God order killing?

[Kate50]

Pax,

Self defense against bacteria does not give us the right to cause undue suffering. Nor do I agree that a perfect creator would cause undue suffering to a creation. I’m not arguing that God does imperfect things, I’m arguing that the way God is portrayed in the Bible is less than perfect, which leads me to the conclusion that it is a non-literal event.

Were a religion to have in its holy book that their god would rape children every 40 years, that would be a reason for me to not believe that book/religion is accurate if it is insisted it be taken literally. Sure, God has the power to do anything, but raping is clearly wrong, and a perfect God wouldn’t do that. Part of the reason I reject other religions is how their god is portrayed - holy book content is a big deal! Yes, a creator has the power to do anything, but a perfect God would not use that power for wrongdoing. A perfect god acts in perfect ways, and causing undue suffering isn’t perfect. While original sin on a baby means a baby does not merit the wonderful gift of heaven just by being born, I strongly disagree that simply by being born, a baby or child merits undue suffering when they haven’t done anything.

Simply saying “God can do whatever God wants, therefore we need to brush any issues to the side” does not help with those struggling with faith nor those investigating the Bible for the first time. I can use that same line to justify atrocious things in other religions which are clearly wrong. If you do a cursory search on the internet, you will find this is a big concern for many out there. It is completely fine to say “I don’t know the answer” and the search can continue, but I don’t see that a blanket allowance is a good defense for the Bible. Surely there’s some way to do better than that.

 

[Kate50]

just wanted to add: simply saying something that doesn’t make sense should be considered in a non-literal manner is not a good way to take care of a hard issue either, that’s why I’m looking for the missing link.

 

[UnityofTrinity]

How does one define what is moral or not moral? Base on what are we calling something ethical? Is there an authority on which we can base on to declare what is bad or good?

 

[Kate50]

How does one define what is moral or not moral? Base on what are we calling something ethical? Is there an authority on which we can base on to declare what is bad or good?

This is also an extensive issue that could fill a thread of its own. There is no one source which will hold every moral answer for every situation. Society in general uses a combination of the golden rule, and looking at what course of action will be most loving and beneficial for others, to determine course of action.

For Catholics, there is a small amount of information that has been infallibly defined and some help may be gained through the CCC

 

[UnityofTrinity]

This is also an extensive issue that could fill a thread of its own. There is no one source which will hold every moral answer for every situation. Society in general uses a combination of the golden rule, and looking at what course of action will be most loving and beneficial for others, to determine course of action.

For Catholics, there is a small amount of information that has been infallibly defined and some help may be gained through the CCC

But you claimed that God’s actions(let’s suppose it was God) was unethical because it is hurting the children, and you said it’s unethical to kill something with a slow and painful death. Furthermore, you said that Michael Vicks actions were unethical. Base one what basis are you claiming something ethical or unethical?

 

[Kate50]

But you claimed that God’s actions(let’s suppose it was God) was unethical because it is hurting the children, and you said it’s unethical to kill something with a slow and painful death. Furthermore, you said that Michael Vicks actions were unethical. Base one what basis are you claiming something ethical or unethical?

Please show me how choosing to give a slow and painful death to a child/animal is loving, just, and beneficial.

 

[UnityofTrinity]

Please show me how choosing to give a slow and painful death to a child/animal is loving, just, and beneficial.

how would u define something as loving, just, and beneficial? In fact you can’t even prove that they suffered a long/painful death, which is the base of your argument here.

 

[Kate50]

how would u define something as loving, just, and beneficial? In fact you can’t even prove that they suffered a long/painful death, which is the base of your argument here.

Anything less than perfect is ungodly. Instead of an instant painless death, the children had to go through the trauma of watching the city be attacked, see their family die, and be hacked to death themselves. You can also look at what happens to someone when they drown - it is a long and tortuous way to die.

Regarding definitions of loving/just/beneficial, what are you looking for besides what you can find in a dictionary? You would not cause pointless pain to your own child, it does not benefit them - in fact, it only harms. When something has no good purpose, and harms another, that is an immoral act.

So I ask again, please show me how having children suffer a death via sword and via flood is a loving, beneficial and just thing to do, versus another option like instant death? How is the deliberate suffering of a child good?

