Elisha and the Bears

[SonCatcher]

2)Are you actually saying that you believe God murdered innocent babies?? Do you call that “watching over his chosen people”?

Why do you twist every one of your opponents’ words to make it sound like they promote God as a baby murderer? Christine’s post certainly did not portray Him in that way. Indeed, no one has in this thread, though you repeatedly accuse otherwise.

Please calm down.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

1. I am not ignoring the Book of Joshua, merely pointing out that the great majority of scholars see it as largely unhistorical; and that to see it as a modern history book means that you have to believe God is a very cruel being indeed, and this can’t be right. It is not meant to be read as a “blow by blow” account of what actually happened.

2)Are you actually saying that you believe God murdered innocent babies?? Do you call that “watching over his chosen people”?

3)Of course I agree that we must fear God, but not because he will rape us and kill our babies if we don’t!

I am saying that God favored the Jewish people. Look what happened in Egypt when Moses left with his people. What do you think Passover is all about?

Rape and murder and killing happen all the time. Death is a reality. God is merciful, but we shouldn’t question how he dispenses his mercy or his justice.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

1. I am not ignoring the Book of Joshua, merely pointing out that the great majority of scholars see it as largely unhistorical; and that to see it as a modern history book means that you have to believe God is a very cruel being indeed, and this can’t be right. It is not meant to be read as a “blow by blow” account of what actually happened.

2)Are you actually saying that you believe God murdered innocent babies?? Do you call that “watching over his chosen people”?

3)Of course I agree that we must fear God, but not because he will rape us and kill our babies if we don’t!

God does not murder. By His nature, He cannot murder.

And while I can’t speak for anybody but myself, even when I read modern history books I don’t make the mistake of thinking that modern 21st century standards applied to the 19th century, the 15th century, or the 15th century or more B.C.

You know, in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, I’m sure there were innocent babies there and I’m sure that God did not ‘murder’ them when He caused the destruction of those towns.

Perhaps we are meant to consider that just as Scripture tells us that God “sends the rain to fall on the just and the unjust” that innocent people may suffer as well as guilty people. . .but the point is that our earthly existence is only a prelude to our intended eternal heavenly existence. If an innocent person suffers on earth, surely that person will be ‘rewarded’ so to speak in heaven. Don’t we all believe that those who die in a state of grace (IOW, the ‘innocent’) will surely go to heaven?

Don’t you think that those innocents like that little 8-year-old boy so tragically murdered in Brooklyn the other day was loved by God as much as all the other little 8-year-old boys in the world that day? You don’t think that God didn’t love that boy because He ‘permitted’ that young man to kill the boy, right? God does permit evil because somehow He brings good out of it. We can’t see it now and I’m sure that most of us can’t see how there could EVER be any good out of this suffering . . .but somehow God will prevail.

And I trust Him. I trust in His Word (and no, I don’t think it HAS to be literal, but I also don’t think that if it seems ‘problematic’ that it HAS to be other than literal. I don’t want to box God in or bring Him down to my level, I need to expand my understanding and realize that there may be something ‘beyond’ my understanding that I just have to take on faith.)

 

[secondeve]

Why do you twist every one of your opponents’ words to make it sound like they promote God as a baby murderer? Christine’s post certainly did not portray Him in that way. Indeed, no one has in this thread, though you repeatedly accuse otherwise.

Please calm down.

Don’t be silly; you know very well what the debate has been about.

 

[Mark_David]

I thought I’d add something from St. Augustine (in a letter to Jerome, circa 394-395):

I think it is extremely dangerous to admit that anything in the Sacred Books should be a lie… If we once admit in that supreme authority even one polite lie, there will be nothing left of those books, because, whenever anyone finds something difficult to practice or hard to believe, he will follow this dangerous precedent and explain it as the idea or practice of a lying author.

 

[secondeve]

I am saying that God favored the Jewish people. Look what happened in Egypt when Moses left with his people. What do you think Passover is all about?

Rape and murder and killing happen all the time. Death is a reality. God is merciful, but we shouldn’t question how he dispenses his mercy or his justice.

