Did God really command violence?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tomo_pomo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I watched the video and I have a few issues with it. Fr. Barron said if we read the Bible in such a way thinking that God is capricious or cruel we are reading it wrong. Entering in with a preconceived notion that runs 180 degrees from what the passages say is not seeking truth by seeing rationalizations. He talks about the disparity between New and Old Testaments and how while some see this as a contradiction we should view these with the goal of squaring them In other words, he thinks we can’t say there is a contradiction, because doing so would SHOW a contradiction.

He then says that violent passages in the OT should be read as metaphorical, allegorical, and symbolic way regarding the spiritual struggle. Imagine if a Muslim used the same methodology for troublesome passages in the Quran. Certainly Christians would not give even a fraction of the leeway they expect others to give them. And it doesn’t address the bigger issue : Even if we say that these passages are symbolic, they still paint God in a very bad light. Stripping away those portions of the stories , the parts apologists will say “oh, that doesn’t count” is a willing blindness. It’s an intentional avoidance of the words themselves. When one’s head is buried long enough, everything starts to taste like sand.

He then talks about wiping out the Amalekites, and how Saul was wrong for not killing all of them. I’d respect Fr. Barron more if he phrased it as every single man, woman, child, and baby. Joseph Stalin once said “A single death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic .” That’s very much what we have here. To him the Amalekites are simply The Other, a number and not a collection of living breathing people from the very oldest to the just born. He then analogized not completing the genocide of the Amalekites to being a mostly celibate priest or a mostly faithful husband.

He ends with a strawman. He claims the most generation of atheists claim they think they discovered the violent passages in the Bible. In actuality atheists of all generations are aware of these passages. Why atheists bring them up is for two reasons. One, there are some believers who have a very facile understanding of their faith, not realizing those passages exist or what they say. Two, while Fr. Barron notes that many faithful have been tackling these passages for some time, some atheists feel the rationalizations given are disturbing – defending the indefensible and calling good that which is evil.
 
tomo_pomo said:
Many objections are “God of Bible is evil God” and they continue to say how He commanded slaughter rape and killing.

I have read some passages, but it’s still not clear to me:
Did God Himself really commanded or that’s just Moses commands?
Click to expand...
God can’t contradict God’s nature as revealed in Jesus Christ. Start there for your answer.
Christ is the fullness and the finality of God’s revelation. And so God is not cruel, God is not arbitrary, and God does not command the slaying of innocent people.

If your reading of Scripture runs afoul of God’s nature as revealed in Christ, you are reading scripture in the wrong light (and that incorrect light is usually literalist fundamentalism).
 
Last edited:
Mike_from_NJ said:
I watched the video and I have a few issues with it. Fr. Barron said if we read the Bible in such a way thinking that God is capricious or cruel we are reading it wrong. Entering in with a preconceived notion that runs 180 degrees from what the passages say is not seeking truth by seeing rationalizations. He talks about the disparity between New and Old Testaments and how while some see this as a contradiction we should view these with the goal of squaring them In other words, he thinks we can’t say there is a contradiction, because doing so would SHOW a contradiction.

He then says that violent passages in the OT should be read as metaphorical, allegorical, and symbolic way regarding the spiritual struggle. Imagine if a Muslim used the same methodology for troublesome passages in the Quran. Certainly Christians would not give even a fraction of the leeway they expect others to give them. And it doesn’t address the bigger issue : Even if we say that these passages are symbolic, they still paint God in a very bad light. Stripping away those portions of the stories , the parts apologists will say “oh, that doesn’t count” is a willing blindness. It’s an intentional avoidance of the words themselves. When one’s head is buried long enough, everything starts to taste like sand.

He then talks about wiping out the Amalekites, and how Saul was wrong for not killing all of them. I’d respect Fr. Barron more if he phrased it as every single man, woman, child, and baby. Joseph Stalin once said “A single death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic .” That’s very much what we have here. To him the Amalekites are simply The Other, a number and not a collection of living breathing people from the very oldest to the just born. He then analogized not completing the genocide of the Amalekites to being a mostly celibate priest or a mostly faithful husband.

