Herem

[StGerardMajella]

But men have no right to destroy a whole nation including the innocents, because they, the men, are committing genocide.

Under the Catechism containing the Just War Doctrine, and in the instance of self-defense, there are no limits as to the destruction of whole nations.

The Creator - through men, and in some cases through angels - did the same, all for wholly justifiable reasons.

I wouldn’t use the term “genocide” because the term incorrectly implies unjustifiable murder of innocent civilians - There is no such case in the Bible to which I am aware. Any destruction of whole nations in the Bible was wholly justified under either self-defense or the Just War Doctrine.

 

[Darryl1958]

It should be noted at some point in the discussion, if it has not been noted already, that the Catholic position is not that the Bible is inerrant, but that the ability of the Church guided by the Holy Spirit to teach the lessons of the Bible is infallible.

It also should be noted that even as some stories of the Bible portray the complete and utter destruction of the Canaanites, others note the deletrious effect that idolatrous Canaanites still living among the Hebrew populations continued to exert on God’s chosen. Rumors of the genocide of the Canaanites, like many tales of military bravodo, seem to have been greatly exaggerated in some of the stories.

The Bible is a difficult book to read, and this is assuredly deliberate. It was meant to create a struggle between oneself, between oneself and man, and between oneself and God.

It would seem to me though, that the only people who have taken away the idea of Divine genocide from the words of the Bible are atheists and those who are on the verge of becoming atheists. Catholic teaching has never taught Divine genocide. Jews have never believed in Divine genocide or even practiced divine war since Biblical times at least. Even the most literalist of Protestant fundamentalists have never been advocates of Divine genocide.

People believing that there is a simple solution to the problem of God and violence in the Bible will be sorely disappointed to discover that there is not anything simple when it comes to the Bible.

The personhood of God in Christianity is three, but even this does notr come close to defining the shifting, unpredictable character developments of God in the Bible, and how his relationships with people transform from the one end of the chonological Hebrew Bible to the other, and even between books. Human beings approach infinite complexity, and for God his character, his purposes, and his methods go beyond infinite complexity.

Believing Christians read the Bible with absolute faith in the goodness of God as the one premise, even as the narrative screams out that this might not be true.

 

[StGerardMajella]

I had a quote which met this criteria the very first post of the thread.

Yes, and I thoroughly addressed your original post earlier. The Amalekites were the aggressors, and the Israelites had every right to defend themselves.

There are no instances in the Bible that I have been able to locate where whole nations were wiped out without due cause, logical grounds, and rational justification.

The Creator gives ample warning and is exceptionally patient before taking corrective steps.

 

[fred_conty]

Under the Catechism containing the Just War Doctrine, and in the instance of self-defense, there are no limits as to the destruction of whole nations.

The Creator - through men, and in some cases through angels - did the same, all for wholly justifiable reasons.

I wouldn’t use the term “genocide” because the term incorrectly implies unjustifiable murder of innocent civilians - There is no such case in the Bible to which I am aware. Any destruction of whole nations in the Bible was wholly justified under either self-defense or the Just War Doctrine.

From this I take it that it would be your opinion that there is no such thing as genocide in those cases where one nation is “justified” in wiping out completely another nation. That genocide only applies where there is no justification. This seems to be what you think…that if there is justification of some sort as a retort to an injustice, then there is no genecide. I’m not accusing you but simply attempting to understand your point of view.

Which means that you would not label genocide as an intrinsic evil, which may never be done for any reason, that is, it is always evil and nothing can justify an intrinsic evil. Because if you say that there are certain reasons for genecide … the complete annihilation of a nation or people, then that is saying that genocide in not intrinsic evil, because that is the definition of intrinsic evil.

Or you might be saying that justification means it does not fall under the heading of genocide.
And since these people were justifiably anilhilated, then there is no genocide taking place. But then that would mean the the definition of genocide is not the wiping out completely all people of a nation. The definition of geocide does not make exceptions…it is what it is…evil in itself.

