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

[Blue_Horizon]

Writing a long post and making false claims about what the Church fathers taught does not make one right. The Church’s teaching is quite clear.

If it is quite clear then provide a clear authority rather than an indirect sniping hit and run my friend. Very Wizard of Oz. The short CCC phrase does not clearly make your point, especially as it contradicts Aquinas if it were how you interpretted it.

 

[devoutchristian]

If it is quite clear then provide a clear authority rather than an indirect sniping hit and run my friend. Very Wizard of Oz.

theworkofgod.org/dogmas.htm

#17 and #20 under “God the Creator”. If that’s not enough to convince you then I give up, I’ve proven my point.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

theworkofgod.org/dogmas.htm

#17 and #20 under “God the Creator”. If that’s not enough to convince you then I give up, I’ve proven my point.

OK I accept #17 is much clearer and explicit than your CCC 400 above.
It states:

“In addition to sanctifying grace, our first parents were endowed with the preternatural gift of bodily immortality.”

Now lets look at this more closely:
(1) It is not from a Council, it is not from a Pope, it is not from an Early Church Father, it is not from a Doctor of the Church, it is not even from the writings of a saint. It is from someone called “Dr. Ludwig Ott” who wrote a book in 1974 of his personal understanding of the Catholic Catechism (and in 1974 it would have been the “old Catechism” at that).

Sorry, this is hardly any more authorative than your own personal interpretation of the modern CCC above. He does have a theology degree which lends him slightly more credibility than you. However I have a theology degree as well and I have learnt differently so that doesn’t really help. Have another try with something really authorative.

(2) Even if this was totally correct (it is still open to debate so far) note the phrase “preternatural” immortality. That much is really pretty much what I am saying. Adam’s bodily immortality is not intrinsic to his Nature (i.e. as of right regardless of what God later decides). “Preter-Natural” (as opposed to Natural) means by definition that bodily immortality is outside/above the warrants of created Human Nature. It is an extrinsic gift from God that he may withdraw at his pleasure even after granting.

You have been arguing that bodily immortality is an intrinsic right of original created Human Nature. I thus believe you are very mistaken on this.

Bodily immortality is in fact an external extrinsic gift (i.e. provided only in the Garden of Eden where Man walked in friendship with God) .

The only point I disagree with re the good Dr Otto is that it seems God never actually gave Adam that preternatural gift before he sinned - though God intended to. Yes it seems God did intend to eventually give Adam access to the Tree of Life but did not get that far because Adam failed the initial test of obedience. In fact he was driven from the Garden after he sinned precisely so he could not eat from it even if he wanted to. I may be wrong on this particular point but at the moment I do not believe so.

Therefore bodily life in this world is not a human right before God. And He is not unjust if he arbitrarily decides not to extend it or even decides to take it back. Its like the story of the day workers in the market place. Is the Landowner unjust if he freely decides to overpay some and not others? Whether God ever truly gave a direct command to his Chosen People to kill others who got in their way…I have my doubts. Or it may be a case similar to Moses and divorce, it was never meant to be thus but was necessary due to the hardness of hearts.

 

[devoutchristian]

OK I accept #17 is much clearer and explicit than your CCC 400 above.
It states:

“In addition to sanctifying grace, our first parents were endowed with the preternatural gift of bodily immortality.”

Now lets look at this more closely:
(1) It is not from a Council, it is not from a Pope, it is not from an Early Church Father, it is not from a Doctor of the Church, it is not even from the writings of a saint. It is from someone called “Dr. Ludwig Ott” who wrote a book in 1974 of his personal understanding of the Catholic Catechism (and in 1974 it would have been the “old Catechism” at that).

Sorry, this is hardly any more authorative than your own personal interpretation of the modern CCC above. He does have a theology degree which lends him slightly more credibility than you. However I have a theology degree as well and I have learnt differently so that doesn’t really help. Have another try with something really authorative.

