Flogging a dead horse

[PeterJ]

An argument against Biblical inerrancy based on 1 Samuel:

I will now attempt to prove that the following statements are incompatible and thus constitute an intuitive argument against biblical inerrancy:

1.) I am certain that the Bible contains the inerrant commands of God
2.) I would never disobey God
3.) God can never command evil
And
4.) I would never will to kill an infant

1 Samuel speaks of Saul’s destruction of the Amalekites:

1 Then Samuel said to Saul, “The LORD sent me to anoint you as king over His people, over Israel; now therefore, listen to the words of the LORD. 2 “Thus says the LORD of hosts, ‘I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt. 3 ‘Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” - NASB

Thus according to the Bible God sometimes commands the death of infants.

(3) and (1) entail that the genocide committed by King Saul was justified.

The combination of 1 Samuel (2) and (1) entail that the believer must assert that if he were one of King Saul’s soldiers he would partake in the murder of children certain of God’s command.
Thus the combination of (1) and (2) is incompatible with (4)

Thus the believer must reject (4)

The believer may retort that of course it is morally licit to kill an infant if it is commanded by God, well possibly you are right, but how sure are you that God actually commanded this genocide? So sure that if you were one of King Saul’s soldiers you would kill a child? Is your faith that strong?

Objection 1

It may be moral to kill an infant if God commands it. God would not allow me to kill an infant without sufficient evidence - a sign.

Reply to objection 1

The Bible is all the evidence one needs if one accepts that it is the inerrant word of God.

Objection 2

The Catholic church does not teach total inerrancy, it is possible that some areas of the Bible may be factually incorrect. Some may point out that the NAB commentary on the USCCB site condemns Samuel’s actions [1].

Reply to objection 2

Is the USCCB even orthodox on this issue? I was always under the impression that the CC taught total inerrancy.

Even so, the Church teaches that the Bible is infallible regarding matters of faith and morals. The killing of children in this case is clearly a moral action, as it is said to have been commanded by God, and God cannot order immorality.

The only alternative is to say that 1.) the Bible is only inerrant regarding matters of faith and morals and 2.) Samuel lied and was not spoken to by God.

But this scenario is rather farfetched, and leads to the conclusion that the passage is meaningless.

Objection 3

This secenario would never happen.

Reply to objection 3

Why does that matter? The point of the argument is to show the believer that if he were in a certain situation he would have to kill an infant, it does not matter that the situation would never happen. The argument is intended to expose the immorality of the Bible.

[1] - usccb.org/nab/bible/1samuel/1samuel15.htm#foot1

 

[mark_a]

. . . . but how sure are you that God actually commanded this genocide? So sure that if you were one of King Saul’s soldiers you would kill a child? Is your faith that strong?

Nope. It’s not and I wouldn’t.

Would I drop a bomb on a village where there presumably are infants? Not at this point in my life, but maybe when I was younger. . . .

Would I, knowing I was on a suicide mission, hijack a plane and fly it into skyscrapers where there may be infants. Absolutely not.

One last thing, for Catholics the bible is not a book of facts. It is a book of truths (with proper interpretation, of course).

 

[rwoehmke]

You are right, that horse is dead ten times over. Next question.

 

[PeterJ]

You are right, that horse is dead ten times over. Next question.

If you don’t mind me asking, what is your personal solution to this problem?

 

[PeterJ]

Bump

 

[PeterJ]

Does no one find this argument compelling? It is one of the reasons I left the Catholic faith.

[EDIT] - the original argument should read:

The believer may retort that of course it is morally licit to kill an infant if it is commanded by God, well possibly you are right, but how sure are you that God actually commanded this genocide? So sure that if you were one of King Saul’s soldiers you would kill a child based solely on the testimony of the Bible? Is your faith that strong?

 

[MarcoPolo]

Objection 1

It may be moral to kill an infant if God commands it. God would not allow me to kill an infant without sufficient evidence - a sign.

Reply to objection 1

The Bible is all the evidence one needs if one accepts that it is the inerrant word of God.

How does your reply refute the objection here?

 

[PeterJ]

5.) I am certain that the Bible contains the inerrant commands of God
6.) I would never disobey God
7.) The Bible states that God ordered King Saul’s soldiers to commit genocide.
8.) If I was one of King Saul’s soldiers I would massacre infants

Notice how faith in the inerrancy of the Bible results in the believer having to assert that he would commit genocide under certain conditions based on no evidence save the Bible itself.

How does your reply refute the objection here?

Why would God give a sign when he has provided an infallible guide in the form of the Bible? Does infallibility not suffice!?

Is your faith in the inerrancy of the Bible this strong?