Yes, rape and murder happen all the time, but what we are discussing is whether God commands his people to rape and murder. If these books are to be understood as histories, as “blow by blow” accounts of what actually happened, they give us a view of God which is cruel and satanic, a God who punishes children for the sins of their parents, who commands rape, murder, torture etc. This cannot be. Therefore, regarding the book of Joshua, we must accept what the great majority of scholars say, that the book is largely myth (in the sense that for the most part it doesn’t describe real events but stories). If we are prepared to follow what the majority of scholars hold, we no longer find ourselves in the embarrassing position of trying desparately to justify the cruel acts of a vengeful, evil deity who commands mass slaughter (have you read the Book of Joshua?).The same applies to books like Jonah, Job, the story of Noah’s Ark etc. These are stories, myths…not meant to be taken literally. We should not make of the Faith a laughing-stock by acting as though these stories are literally true. We have had brothers on this forum put off joining the Church because they thought to be a Catholic you have to believe that God once commanded mass murder and baby-killing. It is extremely uncharitable to allow this to go on.

Ask yourself this simple question: Do you really believe that the God of Love could command ethic cleansing and genocide? Do you seriously claim that he could have commanded the Israelites to show no mercy to innocent babies and women? Read the books and then come back and tell me.

 

[secondeve]

I thought I’d add something from St. Augustine (in a letter to Jerome, circa 394-395):

I think it is extremely dangerous to admit that anything in the Sacred Books should be a lie… If we once admit in that supreme authority even one polite lie, there will be nothing left of those books, because, whenever anyone finds something difficult to practice or hard to believe, he will follow this dangerous precedent and explain it as the idea or practice of a lying author.

A myth is not a lie; just a different kind of truth.

 

[SonCatcher]

Don’t be silly; you know very well what the debate has been about.

Of course I do. I also know that just because someone doesn’t agree with me doesn’t automatically mean that his position is untenable. There may very well be a good reason for the other position.

 

[secondeve]

Of course I do. I also know that just because someone doesn’t agree with me doesn’t automatically mean that his position is untenable. There may very well be a good reason for the other position.

Indeed there may; then again there may not.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Yes, rape and murder happen all the time, but what we are discussing is whether God commands his people to rape and murder. If these books are to be understood as histories, as “blow by blow” accounts of what actually happened, they give us a view of God which is cruel and satanic, a God who punishes children for the sins of their parents, who commands rape, murder, torture etc. This cannot be. Therefore, regarding the book of Joshua, we must accept what the great majority of scholars say, that the book is largely myth (in the sense that for the most part it doesn’t describe real events but stories). If we are prepared to follow what the majority of scholars hold, we no longer find ourselves in the embarrassing position of trying desparately to justify the cruel acts of a vengeful, evil deity who commands mass slaughter (have you read the Book of Joshua?).The same applies to books like Jonah, Job, the story of Noah’s Ark etc. These are stories, myths…not meant to be taken literally. We should not make of the Faith a laughing-stock by acting as though these stories are literally true. We have had brothers on this forum put off joining the Church because they thought to be a Catholic you have to believe that God once commanded mass murder and baby-killing. It is extremely uncharitable to allow this to go on.

Ask yourself this simple question: Do you really believe that the God of Love could command ethic cleansing and genocide? Do you seriously claim that he could have commanded the Israelites to show no mercy to innocent babies and women? Read the books and then come back and tell me.

I’ve read the books, it seems like you are the one who hasn’t.

In Exodus, God strikes down the firstborn of the Egyptians so that the Jewish people can be free from slavery. How do you interpret this? What part, if any, of the Bible do you take literally?

Even if this story is not literally true, it allegorically suggests that God favored the Jewish people over the Egyptians. Or do you have a different interpretation?

God does not automatically give everyone equal salvation. Only those who believe in him have a chance at salvation. Not one human being is “innocent” - we are all sinners.

How and why God does certain things, is not yours or mine to figure out. But it seem like you have it all figured out, although you do not answer any of the questions I have asked.