 

[UnityofTrinity]

Anything less than perfect is ungodly. Instead of an instant painless death, the children had to go through the trauma of watching the city be attacked, see their family die, and be hacked to death themselves. You can also look at what happens to someone when they drown - it is a long and tortuous way to die.

Regarding definitions of loving/just/beneficial, what are you looking for besides what you can find in a dictionary? You would not cause pointless pain to your own child, it does not benefit them - in fact, it only harms. When something has no good purpose, and harms another, that is an immoral act.

So I ask again, please show me how having children suffer a death via sword and via flood is a loving, beneficial and just thing to do, versus another option like instant death? How is the deliberate suffering of a child good?

Do you believe in an absolute authority?

 

[Kate50]

Do you believe in an absolute authority?

Are you asking if I believe God is the authority(yes)? Or are you asking about accessible earthy authority (like infallible teachings from the pope)?

Can you address my earlier question of what makes unnecessary child (/animal) suffering a loving act?

 

[Pax]

Kate50,

Please give me the scriptural passages that bother you the most from Joshua. Perhaps a direct analysis will be helpful.

God bless.

 

[Kate50]

Kate50,

Please give me the scriptural passages that bother you the most from Joshua. Perhaps a direct analysis will be helpful.

God bless.

The first half of Joshua tells numerous stories of entire cities that were killed by the sword, young and old, everyone living there. If you require specific passages for reference, you can look at Joshua 6:21 or Joshua 10:28-43, Joshua 11:10, 11:12, 11:21, for example. Then there’s Genesis 7:21-23

 

[Pax]

Kate50,

You might find the following link to be of some help:

cresourcei.org/killcanaanites.html

God bless.

 

[Kate50]

Kate50,

You might find the following link to be of some help:

cresourcei.org/killcanaanites.html

God bless.

Pax,
Thanks for the link. I looked it over, and it seems to be saying that we should take the stories (or at least the direct quotes from God commanding slaughter) as non-literally. This still leaves the issue, however, that if multitudes of direct quotes from God are not true, how can anything in the Bible be trusted? This is not merely the case of a people misunderstanding the intention of God, these writers are supposedly directly quoting God. To know that God did not say something and yet say that God did, is a lie. When you quote someone, you are giving your word that the quote really came from that person. Where, then, is the line drawn? Can’t people of other religions who have a portion of their holy book that doesn’t fit just do the same thing and call it ‘non-literal’/‘of that time period’? Its not just in Joshua that these quotes are found, you can find them in other locations, like 1 Samuel 15

*1 Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD. 2 This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’” *

 

[Kate50]

Here’s a few examples

Pax said to read this link or die.
(non literal paraphrase; you never said these words directly but your words could be construed to convey that meaning. With this line, I am interpreting your last reply to mean that reading the link is good for my, and others, spiritual health. I may be wrong, but this line is open to interpretation. Or perhaps you have coded a secret message to me in your last response that if the website doesn’t get enough unique hits, a bomb will destroy the world, therefore, I would physically die if I do not read the link)

Pax said "Read this link or die"
(this is a direct quote, and therefore is a lie, as you never said this to me. There is no other way to read this line than me giving the reader my word that you said that phrase exactly. Even if you had every intention of conveying that message in your last post, you did not specifically say those words, so again, this line is a lie.)

I see multiple possibilities of interpretation with the first line, but only one interpretation possible with the second, due to the quotation marks.

Any English majors care to chime in? Am I missing something?

 

[Pax]

Kate50,

You might also find post #42 at the following link to be interesting:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=130480&page=3

I agree with your concerns and rest the bulk of my personal case on what I have presented thus far. Likewise, I do see possibilities for deliberate allegory as presented in the post I referenced above. Moreover, the OT scriptures and our views of God need to be understood in terms of the NT scriptures as everything is Christ centered in the plan of salvation.

There is no question that our understandings of God are considerably different from and more developed than that of ancient Israel. Likewise, our cultural expressions are different.

I will kind of keep searching around on this topic. It is not one in which I am well versed even though I have some opinions.

God bless.

