Genocide in the Bible: does this trouble anyone else?

  • Thread starter Thread starter StudentMI
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
goout said:
The word I bolded: “can”. What does that mean?
Click to expand...
He’s eventually gonna take all our lives away eventually.

The only issue is whether we will resurrect to eternal glory or to eternal shame.
 
Gorgias said:
However, SMI seems to want to suggest that it must be both, and that’s where he’s mistaken, I’m afraid.
Click to expand...
Hmmmm. No, not sure anymore. As I said, perhaps this and perhaps that. That article I posted was very good.
 
The only explanation that I have is that there are just some things that we do not understand. In 1st Corinthians, it talks about us “seeing through a mirror darkly.” I interpret this as indicating that we will not understand everything in this life. But it goes on to say, “We will know as we are fully known.” This – to me – means that we will understand later, probably when we are in Heaven. Some things in this life are beyond our understanding. Through faith, we accept this as best we can.
 
I took a look at the article. I will read it carefully later, as time provides. Thank you.
 
I quote here some key excerpts from “The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church” Presented by the Pontifical Biblical Commission to Pope John Paul II on April 23, 1993. I think this document should be instructive to anyone prone to overly emphasize literalism in the OT.
Fundamentalist interpretation starts from the principle that the Bible, being the word of God, inspired and free from error, should be read and interpreted literally in all its details. But by “literal interpretation” it understands a naively literalist interpretation, one, that is to say, which excludes every effort at understanding the Bible that takes account of its historical origins and development.
Click to expand...
Fundamentalism also places undue stress upon the inerrancy of certain details in the biblical texts, especially in what concerns historical events or supposedly scientific truth. It often historicizes material which from the start never claimed to be historical. It considers historical everything that is reported or recounted with verbs in the past tense, failing to take the necessary account of the possibility of symbolic or figurative meaning.
Click to expand...
The literal sense is not to be confused with the “literalist” sense to which fundamentalists are attached.
Click to expand...
The above definition allows us to draw some useful conclusions of a more precise nature concerning the relationship between the spiritual and literal senses:
Click to expand...
Contrary to a current view, there is not necessarily a distinction between the two senses. When a biblical text relates directly to the paschal mystery of Christ or to the new life which results from it, its literal sense is already a spiritual sense.
Click to expand...
Convinced that they are dealing with the Book of God and therefore with something of inexhaustible meaning, the fathers [patristics] hold that any particular passage is open to any particular interpretation on an allegorical basis. But they also consider that others are free to offer something else, provided only that what is offered respects the analogy of faith.
Click to expand...
The allegorical interpretation of Scripture so characteristic of patristic exegesis runs the risk of being something of an embarrassment to people today. But the experience of the church expressed in this exegesis makes a contribution that is always useful (cf. Divino Afflante Spiritu, 31-32; Dei Verbum, 23). The fathers of the church teach to read the Bible theologically, within the heart of a living tradition, with an authentic Christian spirit.
Click to expand...
So what St Thomas actually said, as I quoted it for you, was that the “literal” meaning of God having an arm is referencing God’s “operative power.” Which is obviously a metaphor. The “literal” is understood “metaphorically,” in this case. In so doing, Aquinas has avoided the rigid and deeply mistaken literalism that has plagued some within the church of the Modern Era.
 
Last edited:
It was a time of wars thats what countries did back then declare war and attack and get the booty and enslave people it was a way of life - Kings trying to increase their territories - the Israelites are constantly attacking and being attacked through out the bible - its a completely different time and today’s standards cannot be applied. They were constantly surrounded by enemies that would have no problem killing them all if given a chance.
 
Julius_Caesar said:
40.png
Magnanimity:
Aquinas has avoided the rigid and deeply mistaken literalism that has plagued some within the church of the Modern Era.
Click to expand...
You’re avoiding one fact. God is the Author of Life. He can give and take away.
Click to expand...
I’ll repeat the unanswered question upthread:
goout said:
The word I bolded: “can”. What does that mean? It’s good to be precise when making theological claims about God’s nature, and “can” is somewhat vague.

God is omnipotent, correct? Does “can” refer to God’s capability? Or to his prerogative to choose actions and commands arbitrarily?
Would you agree that God “can” make a square circle? If not, why not?
Would you agree God “can” place a hammered metal dome over the skies as detailed in Genesis? If not, why not?
Would you agree that God “can” command a Pope to drop a nuclear bomb on a pagan country? If not, why not?
Would you agree that God “can” wipe us all out of existence? If not, why not?
Click to expand...
 
