C
CWBetts
Guest
Au contraire, mon ami! According toDei Verbum, all of the Scriptures are infallible, as the Holy Spirit cannot inspire error.
- Status
R
Roy5
Guest
CWBetts
Code:
Sorry, but would God give the Hebrews the Ten Commandments, among them "Thou shalt not kill". and then order them to carry out such mass murders? I can't believe it. But since I don't believe it, I can read such OT accounts without losing my faith.
What does disturb me is when fundamentalists - Catholics and Protestants both - insist that the OT is true at all places. Poppycock. No wonder more and more people are abandoning organized religion if they are expected to believe that God was such a cold-hearted killer. The fact that some may have gone to heaven doesn't change the evilness of wholesale slaughter. I suspect that all innocent babies who are aborted go to heaven. Does that justify abortion? We need to be consistent in our teaching.
God bless all his creatures, and may religion become a bridge rather than a barrier!
C
CWBetts
Guest
The Bible, both Old and new Testaments, are true in all places insofar as when assertions are being made.
M
marymichael10
Guest
Au contraire good sir. While all scripture is infallible, what I meant was that the Old COVENANT was fallible, while the New Covenant is perfect and eternal. Sorry for any confusion I caused.
Nontheless, we (or atleast, I) must accept that the creation story was more poetic than literal. Pope Benedict has made it clear that evolution and the Big Bang might be scientifically true, but neither diminishes the teaching found in the stories. What matters is that God created the universe, and personally creates each individual soul for Himself. Thus scripture is infallible, but not literal, in select cases.
What is being discussed is the atrocities in the OT and how they (to some) are too much against the teachings of Christ. But that’s why Christ came! To set things straight!
The Holy Ghost cannot inspire error. Well said.
N
nickybr38
Guest
Who are we to question God?
The same scriptures that you are dismissing, Jesus Himself quoted.
The God of the Old Testament had His reasons for committing the ‘atrocities’ you speak of and it’s not for us to know why He did what He did or ordered what He ordered… but when we decide to dismiss certain scripture because it is offensive to us and/or seems contradictory then we put ourselves in a very dangerous position.
One thing we must all understand is that God knows all, sees all, understands all… when He orders the destruction of an entire race of people He does so because it’s necessary. While we are limited in our vision He sees the future and removes things that will cause greater grief.
I’m a fan of analogies so here’s one for you.
If a parent sees their child reaching out to touch a flame does he stop his child, remove the flame, or let the child touch the flame and thus be burnt? Sometimes the parent lets his child get burnt as a way of learning a lesson… sometimes tragedy happens and instead of getting burnt mildly the child ends up tipping the candle over and lighting himself on fire and the result is either death and / or permanent injury. Now reimagine… if the parent has the ability to see the future and knows the candle will tip and kill his child the only action this parent will take is to remove the flame completely. That would be the loving action.
So, now use this same analogy in the case of the ‘evils’ that the OT God supposedly commited. Say the peoples he destroyed would have led to the spiritual death of mankind. Perhaps they would have killed the Jewish people completely. We don’t know, but God did and He acted accordingly.
Anyway, that’s how I understand it and make sense of it.
The same scriptures that you are dismissing, Jesus Himself quoted.
The God of the Old Testament had His reasons for committing the ‘atrocities’ you speak of and it’s not for us to know why He did what He did or ordered what He ordered… but when we decide to dismiss certain scripture because it is offensive to us and/or seems contradictory then we put ourselves in a very dangerous position.
One thing we must all understand is that God knows all, sees all, understands all… when He orders the destruction of an entire race of people He does so because it’s necessary. While we are limited in our vision He sees the future and removes things that will cause greater grief.
I’m a fan of analogies so here’s one for you.
If a parent sees their child reaching out to touch a flame does he stop his child, remove the flame, or let the child touch the flame and thus be burnt? Sometimes the parent lets his child get burnt as a way of learning a lesson… sometimes tragedy happens and instead of getting burnt mildly the child ends up tipping the candle over and lighting himself on fire and the result is either death and / or permanent injury. Now reimagine… if the parent has the ability to see the future and knows the candle will tip and kill his child the only action this parent will take is to remove the flame completely. That would be the loving action.
So, now use this same analogy in the case of the ‘evils’ that the OT God supposedly commited. Say the peoples he destroyed would have led to the spiritual death of mankind. Perhaps they would have killed the Jewish people completely. We don’t know, but God did and He acted accordingly.
Anyway, that’s how I understand it and make sense of it.
R
Roy5
Guest
I can’t believe that God, one with Christ who commanded us to love our enemies, would order the wholesale murder of entire populations by invading armies taking their land.
My God is a God of justice, mercy, peace and love. Sorry about yours.
M
Major_Tom
Guest
Seeing as how I’ve used many parent/child analogies myself, I have to be careful what I say…!
