands the life of a baby or an old man? We (in our humanity) might place a higher value on the life of a baby (a morally innocent person of unknown potential) than that of an old man (whose morality has largely been determined, and whose potential is pretty much defined and spent). But God does not value life in the manner that we do. God alone can judge the ultimate “value” of each human life - regardless of whether the person died young or old. And God does not claim any life without individually pronouncing particular judgement.
 
I’m at loss in explaining to teenagers why God destroyed communities of people in the Old Testament. In Genesis we see the Great Flood and the burning of Sodom and Gomorrah. In Exodus we experience the plagues and Passover Ritual of death of the first-born. When discussing the Ten Commandments, how can he He justify destroying all these people when it specifically states “Thou shalt not kill”? If he is a forgiving God, why did he not forgive them for the way they chose to live?
To be precise, the commandment says “murder,” not “kill” and as other posters have said, it’s a commandment that comes from mankind’s end, not His.

I think it would have been possible for God to forgive the generation of the Flood, or Sodom, but forgiveness presumes that the offending party is willing to repent. There’s an interesting interpretation of the pre-Flood society and Sodom, that these societies were so indulgent of sin that it was the center of their lives.

Remember that God picks Noah to build the ark because he is the most “righteous of his generation” and this example is supposed to be a basic model of righteousness for mankind–the 7 laws of Noah–don’t murder, don’t commit adultery, don’t steal, etc. It seems to me then, that before the flood, murder, adultery, and theft (amongst other things) were excessively rampant, if the new law for mankind forbids murder, adultery, and theft. There’s an interpretation of the text that says Sodom and Gomorrah’s wickedness was as profound as God’s goodness.

I believe both of these societies could have repented – they certainly had a chance before doomsday. The pre-Flood generation had Noah as a model of decency (at least, he was decent enough that compared to everyone else that he was unusually decent). They could have imitated him. And they had a generous opportunity to repent during the many years it took Noah to prepare the ark for the Flood.

And like the pre-Flood generation, Sodom and Gomorrah had Lot as a model of decency to follow. (Again, he was only “decent” compared to everyone around him…the man still slept with his daughters, which makes you wonder what everyone else Sodom was doing). But if the Sodomites had left Lot and the angels alone and turned away from that last opportunity to commit wickedness, God would been a little merciful. After all, God did seem willing to debate with Abraham about cutting Sodom a little slack. But ultimately, I don’t think God would allow such a profound evil to exist so unashamedly in his presence, defying his will, desecrating his name, and threatening to corrupt his Creation.
 
I’m at loss in explaining to teenagers why God destroyed communities of people in the Old Testament. In Genesis we see the Great Flood and the burning of Sodom and Gomorrah. In Exodus we experience the plagues and Passover Ritual of death of the first-born. When discussing the Ten Commandments, how can he He justify destroying all these people when it specifically states “Thou shalt not kill”? If he is a forgiving God, why did he not forgive them for the way they chose to live?
Here is one answer from Fr Robert Barron (transcribed from one of his sermons)

bibleversereflections.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/moses-and-amalek-icon-of-church.html
 
Clearly not (because it is impossible). But if the non-repentant parents died, then the babies (being completely dependent on their parents) would soon follow.

The life of the parents AND the babies BELONG to God. God will demand ALL of these lives, as he always has, and does today (he will demand your life and mine rather soon). The lives of both parent and child are his to demand - they belong to him, and to him alone. Why should it matter if God demands the life of a baby or an old man? We (in our humanity) might place a higher value on the life of a baby (a morally innocent person of unknown potential) than that of an old man (whose morality has largely been determined, and whose potential is pretty much defined and spent). But God does not value life in the manner that we do. God alone can judge the ultimate “value” of each human life - regardless of whether the person died young or old. And God does not claim any life without individually pronouncing particular judgement.
So why raise the issue of repentance in this context, if God will kill the innocent as well?
 
I’m at loss in explaining to teenagers why God destroyed communities of people in the Old Testament. In Genesis we see the Great Flood and the burning of Sodom and Gomorrah. In Exodus we experience the plagues and Passover Ritual of death of the first-born. When discussing the Ten Commandments, how can he He justify destroying all these people when it specifically states “Thou shalt not kill”? If he is a forgiving God, why did he not forgive them for the way they chose to live?
To be precise, the commandment says “murder,” not “kill.”

But as other posters have noted, you’re also assuming that the obligations in covenants apply mutually. They don’t. It would be strange, for example, if Abraham promised God a a son in his wife’s old age, provided that God and his entire household underwent circumcision. 🙂

I think it’s better to look at Genesis as a story, and you look at the way God and mankind interact like characters, rather than as events that literally happened exactly as they are told.

To answer your question, I think God could have forgiven Sodom and Gomorrah for example, or the pre-Flood generation, but forgiveness presumes that the offending party wants repentance. There’s an interesting interpretation of the pre-Flood generation and Sodom – these societies were so indulgent of wickedness, that indulgence was the center of their lives.

But even in these wicked societies there’s the best of the bunch – in the pre-Flood world, Noah more righteous than anyone else in his generation. God chooses Noah for that reason–as the most righteous human of his generation, he is supposed to be an example for basic righteousness of mankind after the Flood. Hence, God makes a covenant with Noah: God will never destroy mankind again, and mankind will follow the 7 laws of Noah–don’t murder, don’t commit adultery, don’t steal, etc. It seems to me, if these laws are a standard of righteous behaviour after the Flood, that perhaps there was rampant murder, adultery, and theft (amongst other things) before the flood.