It would be much like saying that God could require someone to tell a lie, which is also an intrinsic evil. Or like saying that God could have someone tell a lie if the reason were good enough. When an act is wrong in itself, intrinsically, it is never right to do it, even tho it may seem so.

May the God of hope fill you with every joy.

 

[Darryl1958]

ndkos:

Sorry, but this is wrong. You have it backwards - it is the Catholic position that the Bible is inerrant. That is one of my main problems. cuf.org/2004/04/taking-god-at-his-word-a-catholic-understanding-of-biblical-inerrancy/

As your reference even notes, it is a little bit more complicated than that.

Avoiding Fundamentalism: The Problem of Literalistic Interpretation

The Church teaches that the Bible is inerrant in all that the sacred writers intended to affirm. The Pontifical Biblical Commission’s 1993 document The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church makes the important distinction between the literal sense of Scripture and a literalistic interpretation. The literal sense is “that which has been expressed directly by the inspired authors.” To arrive at the literal sense, **one must interpret the text **according to the literary conventions of the time, considering the author’s intention, literary genre, and historical context. A literalistic reading disregards these considerations.

Even if The Bible is technically inerrant, interpretation is not necessarily inerrant, which puts that concept of inerrant in a very, very different light. the focus is displaced from the actual text, to the ability to correctly understand the text. The focus is displaced from what the text says, to what the purpose of the author/Holy Spirit intended to convey

But where is reason in this? Where is the reason to support this Faith? We are to have Faith that God is good? We are to have Faith despite all the genocide, which certainly is strong circumstantial evidence, if not direct proof, that God could be evil?

Consider the alternatives. Rather than conceiving God as Goodness personified, we could consider God to be amoral/nonexistent, or consider that God is actually evil.
Those are the alternatives.

In all three cases, the genocides would still exist as a part of the human condition. But in having faith that God is evil, as would be the case according to your current interpretation, then genocide actually becomes desirable to fulfill the interests of the evil God. Or, if God is amoral, then it does not even matter, for morality would not even be a consideration in the bigger scheme of the universe anyway. Good and evil would not have objective existence in such a world anyway.

I am asking for more. I do not think this is unreasonable. Give me some reason to have Faith and then I will have Faith.

It is not unreasonable to ask for more. It is merely reasonable to demand more, as if we are entitled to know the secrets of the universe as a condition for placing our trust and our faith in the goodness of God.

The idea of perfect justice and perfect mercy co-existing in every act transcends reason. In order to believe in as much, it takes the ultimate act of humility to believe in that which transcends reason, rather than in our ability to understand the world by reason alone.
Faith , and Catholic Faith in particular, is not an abandonment of reason, but an abandonment of faith in Reason alone.

Ultimately, once all the alternatives are considered, faith in a loving and good God, full of mercy and full of justice, is the most reasonable and most pragmatic way to live out our life in this world.

When we read the Bible we are not required to understand everything we read, or accept everything that we read at face value, as if our own understanding is sufficient to know what the purpose of the author is, or what the purpose of God is in delivering us these texts in the first place. It is a given that our understanding of such a difficult and complex text will not be inerrant. It is a question of humilty whether we chose to go with our own errant understanding or with faith that God is good, in spite of our limited understanding of what that even means.

 

[StGerardMajella]

That genocide only applies where there is no justification. This seems to be what you think…that if there is justification of some sort as a retort to an injustice, then there is no genecide. I’m not accusing you but simply attempting to understand your point of view.

I am stating the Catechism of the Catholic Church uses the Just War Doctrine to explain when it is and is not appropriate to engage in warfare. If one nation attacks another, it is justified for the nation being attacked to defend itself.

In war, innocent lives are, unfortunately, lost. That doesn’t make it genocide. If your nation attacks or threatens mine, then my nation has a right to defend itself (even preemptively and proactively).

Innocent lives will be lost in the process. That’s not genocide - It’'s self-defense.

The definition of geocide does not make exceptions…it is what it is…evil in itself.

Again, going back to the Old Testament, we see numerous instances where the Creator commanded the wiping out of whole nations. We see this with Sodom and Gomorrah, the Egyptians, the Amalekites, even the Canaanites, etc.