 

[Pax]

Kate50,

Here is another interesting link that addresses ancient near east expressions and there meanings as they apply to the subject under consideration.

talk.thinkingmatters.org.nz/2009/did-god-order-genocide-in-the-old-testament-against-the-canaanites/

 

[Evan]

Something that has not been brought up in this discussion, especially concerning the suffering one may endure before death, is the concept of redemptive suffering.

If one (a child or an adult) suffers beyond the temporal punishment due them because of their sins, the suffering may be applied to others to relieve their suffering due to their sins.

Children sin, but we do not want to hold it against them. Sin, any sin, is an infinite affront against God. Only through the suffering of Jesus, the only pure lamb, are our sins forgiven. And any suffering we endure (adult or children) is for the greater glory of God and the greater happiness one will endure in heaven.

At the last judgment we will see God’s infinite justice, mercy, and love applied to all who lived and died in this world.

 

[Evan]

Ramble (part 2)

All will die. Many will suffer. Why is it worse to suffer at the hands of God’s chosen people rather than from a toothache. One is fulfilling God’s plan, the other, is of little value, but must be endured unless you are ready to kill yourself to avoid the least suffering. How much suffering is allowed to a benevolent God, NONE? Impossible, how would I learn to not touch the surface of a stove? Where is the line?

Children of an evil people, if not killed with the people, would starve?? Is it better to kill or let them lie there dying? If God’s people took them all as slaves (as they did sometime) they introduced foreign Gods. At what age is one a child that will accept the faith, the society, the culture of those around them? My wife and I adopted a child at 10 months, she never wanted to be part of our family, our culture, or our faith. She always wanted to return to her birth mom and live as she did. She finally left at 17 to live on the street. So 10 months is too old. Maybe only kill children older than 6 months and adopt the younger as slaves? I don’t know, but 10 months is too old!!!???

 

[Kate50]

Thanks for the links and the informative dialogue Pax

Something that has not been brought up in this discussion, especially concerning the suffering one may endure before death, is the concept of redemptive suffering.

If one (a child or an adult) suffers beyond the temporal punishment due them because of their sins, the suffering may be applied to others to relieve their suffering due to their sins.

Children sin, but we do not want to hold it against them. Sin, any sin, is an infinite affront against God. Only through the suffering of Jesus, the only pure lamb, are our sins forgiven. And any suffering we endure (adult or children) is for the greater glory of God and the greater happiness one will endure in heaven.

While yes, suffering can be redemptive for adults or older children, children below the age of reason do not have the capability to sin, therefore suffering is not redemptive for them. Were the suffering to be used for others, then, does that not fall under the ‘ends don’t justify the means’ idea? Also, God can do anything, so why would God require that these young children(incapable of sin) must suffer before their death?

The question is the same for the flood (Noah). Children suffered by drowning instead of an instant death. I am unable to understand how children (who haven’t done anything) suffering before death was a good thing, because I can not find the good purpose, love, or compassion in making young children suffer, especially since a non-suffering alternative (which would still accomplish the end goal of killing them) was available.

All will die. Many will suffer. Why is it worse to suffer at the hands of God’s chosen people rather than from a toothache. One is fulfilling God’s plan, the other, is of little value, but must be endured unless you are ready to kill yourself to avoid the least suffering.

It is worse that suffering was given to the children by God’s direction while the option to kill them without them suffering was discarded. Suffering because of a tooth (nature/biology) is not deliberate punishment by God. Suffering by the sword is deliberately given pain.

How much suffering is allowed to a benevolent God, NONE? Impossible, how would I learn to not touch the surface of a stove? Where is the line?

Suffering is very different when it is used to teach a sinful adult versus this situation. Tell me, what does a child below the age of reason gain from suffering before death? If these children have not sinned, why should they suffer? God can kill these children in their sleep yet chooses to instead instruct others to kill these children, causing deliberate suffering. How is the option of children suffering a better and more loving act?

I am very sorry to hear of your troubles with your daughter and I pray that she one day obtains clarity and returns home. It sounds like you and your wife have done all you could, and I can not imagine what you both have gone through. However, I’ll simply state that I respectfully disagree with your conclusion that 10 months is too late to adopt or foster a child.