How can God be against abortion when he ordered the deaths of Amalekite infants/children?

[DefenderPro]

It is not fallacious to appeal to an infallible authority.

You cannot make up your own rules on argumentation, if you don’t believe me contact a priest here or even your own priest and ask if it’s OK to form arguments appealing to the Church as the authority, and I’m sure you’ll be surprised as their response.

Imagine in every debate if all the Catholics started citing the Catechesis as their infallible authority.

Debater1: I claim such and such.
Debater2: What proof do you have?
Debater1: The RCC
Debater2: I see, I guess it’s all sorted then, sorry for wasting your time.
Audience: lolz0rdzmungo roflcopterama tomato

If everyone were to use your line of reasoning then the Muslims can be claiming the same thing, maybe those who follow Ayatollah Khomeini’s teachings can claim he is their infallible authority. Today, my infallible authority is my can of Dr. Pepper Cherry, you cannot defeat it!

Jesus’s human will was in perfect subordination to the divine will. It would have been impermissible for him to destroy a city because it was against the divine will.

I see, do you have any other constraints you wish to impose upon God? Write us a list, send it c/o the happy farm.

 

[DefenderPro]

This is difficult to see and seems almost illogical. Before the year 1 AD, God the Son had one will? Correct so far? Then after the Incarnation, God the Son had two wills? It seems like a change to me since one will is not the same as two wills.

He doesn’t know what he’s talking about, it’s fairly obvious. Must have muddled himself up reading things he doesn’t understand.

 

[devoutchristian]

This is difficult to see and seems almost illogical. Before the year 1 AD, God the Son had one will? Correct so far? Then after the Incarnation, God the Son had two wills? It seems like a change to me since one will is not the same as two wills.

God has one divine will, intrinsic to his nature, which is common to all of the Persons of the Trinity. When the Son incarnated, he took on a human nature, this included a human body and soul. Since the will is a function of the soul, it therefore follows that Jesus possessed a human will.

You cannot make up your own rules on argumentation, if you don’t believe me contact a priest here or even your own priest and ask if it’s OK to form arguments appealing to the Church as the authority, and I’m sure you’ll be surprised as their response.

Every argument must base itself on certain premises. Since you listed your religion as Catholic I assumed that you would accept the infallibility of the Church as a premise, if that assumption was incorrect then you should have said so.

I see, do you have any other constraints you wish to impose upon God?

Do you have any more Neo-nominalism to spout?

He doesn’t know what he’s talking about, it’s fairly obvious. Must have muddled himself up reading things he doesn’t understand.

Look up the condemnation of monothelitism. Google is your friend, and with your attitude probably your only one.

 

[DefenderPro]

Every argument must base itself on certain premises. Since you listed your religion as Catholic I assumed that you would accept the infallibility of the Church as a premise, if that assumption was incorrect then you should have said so.

It would be a far-fetched assumption to reason that just because I listed my religion as Catholic that I would blindly accept every teaching of the Church. So no, I do not accept the infallibility of the Church. Why should I have said so? You didn’t state anything of the sort, you went straight ahead with your assertion.

I reason based on my observation that very few Catholics hold that the Church is infallible, and given the numbers of the Church why would the Church be losing its influence on historically Catholic matters such as contraception, abortion, etc.? If every ‘Catholic’ held the position that the Church is infallible? But ah, I digress.

Do you have any more Neo-nominalism to spout?

If you can’t answer the question then say so, there’s no need for rhetoric. Let’s also not forget blurting statements like that is akin to poisoning-the-well and a sad case of red herrings. You’re on a roll these days.

Look up the condemnation of monothelitism. Google is your friend, and with your attitude probably your only one.

Of course…it’s my attitude is it? I’m the one who is being an authoritarian and preaching, Whatever you’re attempting to conjure up, it certainly isn’t Catholicism. Me thinks you’ve been mixing things after a prescibed reading dosage proved too heavy-handed for thee. The Catholicism most people grow up with doesn’t consist of dialectic flagellation and spent summers over the ontology of Jesus.

I think it’s time to put down those books Jim, it’s beyond you.

 

[devoutchristian]

It would be a far-fetched assumption to reason that just because I listed my religion as Catholic that I would blindly accept every teaching of the Church. So no, I do not accept the infallibility of the Church. Why should I have said so? You didn’t state anything of the sort, you went straight ahead with your assertion.

I reason based on my observation that very few Catholics hold that the Church is infallible, and given the numbers of the Church why would the Church be losing its influence on historically Catholic matters such as contraception, abortion, etc.? If every ‘Catholic’ held the position that the Church is infallible? But ah, I digress.

It is highly deceptive to claim to adhere to a religion when one actually doesn’t. In any case, the majority of Catholics who post on this forum are orthodox, so it was reasonable for me to assume that you adhered at least to the basics of the faith.

