God order killing?

[Evan]

You seem to be of the opinion the suffering is bad. But what we consider joy, I assume would be considered suffering by those in the blessed realm. So to speak of suffering is to speak of life this side of the grave.

By dying we leave this valley of tears to come into the presence of God. If a child has been baptized, obviously, he would immediately be take to God’s house.

Understand, that presently we cannot now understand, or possibly ever understand, the fullness of God’s plan. But, as time passes, and as we mature, and as more is revealed, now and at the final judgement, we will come to understand more fully the plan of God.

In the 1700’s, with the advent of optimization theory, some mathematicians came up with the phrase “the best of all possible worlds” which relied on the belief that if God changed, in any way, any action take by Him or us, the overall good in the world would decrease (even though locally the good would increase, the associate good would be canceled by some greater evil, either later in time or in a different space).

Trust in God. He’s the best

 

[wjp984]

Because the Isreaelites did this and had to justify it and thereofore just wrote that God told them to do it. At least that is my opinion. Or the more likely situation is God helped them to victory which sadly involved the deaths of numerous innocent children and women, and therefore to better justify what had happened, the Israelites added that God ordered it.

 

[Kate50]

You seem to be of the opinion the suffering is bad.

Do you feel otherwise? Isn’t the cornerstone of morality to ‘do no harm’/love towards others? How does giving suffering equal love? Don’t you try to prevent suffering to your loved ones in your own life?
"Evan:

But what we consider joy, I assume would be considered suffering by those in the blessed realm. So to speak of suffering is to speak of life this side of the grave.

True

Evan:

Understand, that presently we cannot now understand, or possibly ever understand, the fullness of God’s plan. But, as time passes, and as we mature, and as more is revealed, now and at the final judgement, we will come to understand more fully the plan of God.

Sure, but how can we help show those perusing the Bible for the first time that Catholicism is the correct faith when they come across stories such as these? A blanket “trust in God”, while well and good, does not help differentiate between the religions

Because the Isreaelites did this and had to justify it and thereofore just wrote that God told them to do it. At least that is my opinion. Or the more likely situation is God helped them to victory which sadly involved the deaths of numerous innocent children and women, and therefore to better justify what had happened, the Israelites added that God ordered it.

Yes, that is a possibility. However, if this is true and several points in the Bible are lies, how can we know that we can trust the rest?

 

[diggerdomer]

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

See the Catechism para 50-141.

Particularly, note that Scripture is the word of God preserved in the words of humans, meaning one needs to attend to the language, culture, etc., of the original authors.

 

[Kate50]

See the Catechism para 50-141.

Particularly, note that Scripture is the word of God preserved in the words of humans, meaning one needs to attend to the language, culture, etc., of the original authors.

I read the suggested portion of the CCC. It seems to mainly focus on importance of the scriptures and a general overview. Is there a specific part that you think would help solve the aforementioned issue?

While the Bible was written by man, it was inspired by God/Holy Spirit, and therefore has great worth in showing how God is perfect. Knowing that, then what is the benefit/good that comes from causing children suffering before they die, instead of just having them die? Children suffering unnecessarily by direct order of God seems to be incompatible with God’s perfect nature. Humans, who pale in comparison to God’s goodness, do all they can to keep children from unnecessary pain. So why is something that we abhor(unnecessary suffering of children)… a thing that God would do?

Another poster mentioned a possibility that this may have been directly attributed to God but not directly ordered by God. However, I am confused at how multiple direct quotes from God can be taken in a manner other than literal, and if something so straightforward as that is not, in fact, truth, then how can the rest of the Bible be trusted? Isn’t quoting someone who did not say it, a lie? This is not a one-time quote or situation, but appears multiple times in the Bible. Were I to simply brush off these very detailed stories as ‘allegory’, then how is that any different than brushing off the difficult parts of some other religion as ‘allegory’? There has to be some missing link to show how this story can be viewed in a manner which is compatible with God’s perfect goodness instead of just saying that the whole thing never happened.

Another post mentioned the possibility of the children’s suffering helping others - but why would that be thrust on the backs of children, when there are many adults who can make a choice and are yearning to undergo redemptive suffering for others (such as Alexandrina da Costa)?

 

[diggerdomer]

I read the suggested portion of the CCC. It seems to mainly focus on importance of the scriptures and a general overview. Is there a specific part that you think would help solve the aforementioned issue?