He ends with a strawman. He claims the most generation of atheists claim they think they discovered the violent passages in the Bible. In actuality atheists of all generations are aware of these passages. Why atheists bring them up is for two reasons. One, there are some believers who have a very facile understanding of their faith, not realizing those passages exist or what they say. Two, while Fr. Barron notes that many faithful have been tackling these passages for some time, some atheists feel the rationalizations given are disturbing – defending the indefensible and calling good that which is evil.
Click to expand...
Ummm, you didn’t really understand what Fr Barron said.
 
goout said:
Ummm, you didn’t really understand what Fr Barron said.
Click to expand...
I believe I understand it. I simply disagree with it – which is not the same thing . In what way(s) do you feel I don’t understand it?
 
Mike_from_NJ said:
40.png
goout:
Ummm, you didn’t really understand what Fr Barron said.
Click to expand...
I believe I understand it. I simply disagree with it – which is not the same thing . In what way(s) do you feel I don’t understand it?
Click to expand...
You impose the same fundamentalist reading of scripture as…fundamentalist Christians. You have no room for human understanding, human nuance, human ways of communicating, genres of literature, context of the whole. As if the scriptures were dictated word for word by God, without human co-operation.

That’s fundamentalism. Interesting that atheists need fundamentalism for mojo.
 
Last edited:
In the first place, Bp Barron does nothing like denying contradictions in scripture. That is patently false.
They are admitted and addressed instead of knee-jerking to literalism.
He uses Christ as The lens for scripture interpretation.

That is the Catholic foundation for all of this. And you know this. Or should after all this time.
 
There is wide gap between saying every dot and stroke in the Bible is literally true (fundamentalism) and the idea that we can just toss aside anything in the Bible that in way conflicts with the desired narrative (how Fr. Barron defends the violence in the Bible).

Fr. Barron tossed aside multiple genocides like it was nothing. In order to say a passage is allegorical it has to pass a few hurdles.
  • Is there a reason (beyond trying to avoid linking God with violence) that suggests a symbolic reading is more feasible?
  • If the passage is allegorical, in what is it allegorical? You can take a great many passages in the Bible (not just the violent ones) and you will have firm believers with multiple mutually exclusive readings?
  • If it’s not literal, we have to consider whether the passage’s symbolism still paints God in a bad light (which it certainly does in the case of the Amalekites).
 
Mike_from_NJ said:
He then says that violent passages in the OT should be read as metaphorical, allegorical, and symbolic way regarding the spiritual struggle. Imagine if a Muslim used the same methodology for troublesome passages in the Quran. Certainly Christians would not give even a fraction of the leeway they expect others to give them. And it doesn’t address the bigger issue : Even if we say that these passages are symbolic, they still paint God in a very bad light. Stripping away those portions of the stories , the parts apologists will say “oh, that doesn’t count” is a willing blindness. It’s an intentional avoidance of the words themselves. When one’s head is buried long enough, everything starts to taste like sand.
Click to expand...
Both/and. Sacred Scripture is always interpreted in the following senses:
  1. Literal
  2. Allegorical
  3. Moral
  4. Anagogical
It is perhaps easier to discuss the allegorical sense here because it is relatable, but it is impossible to understand the literal sense if we do not understand the allegory. And the “literal sense” does not mean that the Bible is a history textbook recounting blow-by-blow facts of battles like we would discuss the American Civil War.
 
Some things to think about.

One is that violence refers to the innocent and just and is related to justice. So, dominating a nation of unrepentable sinners such as the canaanites could be actually a good thing depending on the intentions of the conqueror and circumstances (peaceful options already excluded, for instance). When all criteria are reached, the attack can be called just war. Moreover, if God explicity commanded it, then it must be done even if we can’t grasp all the reasons for it because God knows better than us what to do.

Second, God is the author of life, so He has the right to end it as well.
 
Last edited:
Mike_from_NJ said:
There is wide gap between saying every dot and stroke in the Bible is literally true (fundamentalism) and the idea that we can just toss aside anything in the Bible that in way conflicts with the desired narrative (how Fr. Barron defends the violence in the Bible).
Click to expand...
That’s false. He’s not tossing away. You don’t understand what he is saying, even at the most basic level. Again, your atheism needs fundamentalism to have any substance.

You’ve been here a long time talking about God, so I won’t waste my time debating with you ifyou are not really interested in learning.
I’ll simply post some reading material for those who want to delve deeper.
http://www.vatican.va/content/bened...ts/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini.html

Especially sec’s 42 and 44.

Have a great day.
 
