Did God tell the Jews to commit genocide?

[FrancisFan43]

Yes, He did.

Re-read 1 Samuel 15 again. Not only did God command King Saul to genocide the Amalec, but to kill all the animals as well. King Saul did not follow His orders to the “t” and God was angry enough to take Saul’s divine right as king away.

Remember God does things for a reason. The Amalec we’re perverse and diseased (they were Molec worshipers after all) plus the animals were diseased Beyond Redemption. To let any of them live would be detrimental to the health of Israel. They were God’s enemy and God commanded they be destroyed.

 

[EndTimes]

Re-read 1 Samuel 15 again. Not only did God command King Saul to genocide the Amalec, but to kill all the animals as well.

And that action did not auto-bar Amalec from inheriting Eternal Life.

 

[goout]

You are assuming that killing women and children are God’s literalist command. We know there are many instances where the Scriptures should not be read in literalist fashion, like the fundamentalists do. This would seem to be one of those occasions. And we should not assume that scripture passages are any less Inspired or applicable if we read them with a full spiritual sense that gives meaning to the literal passage. These things are in scripture, and they are detailed for a reason, and they contribute to salvation in God’s way. But they don’t have to be literalist to work in God’s plan. That limits God’s will to human words in modern understandings, and we are not to do that.

There is a difference between
1 natural occurring disasters that take lives which are not human actions that can be evaluated,
2 And the human action of killing which can be evaluated morally.

And you have to apply what we know of God’s revealing of himself in Christ. That is the fullest revelation of God.
If you have a chance read Pope Benedict’s Regensburg address which discusses this in comparison to Islam’s arbitrary view of God’s will.

 

[EndTimes]

You are assuming that killing women and children are God’s literal ist command.

Do you have any supportive argument to the contention that that specific command of God was not literal?

 

[goout]

goout:

You are assuming that killing women and children are God’s literal ist command.

Do you have any supportive argument to the contention that that specific command of God was not literal?

Jesus Christ. He is my “argument”.

By natural reason man can know God with certainty, on the basis of his works. But there is another order of knowledge, which man cannot possibly arrive at by his own powers: the order of divine Revelation.1 Through an utterly free decision, God has revealed himself and given himself to man. This he does by revealing the mystery, his plan of loving goodness, formed from all eternity in Christ, for the benefit of all men. God has fully revealed this plan by sending us his beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.

P Benedict emphasizes this:
See here sec 42:
http://www.vatican.va/content/bened...ts/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini.html

And the whole document, really. To have a sense for the Church’s view of the bible, in living Tradition.

 

[goout]

goout:

Jesus Christ. He is my argument.
See here sec 42:

And the whole document, really. To have a sense for the Church’s view of the bible, in living Tradition.

So because of Jesus, you don’t take any command by God to harm someone as literal?
I’m sorry, but that is just looking at scripture dishonetly

So you make another unfounded assumption that I don’t understand the Church’s teaching on Scripture senses, then call me dishonest, when I am in fact quoting you CHURCH TEACHING at the highest level.

Can you and others simply respond to what our pastors say?
Leave me out of it please.

 

[goout]

I don’t think you read the whole thing.
But…l don’t want to make assumptions so…you are free to do what you please I will move on.

 

[EndTimes]

Jesus Christ. He is my “argument”.

Unto itself … that’s no argument whatsoever…
Your prior 'fundamentalist" argument didn’t support a non-literal contention either. ’
It’s maybe this maybe that guesswork…

_

 

[goout]

goout:

Sinner85:

goout:

Jesus Christ. He is my argument.
See here sec 42:

And the whole document, really. To have a sense for the Church’s view of the bible, in living Tradition.

So because of Jesus, you don’t take any command by God to harm someone as literal?
I’m sorry, but that is just looking at scripture dishonetly

So you make another unfounded assumption that I don’t understand the Church’s teaching on Scripture senses, then call me dishonest, when I am in fact quoting you CHURCH TEACHING at the highest level.

Can you and others simply respond to what our pastors say?
Leave me out of it please.

Noted. and I did below this post.
Please don’t take this message board so serious. This isn’t personal.

I do take it seriously when hordes of young people are told God contradicts himself, that God is in fact violent and arbitrarily so, and those hordes run screaming from the Church when Catholics provide support for their moral sensibilities.

As a catechist, and father, and active Catholic I take that very seriously.

 

[FrancisFan43]

I’ll give you another chance to re-phrase your last post.

Amalec was God’s enemy. Why would God give the Amalec Eternal Life? They burn their babies in cow shaped ovens. They fornicate with anything that moves (hence why the animals were diseased). They abuse drugs and use it as a means of control (pharmakeia). They are barbarians.

Do you honesty think this world would be better off with these people around? Do you think the Kingdom of Israel would have survived as long as it did if they tolerated the Amalec as their neighbors?

 

[goout]

goout:

I don’t think you read the whole thing.
But…l don’t want to make assumptions so…you are free to do what you please I will move on.

I did read the whole thing a couple of times and I don’t see how you came to the conclusion to did. It doesn’t say that these passages should not be interpreted literally. It says the reader should keep in mind the cultural norms of the day. In fact, section 42 further cements my belief that these passages are to be taken literally

Nope.
The cultural context is held up next to Christ, the ultimate hermeneutical key.
Benedict speaks about the immorality detailed in the old Testament, the denunciation of the prophets, and Christ as the fulfillment of scripture.