While the Bible was written by man, it was inspired by God/Holy Spirit, and therefore has great worth in showing how God is perfect. Knowing that, then what is the benefit/good that comes from causing children suffering before they die, instead of just having them die? Children suffering unnecessarily by direct order of God seems to be incompatible with God’s perfect nature. Humans, who pale in comparison to God’s goodness, do all they can to keep children from unnecessary pain. So why is something that we abhor(unnecessary suffering of children)… a thing that God would do?

Another poster mentioned a possibility that this may have been directly attributed to God but not directly ordered by God. However, I am confused at how multiple direct quotes from God can be taken in a manner other than literal, and if something so straightforward as that is not, in fact, truth, then how can the rest of the Bible be trusted? Isn’t quoting someone who did not say it, a lie? This is not a one-time quote or situation, but appears multiple times in the Bible. Were I to simply brush off these very detailed stories as ‘allegory’, then how is that any different than brushing off the difficult parts of some other religion as ‘allegory’? There has to be some missing link to show how this story can be viewed in a manner which is compatible with God’s perfect goodness instead of just saying that the whole thing never happened.

Another post mentioned the possibility of the children’s suffering helping others - but why would that be thrust on the backs of children, when there are many adults who can make a choice and are yearning to undergo redemptive suffering for others (such as Alexandrina da Costa)?

The passages of the Catechism I referred to nowhere suggest or say that children’s suffering is ok, acceptable, intended by God, etc. That’s one of the reasons I suggested you review these passages.

The Bible was inspired by God, but written by humans. With human limitations and understandings (culturally, linguistically, etc., conditioned).

Hope this helps.

 

[Kate50]

The passages of the Catechism I referred to nowhere suggest or say that children’s suffering is ok, acceptable, intended by God, etc. That’s one of the reasons I suggested you review these passages.

The Bible was inspired by God, but written by humans. With human limitations and understandings (culturally, linguistically, etc., conditioned).

Hope this helps.

The question still remains then - why would the author put this in as a direct quote, if it was not? As I mentioned in post #35 you can write a line without quotes to convey additional meaning/symbolism, but I don’t know of any other way a direct quote can be taken except literal. What would be the benefit of including in the Bible that God specifically said something, which God did not actually say? If something as straight forward as a direct quote can not be trusted(people knew the difference between lies and truth back then), then how can we trust anything else in the Bible to be true?

If somehow this can be gotten past, then how is saying that multiple, direct and detailed portions of the Bible are just stories, any better than someone from another religion dismissing difficult parts in their own holy book as allegory? How can Catholicism stand above the rest of the religions on issues such as this?

 

[Evan]

The question still remains then - why would the author put this in as a direct quote, if it was not?

I think you will find that in ancient texts there are no punctuation marks. So the ‘quotation’ was placed there by the translator in trying to convey the information in the original text. By adding quote marks it makes communication seem more personal.

So, in Genesis 1:3

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

there are quotation marks, but noone knows if God spoke in English. Even though it is shown as a direct quote. Maybe he said “Yo, there is light man! so cool”. Maybe he spoke in French. Not sure. But I’m quite sure, the no ancient author was there writing down what he said as he said it.

So, is verse 3 a lie? No, it is a way to express in English what happened. Using human conventions to help human minds grasp a historic event.

 

[Kate50]

I think you will find that in ancient texts there are no punctuation marks. So the ‘quotation’ was placed there by the translator in trying to convey the information in the original text. By adding quote marks it makes communication seem more personal.

So, in Genesis 1:3

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

there are quotation marks, but noone knows if God spoke in English. Even though it is shown as a direct quote. Maybe he said “Yo, there is light man! so cool”. Maybe he spoke in French. Not sure. But I’m quite sure, the no ancient author was there writing down what he said as he said it.

So, is verse 3 a lie? No, it is a way to express in English what happened. Using human conventions to help human minds grasp a historic event.