To imply that the Creator is somehow “evil” because He commanded these nations to be destroyed is taking these occurrences out of context. The Creator was more than justified in each instance. By the same token, by labeling the Creator’s actions as “genocide”, you are implying that innocent life was lost without just cause. That was never the case in the Bible.

 

[Darryl1958]

ndkos:

So I am prideful because I think God is wrong for commanding genocide?

Seldom in theological discussion is it ever a good or productive idea to make it all about personal statements. That is a fruitless path to take, for ideas are better expressed as reasons rather than feelings.

Instead I am to suppose that there is some mistake that I made, or some mistake that the sacred author made?

The Holy Spirit is the sacred Author, and the scribes, who are inspired, are inspired by the Spirit. As such, the Bible is very much a human endeavor too, with God respecting the limitations of the scribe, and his culture, and his times, and his understandings of good and evil in terms of that culture and those times.

Am I misinterpreting Mein Kampf too, due to a lack of humility? That is how absurd this line of reasoning is.

The Bible is in no way comparable to Mein Kampf, neither in style, nor in content, not in purpose, or, most particularly, not in effect.

The Wisdom of the Ages is not a tract in hate.

It is also not a book for children. This is not a journey into candy land or wish-fulfilling fantasy, as many of the modern critics propose. Many of the passages are deliberately provocative, and deeply disturbing, by design.

We may note, for example, that Abraham is commended for his faith, even as he demonstrates that faith by complete willingness to commit an evil act. God does not berate Abraham for his willingness, but praises him.

Still, God’s people do not take on the name of Abraham, who submits fully to God; but we take on the name of Jacob, or Israel, the man who struggles with God, physically confronts God even, and prevails over the intent of the Divine to deliver harm unto him.

The God in the Bible is in a relationship of love with us. That love does not bind us to what he proposes, but frees us to counter with our own point of view.

God for example, with his anger burning hot against the Hebrews in the desert, proposes to Moses that he destroy the “stiff neck” nation, and create a chosen people from Moses alone. Moses flatly and defiantly refuses, and God relents to the contradiction without any further acrimony whatsoever. Moses irrational and selfless love for that stiff neck people is of a higher order than what God desires for them.
God respects our love for people, even our enemies, and the Bible makes this clear.

Does he respect our desire to enslave and own our enemies, and their cattle, and their wives and their children?
Are we ready and willing and able to sacrifice all of that to stay in a relationship with God?

Not so much apparently, as the Bible makes clear.

 

[fred_conty]

I am stating the Catechism of the Catholic Church uses the Just War Doctrine to explain when it is and is not appropriate to engage in warfare. If one nation attacks another, it is justified for the nation being attacked to defend itself.

In war, innocent lives are, unfortunately, lost. That doesn’t make it genocide. If your nation attacks or threatens mine, then my nation has a right to defend itself (even preemptively and proactively).

Innocent lives will be lost in the process. That’s not genocide - It’'s self-defense.

Again, going back to the Old Testament, we see numerous instances where the Creator commanded the wiping out of whole nations. We see this with Sodom and Gomorrah, the Egyptians, the Amalekites, even the Canaanites, etc.

To imply that the Creator is somehow “evil” because He commanded these nations to be destroyed is taking these occurrences out of context. The Creator was more than justified in each instance. By the same token, by labeling the Creator’s actions as “genocide”, you are implying that innocent life was lost without just cause. That was never the case in the Bible.

StGerardMajella, you said

Innocent lives will be lost in the process. That’s not genocide - It’'s self-defense.

Not when the intention is to kill every last one of the people,innocent or not, in that nation even tho they have white flags in their hands, and arms raised in surrender. That is genocide. Not one person is left alive precisely because it is the intention to leave noone alive.

I believe you are mixing up God with men. God gave life and he can take life…all life, even of one nation. And that is what God did to Sodom and Gomorah, but he did it himself and did not ask men to do this. In the case of the Egyptians, it was the army that was destroyed, not the nation.