 

[Della]

5.) I am certain that the Bible contains the inerrant commands of God
6.) I would never disobey God
7.) The Bible states that God ordered King Saul’s soldiers to commit genocide.
8.) If I was one of King Saul’s soldiers I would massacre infants

Notice how faith in the inerrancy of the Bible results in the believer having to assert that he would commit genocide under certain conditions based on no evidence save the Bible itself.

Why would God give a sign when he has provided an infallible guide in the form of the Bible? Does infallibility not suffice!?

Is your faith in the inerrancy of the Bible this strong?

The inerrancy of the Bible has nothing whatsoever to do with what was commanded in the OT in another culture, in another world (culturally speaking), in the time before Christ when God’s justice was meted out without mercy because the Day of the Lord had not yet come–when Mercy would be poured out on the world. You are naively judging cultures of the ancient world against the day of grace (modern times), which Christ brought into the world by his death and resurrection.

We aren’t under Saul’s authority, but Christ’s authority. We are under the authority of Christ’s Church, not OT kings/leaders. No Catholic will be asked to make war against other nations in God’s name. As Paul put it we are not in a battle against principalities and powers but against sin and evil. It is the Church that tamed the wild world and laid the foundations of Western civilization. We believe in waging just wars–wars of defense not wars of aggression. And yes, the Crusades were wars of defense–read some good history on the topic.

Why will people who know little or nothing about these things decide they know better than God and his Christ what is expected of us and what isn’t? Indeed, doing so is a beating dead horse. It only leads to people breaking faith with and losing faith in the Person who is truth, justice, mercy, love, beauty–in short all the things we desire most in life. What do they teach in these schools these days?

 

[PeterJ]

The inerrancy of the Bible has nothing whatsoever to do with what was commanded in the OT in another culture, in another world (culturally speaking), in the time before Christ when God’s justice was meted out without mercy because the Day of the Lord had not yet come–when Mercy would be poured out on the world. You are naively judging cultures of the ancient world against the day of grace (modern times), which Christ brought into the world by his death and resurrection.

I would not call my judgement naive, it still seems barbaric - and rightly so to most non-Christians.

We aren’t under Saul’s authority, but Christ’s authority. We are under the authority of Christ’s Church, not OT kings/leaders. No Catholic will be asked to make war against other nations in God’s name. As Paul put it we are not in a battle against principalities and powers but against sin and evil. It is the Church that tamed the wild world and laid the foundations of Western civilization. We believe in waging just wars–wars of defense not wars of aggression. And yes, the Crusades were wars of defense–read some good history on the topic.

This is not what I said. I said If one was one of King Saul’s soldiers. I was speaking in the past tense - I said nothing about the present.

If you were one of Saul’s soldiers (i.e if you had been born in that era) would you commit this Genocide? Based on what you know about the Bible?

Why will people who know little or nothing about these things decide they know better than God and his Christ what is expected of us and what isn’t?

Are you accusing me of ignorance? Can’t you at least be cordial?

Indeed, doing so is a beating dead horse. It only leads to people breaking faith with and losing faith in the Person who is truth, justice, mercy, love, beauty–in short all the things we desire most in life.

I wouldn’t describe the Christian God as just, especially after reflecting on the Old Testament.

What do they teach in these schools these days?

Are you implying that I go to school? Why is it that every time I post on these forums all I receive are endless *ad hominem *attacks?

 

[clmowry]

I think your missing the whole point of the story.

The point is not that God wanted Amalek, all his people and his possessions destroyed.

The point of the story is that Saul did not do what God told him to do and was punished for it.

Similarly, God told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, the point is not that God wanted Isaac murdered.

The point is that Abraham was willing to do whatever God asked of him and was rewarded for it.

Chuck

 

[MarcoPolo]

Why would God give a sign when he has provided an infallible guide in the form of the Bible? Does infallibility not suffice!?

I do not understand. You are saying anything we need to do must come to us in the form of a direct command from Scripture alone?

 

[PeterJ]

I do not understand. You are saying anything we need to do must come to us in the form of a direct command from Scripture alone?

No.

I am saying that if scripture is infallible then that is all the motivation (to commit genocide) that one needs. Why would the believer ask for a sign if he believes that he has the infallible word of God in his hand?

 

[Della]

I would not call my judgement naive, it still seems barbaric - and rightly so to most non-Christians.

I don’t think anyone can claim to speak for most non-Christians. Anyway, yes it was barbaric according to OUR standards, but the ancients weren’t living by our standards.

This is not what I said. I said If one was one of King Saul’s soldiers. I was talking In the past tense - I said nothing about today.

If you were one of Saul’s soldiers (i.e if you had been born in that era) would you commit the Genocide? Based on what you know about the Bible?

