Very well. I can guarantee you, however, that many people on this website have promoted both of those arguments, so they can hardly be called strawmen. Those are the only two arguments I have heard in defense of the Old Testament God, and they can not be called strawmen when many Catholics really defend them. I have no doubt that most, if not all, of the rebuttals that you hear will be variations of one of those two arguments, either A) it didn’t really happen, or B) God has his reasons.Thanks for the quick answer, V. However, I’d appreciate it if I could get some response from some actual Catholic Apologizers (?), which is why I went to Catholic.com, and clicked on the Apologetics tab. Please leave your strawman arguments at the door, if you don’t mind.
Easy, this is not God talking, these are usually a cri de coeur (cry from the heart) of the Hebrews. I’m thinking along the lines of Psalm 137:9, which is probably one of the worst cases.So a lot of the time people try to point out that God as recorded in the Old Testament was a wrathful, evil, terrible deity that told the Israelites to kill people, men women and children, take slaves, make war, etc. How do I answer to that?
Seems like that Athiests and Agnostics are all over this one… Don’t be mislead into thinking the answers to these questions lie in some simple dismissal of the type you’re being advised to believe here. Rather, the true answer lies in actually understanding what was going on historically at that time, who the people being destroyed were, what it is they were doing which was of such grave offence to God…So a lot of the time people try to point out that God as recorded in the Old Testament was a wrathful, evil, terrible deity that told the Israelites to kill people, men women and children, take slaves, make war, etc. How do I answer to that?
God kept an open line with the Ammorhites, which is witnessed by the fact that Baal was a priest of the one true God. God did communicate with him, and others and most certainly let them know what was coming as he would several hundred years later when the Jews them selves would become so coorupt as necessating similar extreme measures.Gen 15:15 And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace, and be buried in a good old age.
Gen 15:16 But in the fourth generation they shall return hither: for as yet the iniquities of the Amorrhites are not at the full until this present time.
So when the Israelites butchered children on God’s command, it was because those children were irredeemable?Seems like that Athiests and Agnostics are all over this one… Don’t be mislead into thinking the answers to these questions lie in some simple dismissal of the type you’re being advised to believe here. Rather, the true answer lies in actually understanding what was going on historically at that time, who the people being destroyed were, what it is they were doing which was of such grave offence to God…
In many cases these cultures were practicing brutal “religious” practices, so much so they even offended contemporary pegan cultures who also executed similar slash and burn attacks against those who hold these beliefs with out any prompting from the one true God. Among these was the practice of super heating a metal statue of a bull God with out stretched hands, and placing a new born baby in it’s arms to be burned alive. A practice which they believed would bring a good harvest the next year.
A careful reading of the OT will revel, that it is possible for a culture to become so fundamentally coorpupted that it can’t be fixed by anything less than extreme measure. This isn’t to say God didn’t give them any chances to repent:
God kept an open line with the Ammorhites, which is witnessed by the fact that Baal was a priest of the one true God. God did communicate with him, and others and most certainly let them know what was coming as he would several hundred years later when the Jews them selves would become so coorupt as necessating similar extreme measures.
First, you mischaracterize the command particularly in the case of the Ammorhites, it wasn’t a complete slash and burn. But it certainly was a slash and burn of all the dangerous elements of the culture, including the typical spoils of war i.e. the gold which would be found in the false idols of the Ammorhites. God ordered none of it taken, but for it to be burned with the culture as not to spread the errors of the Ammorhites.So when the Israelites butchered children on God’s command, it was because those children were irredeemable?
It’s amazing that I’ve never heard the Church write off an entire culture as being “so fundamentally corrupted” that it needs to be destroyed through “extreme measures”. In fact, I’ve never heard the Church declare that anyone, even Judas, was irredeemable. This seems to be an idea of your invention, not the Church’s.
V
Yes, but there were times when it was a complete slash and burn, in which men, women, and children, and even animals were butchered (though God did sometimes let the Israelite soldiers leave the virgin girls alive, and take them for themselves, whatever that means).First, you mischaracterize the command particularly in the case of the Ammorhites, it wasn’t a complete slash and burn. But it certainly was a slash and burn of all the dangerous elements of the culture, including the typical spoils of war i.e. the gold which would be found in the false idols of the Ammorhites. God ordered none of it taken, but for it to be burned with the culture as not to spread the errors of the Ammorhites.