(2) Even if this was totally correct (it is still open to debate so far) note the phrase “preternatural” immortality. That much is really pretty much what I am saying. Adam’s bodily immortality is not intrinsic to his Nature (i.e. as of right regardless of what God later decides). “Preter-Natural” (as opposed to Natural) means by definition that bodily immortality is outside/above the warrants of created Human Nature. It is an extrinsic gift from God that he may withdraw at his pleasure even after granting.

You have been arguing that bodily immortality is an intrinsic right of original created Human Nature. I thus believe you are very mistaken on this.

Bodily immortality is in fact an external extrinsic gift (i.e. provided only in the Garden of Eden where Man walked in friendship with God) .

The only point I disagree with re the good Dr Otto is that though God intended to give Adam access to the Tree of Life (i.e. granting of the conditional preternatural gift of bodily immortality) He never actually got to that decision because Adam failed the initial test of obedience. I may be wrong on this particular point but at the moment I do not believe so.

Therefore bodily life in this world is not a human right before God. And He is not unjust if he arbitrarily decides not to extend it or even decides to take it back. Its like the story of the day workers in the market place. Is the Landowner unjust if he freely decides to overpay some and not others? Whether God ever truly gave a direct command to his Chosen People to kill others who got in their way…I have my doubts. Or it may be a case similar to Moses and divorce, it was never meant to be thus but was necessary due to the hardness of hearts.

I think that you may be confusing supernatural glorification with simple bodily immortality.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I think that you may be confusing supernatural glorification with simple bodily immortality.

Wrong again.

The Tree of Life does not represent the Beatific Vision - though it is commonly mistaken as such. The TOL is a temporal pre-figurement of glorification and the Beatific Vision/participation.

Notice how the Church Fathers and even Paul see the Tree of Life as a temporal pre-figuring of the Cross/Redemption/Eucharist. (The Bread of Life is the “fruit” of the wood of the cross.)

 

[devoutchristian]

Wrong again.

The Tree of Life does not represent the Beatific Vision - though it is commonly mistaken as such. The TOL is a temporal pre-figurement of glorification and the Beatific Vision/participation.

Notice how the Church Fathers and even Paul see the Tree of Life as a temporal pre-figuring of the Cross/Redemption/Eucharist. (The Bread of Life is the “fruit” of the wood of the cross.)

So you still believe that Adam was not naturally immortal?

 

[Suslar]

I am not taking any “cheap shots.”

Please stop spreading untruths about what our Church teaches.

The Church teaches that we ARE indeed allowed to read the OT in an allegorical sense.

My friend, I did not accuse YOU of anything.
And, I have NEVER spread untruths about my beautiful Mother Church. It is FACT that Roman Catholics do not read the Holy Scripture literally. We understand it from an exegetical approach.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

So you still believe that Adam was not naturally immortal?

It’s allegory -

390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.265

 

[Suslar]

I am not taking any “cheap shots.”

Please stop spreading untruths about what our Church teaches.

The Church teaches that we ARE indeed allowed to read the OT in an allegorical sense.

Dear Deborah123,

It was “devoutchristian” in post # 143 who wrote “We are to interpret scripture in the literal sense of the words, and not go looking for alternative meanings when the author’s intent is as clear as day.” That is not true. We are not literalists.

Why would you make a false accusation about me? If there is one statement I’ve made that is untrue, please provide a quote and report me to the moderators for it. But, in reviewing, when you find no such thing has ever happened since I’ve been a member on CAF, please retract your inaccurate statement.

I don’t know what point you are trying to make because I did not comment on anything you posted. Still, I encourage any faithful Catholic who is reading this post to take a look at the various comments from all who bothered to write and see if the words sound encouraging, loving and gentle, or if they would make an unbeliever even more convinced that our Faith is unbelievable . . . .