 

[secondeve]

I’ve read the books, it seems like you are the one who hasn’t.

In Exodus, God strikes down the firstborn of the Egyptians so that the Jewish people can be free from slavery. How do you interpret this? What part, if any, of the Bible do you take literally?

Even if this story is not literally true, it allegorically suggests that God favored the Jewish people over the Egyptians. Or do you have a different interpretation?

God does not automatically give everyone equal salvation. Only those who believe in him have a chance at salvation. Not one human being is “innocent” - we are all sinners.

How and why God does certain things, is not yours or mine to figure out. But it seem like you have it all figured out, although you do not answer any of the questions I have asked.

“I’ve read the books”. Then you really should be aware of the difficulties that so many have felt, including the OP.

“In Exodus, God strikes down the firstborn of the Egyptians so that the Jewish people can be free from slavery. How do you interpret this? What part, if any, of the Bible do you take literally?”

Clearly it is a story, bound up with Israel’s belief in itself as having been specially chosen by God. We today cannot reasonably take literally a story which claims the God of Love murdered innocent babies. As far as I am aware there is little historical evidence that the Israelites were ever slaves in Egypt, but it’s possible. I take literally the infancy narratives of Luke and Matthew, for example; but even here we must beware taking even the Gospels as always giving us a "blow by blow " account. With respect, you must learn to read the Bible in its historical context, NOT as a modern history book.

“Even if this story is not literally true, it allegorically suggests that God favored the Jewish people over the Egyptians. Or do you have a different interpretation?”

Yes, that is clearly what the Israelites believed about themselves. That they were in some sense “chosen” is true, but that is not the same as saying that God commanded them to commit heinous crimes. That would be a strange way to get them to behave morally!

“God does not automatically give everyone equal salvation. Only those who believe in him have a chance at salvation.” Are you seriously saying that all those who die as atheists or Buddhists go to Hell? The Church says otherwise.

“Not one human being is “innocent” - we are all sinners.” What? Even little babies? So God can do what he likes with us? You make God out to be Hitler.

“How and why God does certain things, is not yours or mine to figure out. But it seem like you have it all figured out, although you do not answer any of the questions I have asked”

With respect, this is a foolish statement, and is the sort of thing that drives away brothers and sisters from the Faith. God gave us brains and common sense to work things out. Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas brought about a revolution in understanding by demonstrating the importance of using reason to defend the Faith. Of course they were children of their time; they knew nothing of eg form criticism. Nonetheless, to claim, as you seem to, that we should blindly accept a literal interpretation of the Bible is to fly in the face of modern knowledge, common sense and also Divino Afflante Spiritu and Dei Verbum.

Finally, if (as you claim) you have “read the books” and specifically the Book of Joshua, can you really believe our God capable of ethnic cleansing and genocide such as a literal reading of that book requires?

 

[Le_Cracquere]

I don’t much care for the genre known as “Christian rock” … but if I ever started such a band, this thread’s title would be its name.

 

[SonCatcher]

“Not one human being is “innocent” - we are all sinners.” What? Even little babies?

Yes. Original Sin exists. Even little babies are marked by it. That is why we baptize them. It is not a sin of guilt, however, but of our fallen nature.

 

[secondeve]

Yes. Original Sin exists. Even little babies are marked by it. That is why we baptize them. It is not a sin of guilt, however, but of our fallen nature.

Your response is pointless. I was not denying Original Sin, just pointing out that you can’t justify genocide, and mass torture and murder of babies by claiming they are “sinners”. Babies are incapable of sinful acts, and we naturally refer to them as “innocent”.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

But death isn’t a punishment for sin per se, it’s a consequence.

Many righteous people such as Job, David, Abraham. . .died. Were they sinners? Well, they were all born in sin due to the Fall of Adam, and some had personal sin at time, but on the whole, they were righteous–much like the man who sins, repents, confesses, and is forgiven. And of course, babies can die before or after birth–no personal sin at all, but death is the consequence of the original sin.

That we all die does not justify genocide, but it does not make God a murderer or guilty of genocide through our creation.