Already in your own examples your making exceptions to a “total war” policy, I think you’ll find upon careful exiges that God’s command was just and necessary with respect to accomplishing the great work of salvation in Christ Jesus.Yes, but there were times when it was a complete slash and burn, in which men, women, and children, and even animals were butchered (though God did sometimes let the Israelite soldiers leave the virgin girls alive, and take them for themselves, whatever that means).
V
Which is what I predicted that you would say here:Already in your own examples your making exceptions to a “total war” policy, I think you’ll find upon careful exiges that God’s command was just and necessary with respect to accomplishing the great work of salvation in Christ Jesus.
Which the OP dismissed as a strawman and which you didn’t seem to like much either:A) He’s God, so everything that He does is good, even if we don’t always understand why He does them, it’s always part of his larger, perfect plan.
And yet, you have come full circle to the exact response that I said you would have, which is that it’s all part of God’s loving plan.Seems like that Athiests and Agnostics are all over this one… Don’t be mislead into thinking the answers to these questions lie in some simple dismissal of the type you’re being advised to believe here.
No. Nor did I, my original quote said that sometimes it is the case that we simply don’t understand God’s plan. If you do completely understand God’s plan, then you are an exception, which I specifically left room for.Did I say that the violience was part of a plan that none of us understand? Com’on V,
God still choses to take life suddenly and wrathfully in the NT, as well (Acts 5:1-11, Acts 12:21-23) and also brings wrath against cities and people because of their disbelief and sin (Luke 19:41-44).So a lot of the time people try to point out that God as recorded in the Old Testament was a wrathful, evil, terrible deity that told the Israelites to kill people, men women and children, take slaves, make war, etc. How do I answer to that?
Then your argument is a strawman which is neither here nor there… With regard to the subject matter at hand, that is to say OT violence, it’s not a part of God’s plan which we don’t understand. We do now understand very very well God’s plan in it’s full. God’s plan was to prepare the Israelites for the salvation which would come to the world through them, it was the prepare them for Jesus Christ. Everything that happened in the old testament, from the first words of Genisis to the last pre-christian words in the bible all point directly towards Christ.No. Nor did I, my original quote said that sometimes it is the case that we simply don’t understand God’s plan. If you do completely understand God’s plan, then you are an exception, which I specifically left room for.
V
How is my argument a strawman? All I did was account for both possibilities, either that it is part of a plan that you understand fully, or it is part of a plan that you do not understand fully. And there are many who, unlike you, do not claim to fully understand God’s reasoning for each and every act that he committed in the Old Testament, which is why I mentioned not fully understanding God’s plan in my first post.Then your argument is a strawman which is neither here nor there… With regard to the subject matter at hand, that is to say OT violence, it’s not a part of God’s plan which we don’t understand. We do now understand very very well God’s plan in it’s full. God’s plan was to prepare the Israelites for the salvation which would come to the world through them, it was the prepare them for Jesus Christ. Everything that happened in the old testament, from the first words of Genisis to the last pre-christian words in the bible all point directly towards Christ.
The answer is that the reality presented to you neither rely’s upon an “unknown plan”, nor does it deny the reality of OT violence. Thus your argument is a strawman. The reality is thatHow is my argument a strawman? All I did was account for both possibilities, either that it is part of a plan that you understand fully, or it is part of a plan that you do not understand fully. And there are many who, unlike you, do not claim to fully understand God’s reasoning for each and every act that he committed in the Old Testament, which is why I mentioned not fully understanding God’s plan in my first post.
Again, I don’t understand the flaw in what I said.
V
And I accounted for that. I never said that the reasons had to be mysterious, I said that sometimes, people consider them mysterious. Neither your 1) nor your 2) contradict what I said, since I specifically left open the possibility that the reasons were not mysterious by saying SOMETIMES.The answer is that the reality presented to you neither rely’s upon an “unknown plan”, nor does it deny the reality of OT violence. Thus your argument is a strawman. The reality is that
- It most probably happend, I don’t have the archeology to prove it happened but I don’t doubt it
- the reasons for it are not mysterious
Believe what you will, but my arguments fit neither of your two allowable categories thus exposing the strawman nature of your argumentation.And I accounted for that. I never said that the reasons had to be mysterious, I said that sometimes, people consider them mysterious. Neither your 1) nor your 2) contradict what I said, since I specifically left open the possibility that the reasons were not mysterious by saying SOMETIMES.
V