That’s concerning. If you are telling a story and you don’t know exactly what happened, you write in a more general sense, not more specific. It would have been easy to write God made light, or even God said that there should be light(which is a way to paraphrase what God said, especially when exact wording isn’t remembered/known) instead of God said "Let there be light". I don’t see how creating an exact quote to attribute to someone wouldn’t be a lie. Translators who are serious about their work agonize over every word choice and there are multiple translations out there which have quotations. It would be an egregious error for a translator to add quotes to a work if the original author did not clearly specify that it was a direct quote. Translators don’t have license to translate to how they feel about a work, be it positive or negative. Their job is to convey the original author’s meaning, not their own.

for example:
*Evan said “translators may have added quotes” * <—Why wouldn’t this be a lie? You never said this, even though I have interpreted your meaning correctly. I know you did not say this exactly. I have other ways of conveying your thoughts, but I put it down as a direct quote, which you did not say, so this would be a lie.

Were I to instead say Evan said that translators may have added quotes. That would be the truth.

 

[agbasinger]

Do you feel otherwise? Isn’t the cornerstone of morality to ‘do no harm’/love towards others? How does giving suffering equal love? Don’t you try to prevent suffering to your loved ones in your own life?

I disagree with you that the cornerstone of morality is ‘to do no harm/love towards others’ because it assumes that any harm inflicted is immoral and not loving.

For example, if you have cancer and a doctor prescribes a regiment of chemotherapy, you will go through intense and life altering illness to get better. Let me go one step further and apply this shortened analogy to God.

What we lack as humans is a larger perspective. If we were to zoom in on the passages where God orders the death of babies and animals alike and then separate that fact from the rest of the Bible, you would have a very ugly and distasteful God.

But, if you view God as the author of all creation, he cannot be labeled a killer because he himself defines these concepts and establishes their morality. We don’t have to ask questions about ends or means because he owns both.

To further the point, maybe God did try and prevent suffering but we just didn’t listen?

Call me naïve, but I just don’t get worked up about these sorts of issues.

 

[Kate50]

I disagree with you that the cornerstone of morality is ‘to do no harm/love towards others’ because it assumes that any harm inflicted is immoral and not loving.

For example, if you have cancer and a doctor prescribes a regiment of chemotherapy, you will go through intense and life altering illness to get better.

That’s not what I am inferring. The purpose of chemotherapy isn’t to cause the person suffering but to extend life. The doctor lovingly prescribes this imperfect treatment, with the patient’s consent, because the pros outweigh the cons. Likewise, a father who disciplines a child by sending them to their room during their favorite tv show is also loving, because that mild amount of suffering will produce far more important gains for the child’s benefit. The purpose of both these things is loving since the motive is to benefit the person, not to harm them. In fact, it would be more harmful to the above mentioned persons to not prescribe the chemo that the patient wants, or to not discipline the child.

What gain does the child in the Bible get by suffering before they die? How is God being more loving by deliberately ordering them to suffer instead of just killing them? What is the benefit and how does it display love?

Let me go one step further and apply this shortened analogy to God.

What we lack as humans is a larger perspective. If we were to zoom in on the passages where God orders the death of babies and animals alike and then separate that fact from the rest of the Bible, you would have a very ugly and distasteful God.

But, if you view God as the author of all creation, he cannot be labeled a killer because he himself defines these concepts and establishes their morality. We don’t have to ask questions about ends or means because he owns both.

I agree in part - as the author, God can end any life. However, as God teaches us about love and how to treat others, it seems like God is not following His own teachings in this area, because it seems like there is deliberate suffering ordered to many innocents without benefit. Does a good teacher not lead by example? This is an important question because when someone is trying to assess the validity of Catholicism, I really don’t know how to answer this question without just dismissing large portions of the Bible as allegory. A perfect God is flawless, so surely there is an explanation out there that will fit with God’s perfect nature which is better than just saying they are stories(which any religion can do with any difficult part of their holy book)? God is perfectly good. What is the ‘good’ in hurting a child before they die?

To further the point, maybe God did try and prevent suffering but we just didn’t listen?

How does it show love to a child, for them to suffer by God’s direct command because the parents did not listen?

Call me naïve, but I just don’t get worked up about these sorts of issues.

While it may not affect you, it is an important faith-harming issue for many.

 

[diggerdomer]

The question still remains then - why would the author put this in as a direct quote, if it was not?