If you can’t answer the question then say so, there’s no need for rhetoric. Let’s also not forget blurting statements like that is akin to poisoning-the-well and a sad case of red herrings. You’re on a roll these days.

It’s not a Red herring, but rather an exposing of your loaded question. Look up what Nominalism is and you should be able to figure out how my response related to your question, but I’d be willing to explain if you still can’t grasp it.

Of course…it’s my attitude is it?

Yes. It is. Making ad hominem attacks on me because I’m a realist shows that you lack the skills to effectively debate.

I think it’s time to put down those books Jim, it’s beyond you.

And you need to preach your Cafeteria Catholicism somewhere else, or better yet you should accept the faith.

 

[CaptFun]

=Bradski;10854182

]The get-out-jail-card to end all get-out-of-jail cards. But isn’t it a little capricious that God commands others to kill on his behalf and then does the deed himself on other occasions?

“We (Church) are bound by the sacraments, God is not.”

Not capricious (as on a whim or indiscriminately if He pleases because He is unaccountable to a greater power that could call Him unto account) but rather, actions full of meaning and purpose. Even if we aren’t privy to all the whys and wherefores of the decision, and His overall purpose"that none may perish" eternally but that all should come to repentance and salvation, is as not clearly seen here immediately; as this is not His usual way of doing things.

=Bradski;10854182

Is there a difference? Well yes. HE can (and does) resurrect the “dead” – whereas people acting on their own can never repair the damage they have done – let alone make things BETTER as the Lord can. God has given us all a temporary life (here on Earth) apart from (or a part OF) our eternal existence. From our perspective - we eventually “die” and are resurrected - or transported to judgement and reward/punishment/purification for reward. We don’t see the post-death now so what is relevant day to day is our life on Earth. Death is the mysterious end - and we view it with awe (often horror) … and dwelt upon too much, it* can *ruin our day.

Via “free will” we CAN judge God within ourselves (positively, negatively or dismissively e.g.) – but that judgement has more consequences for US than Him. Per this incident, we might stupidly see it as God also being a mego-egotist here - killing the Amalekites (what could they do to Him after all?) for some reason, and recruiting a more pleasing to Him nation to “do His dirty work” seemingly, in complete violation of the quite good and sensible “Thou shalt not kill” commandment.

Making an exception to the rule for Israel and demonstrating the opposite of the rule Himself (which, per leading by example, seems to run to a different lesson than Jesus turning the other cheek, loving His enemies, and “doing the dying” instead of “commanding the killing”). That is: God’s incisive justice is the lesson here not God’s boundless mercy (in Christ’s Passion).

=Bradski;10854182

Or do we play the card again? God is a BIT beyond us. And we sometimes feel like we have to “deal with” or endure the cards that GET played. When we are confronted by evil, we might sometimes cry to God “Why don’t you DO something about this?” Yet when He does (like in the examples of Sodom and this story) the justice frightens us (for we are all a bit guilty of things too). And then might have wished He was more merciful! Which would be a measure of “Love of Neighbor” which God wants us to have for one another - so maybe He accomplishes some of that through these things.

In that light “Vengeance is mine says the Lord” is more of an addendum to “THOU shalt not Kill” (Divine justice will be done, you will be satisfied) – and is here demonstrated visibly against a nation so evil it even killed its own babies.

It is “appointed for all men to die” goes beyond the particular of this case and makes us ask “Why?” Does this means God kills us all? That later on, individually, all the Israelites died too? One could see a “capricious” or unfeeling perverse God if that’s ALL one sees. Such a God would NEVER (it’d seem to us in that state) become man, live in poverty, as a wandering nomad, in an ancient time, among a captive people, depending upon the help of his creatures, sleeping outside many nights, enduring slander, torture, defamation and death – just to ensure that the death of His created loved ones was not their final tragedy but a step that led to a better life.

Do we hate people dying (?) … that’s good! That’s “love thy neighbor” which is half of Christianity.

"Hope you get to heaven … " is the Catholic Church’s hope for all. It’s giving out free roadmaps and lectures from “tourguides” in the meanwhile. ( Well, we should put something in the basket! Lol.) Heaven’s not guaranteed.

On the “God was wrong” - or rash or evil - front:

I can’t look at a crucifix or the creche of Bethlehem – and see “God as an egotist”.

The idea of justifying abortions today because “God does it …” via miscarriages or
in the case of some of the Amalekite women in that battle - has a spiritual component.
It is not the Holy Spirit though. Destroying (especially of people, one of God’s highest creations) is not good, and murders justified beget more of that. This reminds me of W.C.Fields getting caught reading the Bible and explaining himself " …just looking for loopholes!"