Here is a page that explains intrinsic evil if this will help.
catechism.cc/articles/moral-object.htm

May God our Father give you grace and peace.

 

[Darryl1958]

ndkos:

I see. So God praises Abraham for being willing to commit evil.

God is evil then.

That is one of the choices that has already been mentioned.
It is the choice that Marquis de Sade made too.

One has to decide for oneself what is the most reasonable choice.

 

[openmind77]

ndkos:

Sorry, but this is wrong. You have it backwards - it is the Catholic position that the Bible is inerrant. That is one of my main problems. cuf.org/2004/04/taking-god-at-his-word-a-catholic-understanding-of-biblical-inerrancy/

But where is reason in this? Where is the reason to support this Faith? We are to have Faith that God is good? We are to have Faith despite all the genocide, which certainly is strong circumstantial evidence, if not direct proof, that God could be evil?

I am asking for more. I do not think this is unreasonable. Give me some reason to have Faith and then I will have Faith.

You are right, of course. It is very hard to believe that the Pope condemned the first genocide of this century just a few days back, and there are people here who still defend genocide in the Bible.

If you want to have faith, I suggest you read the New Testament and ignore the Old one. The problem was that when Jesus came the first time, he was too nice and too polite to point out the parts of the Old Testament that he found objectionable. Hopefully the next time he comes he will be more forthright so we don’t have people who actually believe that killing women and children and babies is ok under certain circumstances.

 

[Darryl1958]

I would hope that the evangelizing of Marcionism would be very much against forum rules here.

Catholics are very much an OT people. The NT without the OT would be like a tree without roots.

 

[AKDee]

ndkos-

Jesus told us that if we knew Him, we knew the Father, because the Father is in Him and He is in the Father. We have ample evidence of Jesus’ teachings through the Gospels, records of His actual words, and therefore from His teachings and words we also know the Father. Perhaps focus on Jesus, and approach Him prayerfully and express your confusion and upset over the OT and let Him guide you.

You are in my prayers.

Dee

 

[StGerardMajella]

Not when the intention is to kill every last one of the people,innocent or not, in that nation even tho they have white flags in their hands, and arms raised in surrender. That is genocide. Not one person is left alive precisely because it is the intention to leave noone alive.

Preemptive warfare can bring enemies to the negotiating table and actually save lives.

We have, for example, the case of President Truman, who used a nuclear bomb to end a war and save American lives. Some will call President Truman a mass murderer that committed “genocide”. Others a national hero that saved more lives and ended the war.

It depends on your definition of “innocence”. War doesn’t happen in a vacuum.

In the case of the Egyptians, it was the army that was destroyed, not the nation.

…and all of the firstborn males of the Egyptians at the first Passover…

 

[fred_conty]

StGerardMajella, I said,

Not when the intention is to kill every last one of the people,innocent or not, in that nation even tho they have white flags in their hands, and arms raised in surrender. That is genocide. Not one person is left alive precisely because it is the intention to leave noone alive.

Then you said,

Preemptive warfare can bring enemies to the negotiating table and actually save lives.

???

I know the sun is shinning somewhere.

God bless.

 

[StGerardMajella]

Then you said,Quote:
Preemptive warfare can bring enemies to the negotiating table and actually save lives.
???
I know the sun is shinning somewhere.

In the case of Truman, he had to decide whether to end the war immediately through the use of a nuclear bomb, which would mean unbelievable carnage, or to risk even more lives being lost by prolonging the war and not using the bomb. Fewer lives were lost as a result.

In the Book of Jasher, the actions of the sons of Jacob, while utterly and completely devastating to several enemy cities, actually brought about peace and less lives being lost. After seeing the devastation, other neighboring cities came to make a peace accord with the sons of Jacob. Fewer lives were lost as a result.

Sometimes, when an enemy is not completely defeated, a new generation of enemy hatred is spawned that is even worse than the first. We see this even in our modern day, where the next generation of violent radicals is even more radical than the first generation. If you don’t completely subdue an enemy, they will return even stronger and worse than before. Again, war doesn’t happen in a vacuum.