Genocide is your word for waging total war not mine nor what the authors of the OT were talking about. Nations waged war in that fashion in those times–it was quite common and understood by all. Knowing that, I would go to war as a soldier in Saul’s army and carry out his commands. However, you did give the impression modern day believers would commit genocide–inadvertently I now see, but you did–not that I hold your wording against you now that you’ve explained what you meant.

Are you accusing me of ignorance?

Everyone is ignorant of a good many things–I certainly am. This just happens to be one of the things you seem to know little about and yet you left the Church over it. I’m not accusing you of being negligent only of letting yourself be persuaded without having all the facts. People do that sort of thing all the time, too. We all make important decisions based on faulty information–to our own cost, me included.

Della:

Indeed, doing so is a beating dead horse. It only leads to people breaking faith with and losing faith in the Person who is truth, justice, mercy, love, beauty–in short all the things we desire most in life.

I wouldn’t describe the Christian God as these things, especially after reflecting on the Old Testament.

Because you don’t understand the Hebrew Scriptures not because God isn’t all those things. The OT tells us how God dealt with his Chosen People and all the other nations who did not worship him alone. It’s meant to tell us certain truths not meet our approbation. God revealed (and still reveals) himself to us as he sees fit when he sees fit. Besides, why should you be all worked up over the fate of people long dead? It’s our own fate we need to be concerned about–that and our neighbor’s not peoples who never sought your or my understanding or pity, and still probably wouldn’t.

Are you implying I go to school? I don’t.

No, I’m not implying you are in school. I was bemoaning the fact that our modern schools no longer teach anything except modern sensibilities, which are only our own conceits in disguise. People now days have almost no conception of ancient life and cultures. We judge everything based on what we think they ought to have known or done. But, they wouldn’t have cared what we think about their lives and their actions. They are long gone and if they are permitted to do so, are waiting to see what we will do with the time God has given us. That is all we are responsible for, after all.

 

[PeterJ]

Genocide is your word for waging total war not mine nor what the authors of the OT were talking about. Nations waged war in that fashion in those times–it was quite common and understood by all. Knowing that,** I would go to war as a soldier in Saul’s army and carry out his commands**. However, you did give the impression modern day believers would commit genocide–inadvertently I now see, but you did–not that I hold your wording against you now that you’ve explained what you meant.

Don’t you think this is bad? We are talking about the massacre of children! How is this mentality any better than that of the Islamic terrorist who indiscriminately kills the innocent? Because you ‘just know’ that you are right? So - I believe - does the terrorist.

 

[MarcoPolo]

No.

I am saying that if scripture is infallible then that is all the motivation (to commit genocide) that one needs. Why would the believer ask for a sign if he believes that he has the infallible word of God in his hand?

Who is the Bible telling us to commit genocide on right now?

 

[PeterJ]

Who is the Bible telling us to commit genocide on right now?

That’s not what I said. Perhaps it would help if you read over my argument again.

 

[Della]

Don’t you think this is bad? We are talking about the massacre of children! How is this mentality any better than that of the Islamic terrorist who indiscriminately kills the innocent? Because you ‘just know’ that you are right? So - I believe - does the terrorist.

Ah, I thought we were talking about “what if” I was living in Saul’s time, living according to their sensibilities and their means of warfare. Putting myself in that place, that culture, that time, I would do the same as the Israelites did–and as all other cultures did at the time. Why do you keep on insisting on seeing their times through modern eyes, devoid of any understanding of what they were fighting for and why they were commanded to go to war? It doesn’t make any sense.

I’ve already explained they were living BEFORE the day of grace. God exacted terrible justice–the same justice we would receive IF Christ hadn’t died for our sins and brought the grace of God’s redemption to everyone.

Are you even reading anything apart from what you think you can make hay of? If not, then this discussion is a waste of your time and mine and will do you little good (I won’t say no good because God can plant seeds in our hearts that bloom later). I’m truly puzzled here.

 

[Cpl_Ferro]

The OP’s question is simple to answer: Of course one would be right to kill whomever God commanded to kill. The real problem is in believing the messenger. If my king commands me to kill, how do I know he is really in touch with God, or else crazy, or evil, or in touch with a devil? Belief in “the Bible” or in God has nothing to do with it; it comes down to an epistological problem of why believe the king when he has ordered you to do something which ordinary morality would not sanction.

 

[yesukristus]

At the risk of sounding like an Islamic terrorist, yes, if God wants me to kill someone then I would obey God. However I would make sure that the message is really from God in the first place, like Abraham is 100% sure it was God who ordered him to sacrifice his son Isaac. Fortunately for me nowhere in the New Testament is there an order for me as a believer to kill any human being. So the chances of God actually ordering me to kill is pretty small.