Babies are one of God’s best ideas. They change the adults around them for the better usually. And delight us. And bring about a nurturing, loving unselfish side to us. No wonder the opposing spirit wants them killed and “us” to do it (rather the inverse of this story that will seem). Abortion is a ghastly injustice. And those who have any part in it cannot repair the damage done. Whereas God can and does.

Using scripture to try to justify abortion is like cutting in line in the express lane to hell. :bigyikes: “Behold I make all things new …” is a thing I could repeat … but DO it? :nope:

We can question in a spirit of honest inquiry though, " … seek and ye shall find … " so thanks for your thoughts Bradski. You might enjoy this (from a movie I can’t name):

Some Guy (angrily):

"Why, you … you’re just an ATHEIST!"

Woody Allen (defensively): “Well, well … to YOU maybe … but to ***HIM ***… I’m … like the "loyal opposition !”

 

[Tomdstone]

He doesn’t know what he’s talking about, it’s fairly obvious. Must have muddled himself up reading things he doesn’t understand.

True, as I have said already. But not an answer to a specific question. Just more or less an attack on my lack of understanding how this could be. If God has one will before the Incarnation, and two wills after the Incarnation, that seems like a change to me. The explanation given that God has one divine will is OK, but where I get lost is where He then does not change on the one hand, but on the other hand, He now has two wills, one divine and one human? Why would that not be a change?

 

[devoutchristian]

True, as I have said already. But not an answer to a specific question. Just more or less an attack on my lack of understanding how this could be. If God has one will before the Incarnation, and two wills after the Incarnation, that seems like a change to me. The explanation given that God has one divine will is OK, but where I get lost is where He then does not change on the one hand, but on the other hand, He now has two wills, one divine and one human? Why would that not be a change?

The human will of Jesus is not proper to the Divine nature, but rather it is proper to Jesus’s human nature. Ergo, the Divine nature did not change.

 

[mek42]

I see the OP wrestling with a complicated issue.

First, I think most of us agree that murdering children, born or not, whether genocide or abortion is not good and a large subset of us will further freely admit that these acts are evil.

Then we have an instance in the Bible, ordained as true by the Catholic Church, where God commanded such evil to be done. That all cultures waged war in this way then is the same argument as all teenage boys masturbate, which is frequently rejected here.

Then the OP wonders why abortion is wrong if God commanded such murder of children, born and unborn. This may have proven to be a distraction, as I think the crux of the OPs concern is over the apparent incongruity of God commanding us not to murder and then God goes and commands the same to be done, of innocent children no less.

Some people have proffered that God is not bound by the moral code we are. That he may somehow do evil (at least what would be evil for us to do) yet not doing evil by simple nature of being God. This answer is proving not to be universally satisfying.

I don’t have an answer for this issue. Sometimes though, for matters of faith, we are well served by acknowledging that we do not understand something about the divine, choosing to accept this lack of understanding as an acceptable state - i.e. we do not NEED to know every last thing and then periodically returning to the issue to wrestle with it.

 

[Suslar]

I thought the OP’s issue was with a seeming contradiction of who/what God is – like a vengeful, harsh God in the OT but loving and patient in the NT.

Some skeptics conclude this perceived inconsistency to be proof that the Bible is not what it claims – they think that it is not divine or it is of fallible construction.

Seems to me that what is not being communicated has to do with the nature of God. There are not two different Gods – one harsh and one loving. Such a perception can only come from failing to observe God’s infinite love in the OT or not seeing His judgment in the NT.

 

[devoutchristian]

I see the OP wrestling with a complicated issue.

First, I think most of us agree that murdering children, born or not, whether genocide or abortion is not good and a large subset of us will further freely admit that these acts are evil.

Then we have an instance in the Bible, ordained as true by the Catholic Church, where God commanded such evil to be done. That all cultures waged war in this way then is the same argument as all teenage boys masturbate, which is frequently rejected here.

Then the OP wonders why abortion is wrong if God commanded such murder of children, born and unborn. This may have proven to be a distraction, as I think the crux of the OPs concern is over the apparent incongruity of God commanding us not to murder and then God goes and commands the same to be done, of innocent children no less.

Some people have proffered that God is not bound by the moral code we are. That he may somehow do evil (at least what would be evil for us to do) yet not doing evil by simple nature of being God. This answer is proving not to be universally satisfying.

I don’t have an answer for this issue. Sometimes though, for matters of faith, we are well served by acknowledging that we do not understand something about the divine, choosing to accept this lack of understanding as an acceptable state - i.e. we do not NEED to know every last thing and then periodically returning to the issue to wrestle with it.