If through what we consider ‘natural causes’ (perhaps a birth defect) a child dies in the womb. . .the death is a consequence of the child’s life. . .once born, death will come to us all. . .but I’m sure you don’t say that God personally ‘picked’ the child and decided, OK, this one will be my quota for the hour to die before being born, this unborn child is going to live to age 12 and die in a drive by shooting, this unborn child is going to live to age 72 and die from emphysema" etc.

But since God does create, and one of the consequences of being created is death, we are all ‘appointed’ by God to live and die in some span (however brief or long it may be). Any evil which occurs independent of God (such as somebody being killed by a drunk driver or by a soldier) is permitted by God because of free will, even though evil can result.

Now suppose a person is going to live a ‘happy’ life but in doing so he is going to sin so badly that he will wind up going to hell. Suppose this is a small child, still innocent, but living in such a situation that no matter what, he is going to be exposed to evil and by virtue of the great sins ‘of the fathers’ so to speak (IOW, generations of his people freely choosing to do evil, and to rejoice in and celebrate that evil) he will be corrupted and will freely do evil.

Suppose that God in His MERCY decides to take that child ‘home’ right now. Before the child can be corrupted. Instead of hell, that child will go to heaven.

Isn’t it just possible that those ‘innocents’ who died at the hands of soldiers at the bequest of God where thus being spared life as evil people and ultimate hell, and rather being given the gift of eternal life while they were still innocent and uncorrupted?

Since the ultimate evil is not death (which is only a consequence of life) but rejection of God and choice of hell, isn’t it merciful of God to give death (which we would have anyway) to a being before that being went on to become evil?

Is it WRONG of God to decide to call back a person AT ANY TIME? through ANY MEANS?

How can God be guilty of murder when He is God? It’s like saying that He’s guilty of murder through creating us, because once we are born, our ultimate end is inevitably death.

 

[Mark_David]

Suppose that God in His MERCY decides to take that child ‘home’ right now. Before the child can be corrupted. Instead of hell, that child will go to heaven.

Isn’t it just possible that those ‘innocents’ who died at the hands of soldiers at the bequest of God where thus being spared life as evil people and ultimate hell, and rather being given the gift of eternal life while they were still innocent and uncorrupted?

Since the ultimate evil is not death (which is only a consequence of life) but rejection of God and choice of hell, isn’t it merciful of God to give death (which we would have anyway) to a being before that being went on to become evil?

Is it WRONG of God to decide to call back a person AT ANY TIME? through ANY MEANS?

How can God be guilty of murder when He is God? It’s like saying that He’s guilty of murder through creating us, because once we are born, our ultimate end is inevitably death.

Everything you said was spot-on, Tantum Ergo. There’s no doubt in my mind that those murdered children mentioned in Joshua went straight to heaven; they’d committed no sin. One would have to come to the conclusion that the post-New Testament God is “evil” as well, since babies die every day. Furthermore, the Book of Job makes it clear that no evil is permitted without God’s permission; Satan, like the rest of us, is on a long leash. Ultimately, this isn’t just about the Book of Joshua - this is about questioning God’s will, for all times. But you also touched on another important point: this whole “argument” rests on the presumption that suffering and death are bad things. Anyone remotely familiar with the Bible and/or Christian theology should know otherwise. That is, unless you reject orthodoxy and hold to a New Age, one-sided, “lovey-dovey” view of God. Very naive and shortsighted, if not outright blasphemous and evil. Stripped to its simplest form, this argument is about human ego versus God.

 

[GEddie]

A myth is not a lie; just a different kind of truth.

So, Zeus, Thor, Odin, Gilgamesh et al are all true?

 

[Church_Militant]

I have never seen anything in the Bible that says this account is mythical, so I don’t buy that.

However, ever since I first read this story I have always thought that God has a lesson here for us about respecting clergy. Thus far, I have taken the hint…and been blessed with a lack of interaction with angry she bears.

 

[secondeve]

So, Zeus, Thor, Odin, Gilgamesh et al are all true?

Don’t be silly. You know I was talking about Biblical myth.