Did God really command violence?

[Neithan]

So, this seems to essentially indicate that humanity’s ability of reason is more likely to be “correct” than the text in God’s book.

No the Catholic position is that natural reason unaided by divine grace cannot attain a perfect understanding, and the Old Testament was an incomplete revelation, imperfectly understood.

When it is said that you take the Bible to be literal when it makes sense to humanity, but when it doesn’t then it must be allegorical?

As Catholics we submit to the magisterium for interpretation.

Who is to say that the passages that speak of homosexuality aren’t supposed to be taken as allegorical? What about the others that appear that Jesus is speaking about Hell?

Yeah we don’t stone them to death, but St. Paul condemned the immoral acts. Jesus is God Incarnate, and the perfect revelation; the New Testament morals in light of the gospel are fully revealed and interpreted with infallibility by the church.

 

[ForeverLearn]

So a generalized summary appears to indicate that you are stating that it is the Catholic church, not natural law, who is the authority to determine truth.

I have a hard time understanding how a thinking person could resolve hell into natural law.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

In my opinion, that seems to indicate God can do something that is contrary to his nature. Creation is different than ownership.

In order for that be be true you would have to prove that it is wrong for Him to take a life.

I disagree that creation is different from ownership in this sense. Literally everything we are and have comes explicitly from God and is held in existence by Him. Our lives are a gift we have not earned, and which could not be without Him. It is all His because all of its being stems from Him. That gives Him the right to it. You don’t have to agree with that statement, but again, your simple disagreement doesn’t make the statement wrong.

 

[ForeverLearn]

The philosophical problem I have with the way God is described and the actions of which people explain he “does” is contradictory.

For example God is defined many times in these ways:

God is Love.
God is existence.
God is truth.

Then in my opinion, contradictorily, God is given human attributes when it is said that, if God decides… or if God wants,…or God wills

By God definition those actions are human actions that have limitations. God doesn’t decide or want…HE is. This is why all theology must be flawed in some way. Revealed truth cannot be truly real because it is limited to human words and interpretation.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

The philosophical problem I have with the way God is described and the actions of which people explain he “does” is contradictory.

For example God is defined many times in these ways:

God is Love.
God is existence.
God is truth.

Then in my opinion, contradictorily, God is given human attributes when it is said that, if God decides… or if God wants,…or God wills

By God definition those actions are human actions that have limitations. God doesn’t decide or want…HE is. This is why all theology must be flawed in some way. Revealed truth cannot be truly real because it is limited to human words and interpretation.

Unfortunately, language is limited by the scope of our understanding. When we say that God is love, we are attempting to express an unknowable reality to the best of our abilities. The difference in scope and reality is like the distance between a droplet of water and the water cloud surrounding APM 08279+5255. (Massive quasar with 140 trillion times more water surrounding it than there is on Earth.) When we speak of God “wanting” or “choosing” we are anthropomorphizing Him so that discussion is possible in the first place. If we were to limit our language to those concepts and expression which fully embody the Truth of God’s existence, then discussion would literally be impossible, because we are not capable of comprehending that existence, let alone articulating it.

God exists in an eternal NOW. He is existence itself, and all of what we comprehend as time is eternally and equally present to Him. However, in order for us to enter into discussion about Him, we must necessarily talk as though He were subject to the concepts of time and change because that is the only reference point from which we can reach an understanding, however limited and insufficient that understanding may be.

1 Cor 13:12

At present we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face. At present I know partially; then I shall know fully, as I am fully known.

 

[Dan_Defender]

‘And the rest were slain by the sword of him who sits upon the horse, the sword that issues from his mouth; and all the birds were gorged with their flesh.’ - Rev 20:21

 

[Dan_Defender]

I challenge you to give this reason to the mothers of Egypt, whose children were slaughtered on God’s orders for the sins of their king. What reason would you come up with that would console them? What argument would you make that would convince them this was just?

It is the same with the people at the time of Noah who were killed, and the people in Sodom. Like St Augustine said: ‘For God to neglect those who do not seek Him is but justice’.

 

[mythbuster1]

God is simple; He cannot act against Himself. If God rewarded sin, He would be acting against Himself.

 

[mythbuster1]

None of those swept away by the Great Flood or the Tenth Plague died without warning. They did not heed the warnings.

 

[Anrakyr]

None of those swept away by the Great Flood or the Tenth Plague died without warning. They did not heed the warnings.

Actually that was exactly what happened.
In Pharaoh’s case it was only him warned and only Noah was warned for the flood.