Because of original sin, God has a right to take human life, just as the state has the right to take the life of a murderer. Therefore, just as a person who executes a murderer on the direct order of the state is not guilty of murder, so too a person who kills another on the direct order of God is not guilty of murder.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Because of original sin, God has a right to take human life, just as the state has the right to take the life of a murderer. Therefore, just as a person who executes a murderer on the direct order of the state is not guilty of murder, so too a person who kills another on the direct order of God is not guilty of murder.

No, it’s just sanctioned murder.

 

[devoutchristian]

No, it’s just sanctioned murder.

No it isn’t. If I lend something to someone, I’m well within my rights to take it back. Since we are all literally living on borrowed time, God has the right to end our lives.

 

[PeterGStanley]

The two can’t be compared - there was a reason why God asked for this - it’s clearly stated. So the nation of Israel would not be corrupted by the worship of Baal and other Gods these people worshiped. They never followed Gods command and were corrupted over and over by idol worship.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

No it isn’t. If I lend something to someone, I’m well within my rights to take it back. Since we are all literally living on borrowed time, God has the right to end our lives.

I was talking about capital punishment but since you brought it up, That makes life not a gift but rather a loan.

 

[devoutchristian]

I was talking about capital punishment but since you brought it up, That makes life not a gift but rather a loan.

It was an analogy. Life is a gift because we don’t have to pay any form of rent and because we will be resurrected at the end of time. Also, our existence is itself a gift from God, although he would not have a right to take our life had the fall not happened, so if you wish to claim that revocability is incompatible with being a gift, then it would technically speaking be the case that God gave us a gift, we lost it, and then he gave us a loan.

 

[CaptFun]

A late attribution to a previous paraphrase of mine. The last line here is the accurate quote, and it’s from the Catholic Catechism (I bold the quote, below and include the context of it):

VI. THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” ***
God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.***

This was in response to a critique that (per this thread topic) the argument that:

Similarly God is above His own law. Regarding His ordering Israel to wipe out the Amalekites – a doom that included pregnant women - hence abortions were done; HE could save or resurrect people He took the lives of (whereas people who justify abortion today cannot repair their sin, resurrect, reward etc.).

… was like a (theological) “Get out of jail free card”. A cop out.

Since the thread title is:

How can God be against abortion when he ordered the deaths of Amalekite infants/children?

I was alluding to the fact that “THOU shalt not kill …” applies to man not God. God is not bound to the commandments any more than to the Sacraments - though He is present in them. Per murder, God doesn’t do that. He does appoint men to die (to this life on Earth). After which is not the end but judgement - and reward, punishment or purification unto eternal reward.

My position was that the idea that: God is somehow NOT against abortions because He’d done it Himself – is FAR from plausible (a lie if you wish). Abortions destroy what HE is creating. Those Amalekites died a long time ago - hopefully some repented or turned to God or received God’s mercy and are in heaven now. There are “at risk” unborn children today, also created by God – scheduled to be killed in abortions.

The “How can God be against abortion …” prefix was stunning in its boldness; creative in its intellectual grasping and reach; and yet blind to the obvious differences that:

• unborn children are innocent, not guilty like the Amalekites #
• God is creating them not destroying them,
• the Amalekites were being punished partly FOR infanticide
• God commanded Israel to doom the Amalekites - Israelites took no spoils, treasures
• Abortionists act on their own and kill for profit.

The unborn Amalekite children under the doom might well be in a better place now, having committed no actual sins. They were innocent but for original sin. Not baptized - but again the critical words are:​

God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but He Himself is not bound by his sacraments.

And

**Romans 9:15 ** For he says to Moses: “I will show mercy to whom I will, I will take pity on whom I will.”

16 So it depends not upon a person’s will or exertion, but upon God, who shows mercy.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It was an analogy. Life is a gift because we don’t have to pay any form of rent and because we will be resurrected at the end of time. Also, our existence is itself a gift from God, although he would not have a right to take our life had the fall not happened, so if you wish to claim that revocability is incompatible with being a gift, then it would technically speaking be the case that God gave us a gift, we lost it, and then he gave us a loan.

Actually even if Adam had not sinned he was still intrinsically subject to aging and death.
Therefore God would not seem to be retracting a gift he never gave.

 

[devoutchristian]

Actually even if Adam had not sinned he was still intrinsically subject to aging and death.

This is incorrect. Humans were naturally immortal. That is why we will be resurrected on the last day.

 

[Debora123]

I don’t like/understand this at all.

I also don’t like the answer some gave of “God is God… he can do what He wants.”

Yes, obviously He can. But the God we know is a loving and merciful God. Most importantly, God is LOVE and God is GOOD. Killing innocent children is not a good, loving thing to do. And it’s impossible for God to do anything that isn’t loving because God IS love Himself.

Normally I just brush off whatever the OT says as symbolism or parody. I don’t think the OT is a good reflection of Christian principles and the Christian perception of God. I don’t like it at all.