So to save a child, the source of a potential injury may need to be removed. But in this case, the potential source of injury was… other people. So in order to save his child (Israel), God had to kill… another one of his children? Aren’t we all God’s childern, having been given his grace?
Let’s revert to another parent/child analogy then: could anyone kill their child to save another child?
I’ll invoke the ‘slippery slope’ argument here. Taken too far, this rationale (God knowing no limits in defending his people) can excuse the most intolerable of people and acts.
N
nickybr38
Guest
I’ll choose the slippery slope too and say this;Seeing as how I’ve used many parent/child analogies myself, I have to be careful what I say…!
So to save a child, the source of a potential injury may need to be removed. But in this case, the potential source of injury was… other people. So in order to save his child (Israel), God had to kill… another one of his children? Aren’t we all God’s childern, having been given his grace?
Let’s revert to another parent/child analogy then: could anyone kill their child to save another child?
I’ll invoke the ‘slippery slope’ argument here. Taken too far, this rationale (God knowing no limits in defending his people) can excuse the most intolerable of people and acts.
How is not detestable to believe He lets people suffer eternally in hell but not detestable to believe He terminated temporary lives?
N
nickybr38
Guest
Your God allow people to exist in eternal torment. As does mine.
M
Major_Tom
Guest
Easily! I don’t believe in the concept of eternal hell.
N
nickybr38
Guest
Just realized I put an extra word in there but you got my point. Heh.As to the topic: All rightie then. I don’t think following the New Testament teachings alone is something that’s necessarily dangerous for Christians to do so if that’s what you choose that’s fine.
But try to remember we wouldn’t have the New without the Old.
M
marymichael10
Guest
EXACTLY! the point I’ve been making all along.But try to remember we wouldn’t have the New without the Old.
I don’t refute that God: Father, Jesus Christ, and Holy Spirit, is a God of justice, mercy, peace, and love. Justice would be the key word here in relation to the discussion. His justice is certain. Hence, Hell. Those who reject God, God rejects. In the times of Noah, all rejected Him, and so He rejected them.
In the times of Sodom and Gomorrah, the angel of destruction was asked by Lot, “If there is one innocent person, will you destroy the cities?” The angel responded, “If there is even one innocent person, I will not destroy them.”
The city was destroyed. God’s justice prevailed.
Jesus said love your enemies, but also to wipe the dust from your feet if people don’t accept you, and that “It would be worse for them than Sodom and Gomorrah.” The point being: life is a test from God. If we fail, He rejects us. Despite the greatness and abyss of His mercy, He won’t save those who don’t care to be saved.
C
CathFaith1
Guest
Precisely because Jesus was God (the same God) could it give him authority over the Word of God (i.e., “ye have heard it said”) and command more of His people (i.e., “but I say unto you”). God has not changed yet the relationship with His people have.
M
Major_Tom
Guest
I agree with Roy. I don’t understand…
I’m curoius what metric the ‘angel of destruction’ used. As Roy pointed out, there were likely infants and mothers in both towns. So this angel destroyed wicked unborn children, wicked infants, wicked toddlers, wicked children… you get the wicked point. I may have to revisit the ‘free will’/predestination threads to try and make sense of how wickedness is measured in the womb, and how that relates to “God’s jusitce”.
M
marymichael10
Guest
I can’t really answer a question like that. I can’t answer for the angel who acted on behalf of God, to destroy those cities. I can’t answer for God. I know that I shouldn’t question God. I don’t presume to know the answer to why He did what He did, and does what He does. The only thing I can say is what I’ve already said:
The soul lives forever; so if there were innocent people there, it would’ve been God’s right to decide there eternal destiny. If we’re talking about kids and infants, I can’t imagine God would have them die because of anything they did, but because of what their *parents *did; hence, they had not fault so were not guilty of the sins of their parents. I think both Lot and the angel were speaking of the adults; who openly rejected God and goodness for open orgies and human sacrifices.
Also, bodily death itself is a consequence of sin. So God, in His providence and omnipotence, simply ended their lives because of their sin. As for the children (as compared to abortion), God won’t condemn those who haven’t any knowledge of free will yet. So if He ended their lives (and as the author of life itself, He has every right), He didn’t spare them eternal life through the merits of Jesus; perhaps He didn’t want them to grow up and be like their parents: perverts and murderers.
I think this is why the Church will make no official teaching on unbaptized souls getting to Heaven, but simply ‘we must entrust them to the mercy of God.’ The Church doesn’t want people to think, ‘Well I can have an abortion because the baby will go to Heaven anyway.’ The ‘people’ who think that way have perhaps sent that baby to Heaven, but totally condemned themselves.
M
marymichael10
Guest
“Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you blessed of my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the foundation of the world…Then He will say to those on His left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the **eternal fire **prepared for the devil and His angels’…Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” (Matthew 25:34-46)
?
- Status