But have a great day. If we read the same document in such wildly disparate ways, and others in the Church support an alternative reading from yours… I have to go.

 

[EndTimes]

I do take it seriously when hordes of young people are told God contradicts himself, that God is in fact violent and arbitrarily so, and those hordes run screaming from the Church when Catholics provide support for their moral sensibilities.

As a catechist, and father, and active Catholic I take that very seriously.

So do I … but that drifts from your actually not-well supported contention re: a specific incident…

 

[goout]

goout:

I do take it seriously when hordes of young people are told God contradicts himself, that God is in fact violent and arbitrarily so, and those hordes run screaming from the Church when Catholics provide support for their moral sensibilities.

As a catechist, and father, and active Catholic I take that very seriously.

So do I … but that drifts from your actually not-well supported contention re: a specific incident…

No it doesn’t.
My post addressed another person directly.

You post a lot here. But you have a habit of avoiding hard issues that might ask you to consider the Church’s specific living Tradition. Reflexing to banter doesn’t address those issues. Just my observation.
Have a blessed day.

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

You keep saying “the Church’s view” as though it’s unanimous. It’s not. One needn’t adhere to your or the Pope emeritus’ view on the matter to be a Catholic in good standing.

 

[EndTimes]

But you have a habit of avoiding hard issues that might ask you to consider the Church’s specific living Tradition

You seem to have a habit of saying things yet avoiding showing things when asked to…

Such as: What Hard Issues? Be specific… Show me…

_

 

[EndTimes]

We probably have a different opinion on why people are leaving the faith. But that is for another thread

Agreed… Circa 1970 was as a watershed year … Catholic Stats began crumbling… And continue to.

 

[goout]

You keep saying “the Church’s view” as though it’s unanimous. It’s not. One needn’t adhere to your or the Pope emeritus’ view on the matter to be a Catholic in good standing.

True that.
Freedom
Freedom is not license. The freedom we have as Catholics does not give us license. I am free to interpret Jesus’ healings as evidence that God will heal my children of coronavirus without the help of doctors. That is an exercise of my freedom. It’s also radical license that ignores other areas of revelation (small r).

Genesis speaks of a hammered metal dome in the sky. Am I free to interpret that passage in any way I like? Sure. Does my freedom give me license to reject basic science? No.
Genesis speaks of six day creation. Am I free to interpret those passages as I like? Sure. Does my freedom give me license to ignore basic science? No.

Freedom of belief is not license.
While we are free to intepret Scripture any way please, and in ways that might even be supported by some Catholic sources, that freedom does not give us license to ignore the light of Christ, which is the ultimate hermeneutical key to the Scriptures.
http://www.vatican.va/content/bened...ts/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini.html
We do not have license to set Christ as subservient to literalist interpretations of any scripture passage. Or as anything other than God’s full revelation of himself, and God’s revelation of his disposition towards humanity.
You are free to interpret the bible with many progressives, the “baby-head dashers”, who claim the scriptures do not speak about abortion but actually provide for the right to kill one’s children in certain circumstances. Right? You are free to interpret the scriptures that way. But that freedom does not give you license to ignorance in the whole range of Church morality.
And this is the glaring issue: if you are going to claim this kind of absolute freedom, you will have a hard time making the case for Church dogma in many areas. Considering an issue as morally grave as genocide, don’t expect to convince if you claim subjective license in the name of freedom.

Freedom of belief is not license.

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

True that.

Should have stopped there.

Freedom is not license .

Not agreeing with you isn’t taking license. Agreeing with Sts. Chrysostom, Agustine and Aquinas instead of you isn’t license. I assume you know that since you didn’t address the quotes.

Irrelevant passages are of no interest to me. Reductio ad absurdum is also of no interest. Even though you deny the validity of interpretations other than your own and have tried to imply I’m either not Catholic or am a bad Catholic for doing so, I forgive you and may God bless you.

 

[franklinstower]

I disagree. Truth should always be sought, even at the expense of losing others. We should hide from hard teachings or hard scripture because it might offend someone.

Your take on these scriptures is not a necessary truth though and that is the point.

This is a case of us NOT knowing for certain what the intent of the authors was, at least according the the Catholic Church. Because it is NOT necessary to hold these positions and because these position are helping atheists take people away from Christ and salvation, and because salvation itself does not hinge upon a specific stance on these scriptures, it is creating a stumbling block to Christ to hold them publicly.

It is easy to see how holding to a literal interpretation could be palatable to someone who already believes in God and telling that person you hold to a literal position would not be a stumbling block, but leading with this (which is my only objection) is working against the purposes of Christ in terms of bringing people into Christ and salvation.

 

[EndTimes]

Genesis speaks of a hammered metal dome in the sky. Am I free to interpret that passage in any way I like? Sure. Does my freedom give me license to reject basic science? No.

That ‘freedom’ refers to your Free Will - which is freedom to do anything: Good and/or Bad.
God’s Holy Spirit is the One and Only Interpreter of Scriptures
We are never bound to have to refer to Man’s Science …