Julius_Caesar said:
You’re avoiding one fact. God is the Author of Life. He can give and take away.
Click to expand...
First, it hasn’t been established by anyone yet that the OT is a big ole history book. Above, I articulated at length many reasons for believing that Modernity’s obsession with facts, evidence and historicity is what underlies any Catholic today viewing the OT narratives as simply history. Pre-moderns did not view the Bible this way, so why should we? 1500 years of interpretive frameworks towards the scriptures cannot be easily set aside. All of scripture is sacred writing, which means its purpose far transcends the relating of historical minutiae. You want to learn about ancient history, visit your university library. Leave the OT out of it. Sacred writings have nothing to do with that. By their very natures, biblical writings are up to something different, something spiritual. Prior to Modernity, all biblical commentators knew this, why don’t we?

Second, a person would have to avoid her conscience in order to believe that God is capable of genocide of the innocent (like babies). “Genocidal” is not the missing attribute of God that St Thomas forgot to discuss in his Summa.
 
Last edited:
Magnanimity said:
First, it hasn’t been established by anyone yet that the OT is a big ole history book.
Click to expand...
But it describes historical events does it not?
Magnanimity said:
Second, a person would have to avoid her conscience in order to believe that God is capable of genocide of the innocent (like babies).
Click to expand...
You don’t believe that that same God can give said babies paradise and you don’t believe in original sin?
 
Julius_Caesar said:
But it describes historical events does it not?
Click to expand...
I’ll just let the Pontifical Biblical Commission answer again (as I quoted above):
Fundamentalism also places undue stress upon the inerrancy of certain details in the biblical texts, especially in what concerns historical events or supposedly scientific truth. It often historicizes material which from the start never claimed to be historical. It considers historical everything that is reported or recounted with verbs in the past tense, failing to take the necessary account of the possibility of symbolic or figurative meaning.
Click to expand...
Sacred writings are qualitatively different things from secular, historical writings. God, via his sacred scriptures, is trying help us come to terms with some of the deepest and most meaningful truths about Himself and His creation, especially humanity. Anything outside of these deep spiritual/moral insights that the Fathers tried to help us glean from the biblical passages is incidental to the Bible’s primary purpose.
Julius_Caesar said:
You don’t believe that that same God can give said babies paradise and you don’t believe in original sin?
Click to expand...
Let’s see what sacred Tradition has taught us about God and ourselves. He is goodness itself (Aquinas). God is love (St John). God so loves the entire world that He sent His Son for it (St John). Humans bear the image and likeness of God (Genesis). Yet these same humans live in a world that is broken in a fundamental way, and this brokenness has seeped into humanity itself (Genesis). Despite all this, beatitude is the natural and final end of Man (Aquinas).

Somehow all of these deep truths about God and creatures is compatible with the picture of a genocidal deity? One of these things is not like the others…
 
No, because that would mean it is a square, not a circle 🙂
St. Thomas Aquinas says that God can do all that is possible, not all that is impossible. Possible being according to His nature.

[/quote]

So when we say God created all things and has power over all things, and due to that God can dispose of them in any way God wants, we are conditioning that
according to His nature.
Click to expand...
Begs the question: how do we know God’s nature? (I am glad you have a solid answer started, but this is really addressed to @Julius_Caesar)
 
Last edited:
It was revealed 🙂
[/quote]

Yes, and…? How is it revealed that God’s omnipotence cannot turn a circle into a square? Specific revelation?
 
Last edited:
Magnanimity said:
Somehow all of these deep truths about God and creatures is compatible with the picture of a genocidal deity?
Click to expand...
So Sodom and Gomorrah don’t exist in your view.
Magnanimity said:
Sacred writings are qualitatively different things from secular, historical writings
Click to expand...
Yet the Bible describes historical events.

The Crucifixion actually happened did it not?

Yours is a slippery slope.
 
goout said:
(I am glad you have a solid answer started, but this is really addressed to @Julius_Caesar)
Click to expand...
And I already addressed it.

Your question is an absurd one.

We already know that God is the author of Life, so it’s kinda absurd to hold Him to the same standard we are held to.
 
And is there a theological term you could use for the revelation than relates to common sense?
How about logos?
What is logos?
Does God have logos? Is God Logos? Where do you find the fullness of God’s logos?

It seems to me you are well on the way to showing that although God is omnipotent and has created everything, the assertion that God can dispose of that creation in any way conceivable is not quite fully true.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top