Everyone else was SOL

 

[mythbuster1]

Noah preached righteousness for 120 years before the Flood. They had the opportunity to repent and refused to. Likewise, Egypt was warned by nine plagues before the Death of the Firstborn. Many Egyptians did heed that warning and sided with Israel.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

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.

As I’ve written a few times now, I’m saying that if one uses a non-literal sense of scripture there has to be a reason for beyond not wanting to address the uncomfortableness of believers. If you are saying that a passage didn’t actually occur then show why. If you are saying that a passage is both literal as well as symbolic, that doesn’t wipe away or make good the violence in those events.

Slave 1: Don’t you see? The slavery we’re experiencing is a metaphor for how we all must serve the Lord.
Slave 2: Gee, I never thought of it that way! This real, excruciating, and unending pain that we’re enduring and that the Hebrew God allowed for in great detail makes sense if you only think of it that way.
Slave 1: Now you’re getting it. [Slave 1 collapses as he’s hit again with a rod.]

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.

Yes, and if you want to you can focus solely on how good a clown John Wayne Gacy was or all the charitable donations Jimmy Savile brought in.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

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.

In paragraph 42 Pope Benedict talks about how God’s revelation comes about slowly and in successive stages. Let’s think of another instance where teaching comes about in stages, parenting. We don’t teach our children to do wrong, then later try to teach them how to no longer do that and do right. We don’t teach a child that it’s okay to hit someone then later say hitting is wrong. If a child hits someone they are told sternly to stop. If they’re young enough they may not understand the idea of compassion, but a parent will instill in them: DO NOT HIT! On the other hand, God gives specific instructions on how to increase the evil in the world – Kill those who impede your goals, take virgin women forcibly, enslave others for life so long as they are not Hebrew men. We’re then supposed to believe after those specific instructions that God would later teach people how to NOT do those very things.

It’s interesting to me that some things in the Bible were revealed slowly and some were not. For not honoring the Sabbath God gave no quarter (as seen by the man picking up sticks). The same is true for circumcision. God was thisclose to killing Moses for not circumcising his son in a timely manner. (Luckily Moses’ wife was ready with a rock to do the deed quickly). But something like most rape or slavery God figured he’d get around to it in a millennia or two.

When he writes “In the Old Testament, the preaching of the prophets vigorously challenged every kind of injustice and violence” it’s laughable on its face. He also goes all-in on moral relativism despite repeated calls by the faithful to not do some. Christian apologists are the first to denounce moral relativism and the first to use it in defense of their god. If God shaped the culture in so many ways (from what to wear, to eat, to do) he surely was not restricted by the culture at the time to give further instruction that would counter the violence in these passages. It should be noted in the case of slavery that despite the common apologetic defense for is the culture at the time, Leviticus 20:23 specifically tells his people to not follow the practices of neighboring nations (i.e. the culture at the time is not a factor as to whether one can do something).

Paragraph 43 is getting into Josh McDowell territory. That’s definitely for another thread.

Paragraph 44 acts us to put on rose-colored glasses and interpret (i.e. warp) what is said to give it its most favorable reading. It doesn’t say why a passage should be interpreted symbolically instead of literally, apart from the call to have a preconceived notion that scripture can never be wrong or harmful. It’s not unnoticed that if someone were to say that the miracle of loaves and fishes was not an accurate portrayal of a real event then believers would decry the call to undercut scripture.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Do you think atheism is a rational conclusion from this? At most, you might say either the Old Testament is not inerrant, or God is not morally good in any way analogous to human empathy.

That’s a good question. The moral problems I have with Christianity puts me off to it, just as moral problems with other religions put me off to them; but they alone did not foster my atheism. There are logical problems I have with religions, including Christianity, that have been a much greater cause of my atheism – but that’s for another thread. I will say that often times believers will deride the morals of non-believers, yet at least some of them will defend to the nth degree those immoral passage like we’re discussing here. It’s a disconnect that I feel is necessary to point out.

@Mike_from_NJ

If something violates natural or moral law, then we can immediately conclude that the passage should not be read in that manner. That is the whole point of the video, and it’s not purely a modern interpretation. This topic has come up since the early days of Church.

That is dangerous way to look at any writing and is the opposite of truth-seeking.

Let’s break down what you said:
If [something written in a book I believe in] violates natural or moral law, then we can immediately conclude that the [passage in that book] should not be read in that manner.