Last edited:
Anesti33 said:
Both/and. Sacred Scripture is always interpreted in the following senses:
  1. Literal
  2. Allegorical
  3. Moral
  4. Anagogical
It is perhaps easier to discuss the allegorical sense here because it is relatable, but it is impossible to understand the literal sense if we do not understand the allegory. And the “literal sense” does not mean that the Bible is a history textbook recounting blow-by-blow facts of battles like we would discuss the American Civil War.
Click to expand...
As I mentioned in my post I’m allowing for non-literal interpretations of scripture, but not just willy-nilly. You quoted my post, do you think the three caveats I gave are reasonable in determining which of the four senses of scripture to use? If not, why not specifically?

Do you believe the killing of the Amalekites and other violent events listed in the Bible actually occurred? If they didn’t actually occur is the symbolism of the story (the whole story, not just slivers of it) casting God in a good or bad light?
 
goout said:
That’s false. He’s not tossing away. You don’t understand what he is saying, even at the most basic level. Again, your atheism needs fundamentalism to have any substance.
Click to expand...
You can’t using the fundamentalism, but not explaining why we specifically we should favor your interpretation or Father Barron’s over a plain reading. As I laid out in my earlier post I can accept a non-literal interpretation provided there is a reason for doing so and that they symbolism doesn’t just make God look bad symbolically rather than literally. The squeamishness of believers is not a valid reason.
You’ve been here a long time talking about God, so I won’t waste my time debating with you ifyou are not really interested in learning.
Click to expand...
I have been hear for a while. I’ve talked to many folks who’ve defended slavery, rape, the killing of non-believers and homosexuals for just being. And again you’re conflating disagreeing with you with not listening to you. I listen to my neighbor who – I’m deadly serious – believes Russia has a machine that can make hurricanes. I don’t agree with him, but I listen to him.
I’ll simply post some reading material for those who want to delve deeper.
http://www.vatican.va/content/bened...ts/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini.html

Especially sec’s 42 and 44.
Click to expand...
I will read it after I get some sleep (I work third shift). I expect I’ll be going over it bit by bit, so don’t be surprised if I find some parts that I dispute.
Have a great day.
Click to expand...
You too.
 
Mike_from_NJ said:
As I mentioned in my post I’m allowing for non-literal interpretations of scripture, but not just willy-nilly. You quoted my post, do you think the three caveats I gave are reasonable in determining which of the four senses of scripture to use? If not, why not specifically?
Click to expand...
You seem to be indicating that we should be limiting ourselves to using one sense of Scripture in interpreting these pericopes. No, you use all the senses of Scripture all the time. It’s both/and. You don’t get to exclude three senses because they’re uncomfortable or inconvenient.

I don’t think that is what Bishop Barron or apologists are doing, though. It is perfectly OK to teach a lesson by focusing on one sense of Sacred Scripture. You just don’t get to say that the others are irrelevant.
 
Then don’t resort to appeals to the “wisdom” of the day. We are not so smart.
 
kapp19 said:
Then don’t resort to appeals to the “wisdom” of the day. We are not so smart.
Click to expand...
What?

The point is your God is eternal and therefore should be consistent. It’s not an appeal to wisdom as much as a point about it being odd.
 
Here’s a poser. If the literal reading of the herem warfare is to be believed, then the Israelites committed genocide under just war theory.

So is the Church wrong about genocide? Her Catechism condemns it in no uncertain terms. What are the Patristic and theological, Magisterial views of genocidal warfare? What was the view of genocide during the Crusades when we sought to wipe the Saracen aggressors and Albigensian heretics from the face of the earth?

Can there be a place for genocide in Just War Theory? Catholic Answers has spoken quite plainly about the use of nuclear weapons in WWII.

And let’s not get into “well, you see, for the time period it was different” – no, morality is the same, eternal truths are the same, no matter where or when.
 
Last edited:
Al-Ash’ari, as I’ve seen his theology interpreted (since I don’t know Arabic). As I understand it that’s the dominant Sunni school.
The Ash’arites, as against the Mu’tazilites, held that revelation and not reason is the real authority or criterion to determine what is good and what is bad. Goodness and badness of actions (husn wa qubh) are not qualities inhering in them; these are mere accidents ( a’rad ). Actions‑in‑themselves are neither good nor bad. Divine Law makes them good or bad.
A History of Muslim Philosophy
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top