Because humans wrote the Bible, with and in their understandings. Just because the human (inspired) authors put something in quotes does not mean it’s in fact God speaking, as a human to humans. It was their understanding of God’s communication (revelation) that they preserved. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Kate50]

Because humans wrote the Bible, with and in their understandings. Just because the human (inspired) authors put something in quotes does not mean it’s in fact God speaking, as a human to humans. It was their understanding of God’s communication (revelation) that they preserved. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Sorry but I still don’t get it - if something is in quotes, it is the transmission of a direct meaning from one entity to another. If I were to agree for the sake of argument that it could be transmitting a general and not exact message, then it still shows that God directed the suffering of children.

 

[diggerdomer]

Sorry but I still don’t get it - if something is in quotes, it is the transmission of a direct meaning from one entity to another. If I were to agree for the sake of argument that it could be transmitting a general and not exact message, then it still shows that God directed the suffering of children.

If something is in quotes, it’s an indication that the author is attributing such to the speaker the author intends. That’s all.

 

[GuardianH]

I think people who wrote the new testament were more merciful than those who wrote the OT. that’s why God image is different from the old testament to the new one.it depends on civilizations and how they liked to see their god. Personally I like Jesus teachings about love, forgiveness but when I read the old testament, I lose hope in a loving god. Are we supposed to fear god or love god ( if he exists).
I find it strange how a perfect loving God can order humans to kill humans, we are supposed to live with each other not fight.
It’s like the excuse used by Islamic terrorists on killing people, just doing God’s message right?

 

[Kate50]

If something is in quotes, it’s an indication that the author is attributing such to the speaker the author intends. That’s all.

Are there any other examples in literature where there are quotes which are not their direct quotes, and this is accepted? I can’t think of any. As I have written earlier, there are easy ways to attribute a thought to someone without putting it in quotes, and, the larger problem still remains about God ordering children to suffer.

 

[agbasinger]

That’s not what I am inferring. The purpose of chemotherapy isn’t to cause the person suffering but to extend life. The doctor lovingly prescribes this imperfect treatment, with the patient’s consent, because the pros outweigh the cons. Likewise, a father who disciplines a child by sending them to their room during their favorite tv show is also loving, because that mild amount of suffering will produce far more important gains for the child’s benefit. The purpose of both these things is loving since the motive is to benefit the person, not to harm them. In fact, it would be more harmful to the above mentioned persons to not prescribe the chemo that the patient wants, or to not discipline the child.

What gain does the child in the Bible get by suffering before they die? How is God being more loving by deliberately ordering them to suffer instead of just killing them? What is the benefit and how does it display love?

I agree in part - as the author, God can end any life. However, as God teaches us about love and how to treat others, it seems like God is not following His own teachings in this area, because it seems like there is deliberate suffering ordered to many innocents without benefit. Does a good teacher not lead by example? This is an important question because when someone is trying to assess the validity of Catholicism, I really don’t know how to answer this question without just dismissing large portions of the Bible as allegory. A perfect God is flawless, so surely there is an explanation out there that will fit with God’s perfect nature which is better than just saying they are stories(which any religion can do with any difficult part of their holy book)? God is perfectly good. What is the ‘good’ in hurting a child before they die?

How does it show love to a child, for them to suffer by God’s direct command because the parents did not listen?

While it may not affect you, it is an important faith-harming issue for many.

I was a fool for biting on these questions. Theodicy can’t be summed up and it won’t get worked out in this post. Good luck on the journey.

 

[Kate50]

Good luck on the journey.

Thanks

 

[Evan]

Are there any other examples in literature where there are quotes which are not their direct quotes, and this is accepted? I can’t think of any. As I have written earlier, there are easy ways to attribute a thought to someone without putting it in quotes, and, the larger problem still remains about God ordering children to suffer.

Take a typical headline:

Senator Bob was seen checking into a seedy motel with his “wife”. The divorce proceedings were initiated the next day.

In that headline, the quote may not have been a direct quote of the Senator but of his aide or even the hotel registrar. But it is certainly implied that the quoted term was a lie.

 

[Evan]

Are there any other examples in literature where there are quotes which are not their direct quotes, and this is accepted? I can’t think of any. As I have written earlier, there are easy ways to attribute a thought to someone without putting it in quotes, and, the larger problem still remains about God ordering children to suffer.

In eyes of God, we are all children. AND we all suffer. AND we all die… as children. I’ve never felt less that mature (even before I began school). I’ve never felt I knew it all (even after getting an advanced degree). I don’t see a persons particular age making a difference. We must suffer to grow, in this life or in purgatory, unless we are perfect.