For Sodom and Gomorrah, the text says that their wickedness is “exceeding grievousness.” There’s an interpretation based on this passage (not the best translation) that says Sodom’s wickedness was as profound as God’s goodness (quite evil).

Now despite these societies’ wickedness – I believe God would have forgiven them, if they repented. Both societies certainly had a chance before doomsday. Noah was the pre-Flood generation’s model of decency (relatively; the text says he was “decent” compared to everyone else, so he would have stood out). His generation could have imitated him and avoided the catastrophe. And, they had a chance to repent during the years that Noah was constructing the ark.

And like Noah’s generation, Sodom and Gomorrah had Lot as a model of decency to follow. (And like Noah, Lot was only “decent” compared to everyone around him…the man still slept with his daughters, which makes you wonder about what everyone else did). Perhaps, if the Sodomites have left Lot and the angels alone, perhaps if they turned away from that last opportunity to commit wickedness, God would been a little merciful. After all, Abraham urged God to cut Sodom a little slack. But I don’t think God would allow such a profound evil as Sodom or Noah’s generations to exist so unashamedly in his presence, defying his will, desecrating his name, and threatening to corrupt his creation.
 
If we are looking at the death of the firstborn (a lot of who were NOT babies). I think it was more of a plague of justice.

The Pharaoh had been killing the male children of Israel for some time.

In many (all?) of the plagues, God had been showing is power is greater than that of the Egyptian gods. In the final plague, he showed his power over life and death (one of the Egyptian gods), over Pharaoh-a god of Egypt (his son died).

But he also showed mercy, in that he ONLY demanded the life of the first born, not of all the males born in Egypt since they began killing the children of Israel.
 
If we are looking at the death of the firstborn (a lot of who were NOT babies). I think it was more of a plague of justice.

The Pharaoh had been killing the male children of Israel for some time.

In many (all?) of the plagues, God had been showing is power is greater than that of the Egyptian gods. In the final plague, he showed his power over life and death (one of the Egyptian gods), over Pharaoh-a god of Egypt (his son died).

But he also showed mercy, in that he ONLY demanded the life of the first born, not of all the males born in Egypt since they began killing the children of Israel.
i do not call that merciful.
 
i do not call that merciful.
With Sodom and Gemorrah He demanded the lives of all. When He demands less than is deserved, it is a mercy.

You may not call it mercy, but even death is not a true punishment, for when we die we are then judged. It is then that we plead for mercy, with our mediator and our advocate.
 
So that makes the killing of children ok?
For us no. For God, yes.

You see, one of the things you are stuck on is you are using a personal 21st century rationale: “People in 2012 know killing children is wrong so why wasn’t it wrong for God”? The problem is God is not you. Or me. Or anyone. As Father Serpa says, He is not a “bigger” version of us. He is the creater and master of the entire universe and none of us would exist without Him or live another microsecond if it was not His will.

As such, we cannot judge God using our tiny human minds or earthly standards. All life belongs not to us but to Him and he can do with it as He pleases. All we can do is trust in His plan and know that God is never evil and that for reasons I don’t fully understand, He loves these lowly mortal peices of flesh He created - so much that He sent His son to die for them so that they may have eternal life with Him.
 
So that makes the killing of children ok?
No that would be why one would bring up repentance, which was your question.

As far as killing innocent children goes, which is worse, allowing an innocent child to die and spend an eternity in Heaven or allowing a innocent child to be corrupted by a society, then die and spend an eternity in Hell?

Chuck
 
No that would be why one would bring up repentance, which was your question.

As far as killing innocent children goes, which is worse, allowing an innocent child to die and spend an eternity in Heaven or allowing a innocent child to be corrupted by a society, then die and spend an eternity in Hell?

Chuck
Each of these options, one worse than the other, is in your view a decision of God.
 
Each of these options, one worse than the other, is in your view a decision of God.
Not as a cause, but yes, He allows them to happen.

You didn’t answer the question.

Which is worse.

Chuck
 
As far as killing innocent children goes, which is worse, allowing an innocent child to die and spend an eternity in Heaven or allowing a innocent child to be corrupted by a society, then die and spend an eternity in Hell?
Well, this depends. First of all, I would have to suspend lack of belief, and assue the existence of God, heaven and hell. Done. Then I would have to accept that God killed only those children who were going to be corrupted and then not repent, and then not be forgiven in any case, and then go to hell. That seems unlikely, unless nuture in Sodom and Gomorrah led inevitably to unrepentant culpable corruption. There is also the problem that God, in his infinite justice, would save these children from hell by an early death, but not many others. How is that just? Then, even if this objection were overcome, I would have to accept that God sometimes intervenes and denies individuals free will, by killing them as children before they develop it. This seems to be not exactly aligned with Catholic tradition. And then, considering we are talking about a god who kills innocent children because of what their parents did, we would have to be sure we could trust him on the issue of heaven and hell. If he can be unjust in the treatment of the most innocent and vulnerable in this world, why would he be just in the afterlife? How do we know the children would not be consigned to hell?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top