Would you say that we can use that format for any book? Would you allow that for something like the Quran, The Book of Mormon, The Art of War, Mein Kampf (I know, I know, Godwin’s Law)? Or is it because you are going in with a presupposition that both the Bible and God can only be perfectly good? You can’t point to passages in the Bible to show it calls for violence, because doing so would show that it calls for violence! You can’t show God’s acts are violent, because do show would state that God’s acts are violent!

God still worked with the ancient Israelites in spite of their sinfulness to bring about their sanctification and salvation because he is compassionate and merciful. People are inconstant and unfaithful but God is faithful even if we aren’t.

As I mentioned upthread, a parent doesn’t teach his or her child to do wrong as a way to have that child later do right. It’s not as though God is silent on the matter of violence, but is advocating it specifically.

 

[TK421]

@Mike_from_NJ

The reason we can look at the Bible that way (as opposed to some other texts) is because we can read the collection of scriptures from beginning to end, and we can view everything in light of the climax, which as Bishop Barron pointed out, is the Lamb slain.

And then there is also the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, which provides teachings on moral or immoral behavior.

I agree that if you pick up a book and only read half the story that it can be very easy to come to a different conclusion, but that was never the purpose of the Old Testament. The Muslims in the 7th century picked up on bits and pieces of the Hebrew scriptures and took it at a very literal level, hence the tradition of military conquest. Or, Christians themselves read it in this fashion. Sometimes conservative/orthodox Jews read it in this fashion to justify reclaiming the historical Davidic Kingdom.

 

[Anesti33]

In the days of the sons of Israel, those direct orders from God were actually through His servant, Moses and his successors in the priesthood. What would “direct” orders from God look like in modern times?

Question never answered, must have got lost in thread.

 

[njlisa]

@Rhodesian Never heard of him commanding rape, do you have a chapter and verse?

Note: the practice I’m describing is offensive to me and I’m not advocating it.

Deuteronomy 21:10-14 sets rules for how a soldier can select a bride from
among captive women. It is not a commandment to rape.

Yes, the man is allowed to pick a woman and violate her. But there
many requirements before he is allowed to do so. After he does so,
they become husband and wife. He must provide for her for the rest
of her days. He cannot divorce her. As a wife, she can leave
if she wishes.

The responsibilities actually discourage men from raping women.

10 When you go out to war against your enemies and the Lord,
your God, delivers them into your power, so that you take captives,
11 if you see a beautiful woman among the captives and become
so enamored of her that you wish to have her as a wife,
12 and so you take her home to your house, she must shave her head,
cut her nails,
13 lay aside her captive’s garb, and stay in your house, mourning her
father and mother for a full month. After that, you may come to her,
and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife.
14 If later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom,
if she wishes it; you must not sell her for money. Do not enslave her,
since you have violated her.

 

[mjc1]

I believe that God did command Moses to kill them. They were such a depraved people, and had been tormenting the Israelites for many years, this may have been God’s Mercy for the Midianites. Don’t forget that God also sent the great flood, and saved the one righteous person and his family, Noah. While we do not know God’s “mind”, this may be His method to stop the insanity, sin. This may well come to pass today or someday in our own world, and while God’s mercy is beyond our ability to comprehend, I am certain he will exact punishment as He see’s fit, when He wants. There is no mention of “innocence” amongst the Midianites, and as I recall Abraham also attempted to intervene for those in Sodom and Gomorrah, but to no avail as there were no “innocents”. The children had seen such much depravity, I suspect anyway, that it was God’s mercy to slaughter all so it did not continue.

 

[Niblo]

We cannot put any limits on God

Greeting, Neithan.

I apologise for my delayed reply.

It is true that the Ash‘ari school of theology represents the creed (‘aqida ’) of the majority of Sunni Muslims; and has done so for over a thousand years.

It is equally true that a Muslim is not bound to accept a theological statement, merely because a scholar of his chosen school (Ash‘ari in my case) has made it. In the context of our conversation this matter has not yet arisen, since I know of no Islamic scholar who claims that Allāh (subḥānahu ūta’āla) commands genocide. It may be that you – or some other – might yet produce one who does!

To claim that the Beloved does not command genocide is not to akin to putting limits on His power. In what way is the exercise of mercy a sign of weakness?

May the Exalted bless you - and all you love - and keep you safe.

 

[mythbuster1]

I’m saying they deserved it because they were evil and they persisted in evil despite explicit and credible warning. There were no innocents, only obstinate evildoers who richly deserved their fate.