 

[devoutchristian]

It’s allegory -

A physical serpent and a literal fruit can be interpreted allegorically, bodily immortality cannot.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

A physical serpent and a literal fruit can be interpreted allegorically, bodily immortality cannot.

I know you referenced Dr.Ott but where dies it say it in the Catechism? You pointed to 400 but as pointed out it can be interpreted differently.

IV. MAN IN PARADISE

374 The first man was not only created good, but was also established in friendship with his Creator and in harmony with himself and with the creation around him, in a state that would be surpassed only by the glory of the new creation in Christ.

375 The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original “state of holiness and justice”.250 This grace of original holiness was “to share in. . .divine life”.251

376 By the radiance of this grace all dimensions of man’s life were confirmed. As long as he remained in the divine intimacy, man would not have to suffer or die.252 The inner harmony of the human person, the harmony between man and woman,253 and finally the harmony between the first couple and all creation, comprised the state called “original justice”.

377 The “mastery” over the world that God offered man from the beginning was realized above all within man himself: mastery of self. The first man was unimpaired and ordered in his whole being because he was free from the triple concupiscence254 that subjugates him to the pleasures of the senses, covetousness for earthly goods, and self-assertion, contrary to the dictates of reason.

378 The sign of man’s familiarity with God is that God places him in the garden.255 There he lives “to till it and keep it”. Work is not yet a burden,256 but rather the collaboration of man and woman with God in perfecting the visible creation.

379 This entire harmony of original justice, foreseen for man in God’s plan, will be lost by the sin of our first parents.

If the story is allegory arguing “facts” is pointless. By it’s nature allegory isn’t factual.

 

[devoutchristian]

I know you referenced Dr.Ott but where dies it say it in the Catechism? You pointed to 400 but as pointed out it can be interpreted differently.

If the story is allegory arguing “facts” is pointless. By it’s nature allegory isn’t factual.

There are plenty of Church teachings that “can” be interpreted differently. That doesn’t mean that such interpretations are correct.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

There are plenty of Church teachings that “can” be interpreted differently. That doesn’t mean that such interpretations are correct.

How can speak to the literal immortality of allegorical figures?

 

[devoutchristian]

How can speak to the literal immortality of allegorical figures?

Adam and Eve aren’t “allegorical”.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Adam and Eve aren’t “allegorical”.

The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents

We have first parents, they committed the first sin. The rest is allegory giving it a frame. That’s all we are required to believe. Extrapolating immortality from the allegory isn’t.

 

[devoutchristian]

We have first parents, they committed the first sin. The rest is allegory giving it a frame. That’s all we are required to believe. Extrapolating immortality from the allegory isn’t.

Whatever. If you still don’t believe what the Church has always taught about the matter then that’s your problem, I’ve proven my position.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Whatever. If you still don’t believe what the Church has always taught about the matter then that’s your problem, I’ve proven my position.

No you haven’t. All we are required to believe is that we have original parents and that they committed the original sin. Immortality of Adam isn’t a required belief nor is it supported by the allegory.

[BIBLEDRB]Gen 3:22[/BIBLEDRB]

Adam wasn’t immortal.

 

[Debora123]

My friend, I did not accuse YOU of anything.
And, I have NEVER spread untruths about my beautiful Mother Church. It is FACT that Roman Catholics do not read the Holy Scripture literally. We understand it from an exegetical approach.

Well then I’m sorry I misunderstood you. I agree with the bolded and that is exactly what I was trying to say to the poster that you said “good point” to when he argued against me on that. So I thought you took a different approach and was saying that my views were “cheap shots.” I apologize.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Apparently the bible tag is spotty, this is the quote I tried to post.

Gen 3:22

[22] And he said: Behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil: now, therefore, lest perhaps he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.

Adam wasn’t immortal.

 

[aprilfloyd]

1 Samuel 15:2-3

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 all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”​

Not only does God command the deaths of children and infants, he also makes no distinction between pregnant and non-pregnant women. By implication, obeying this command would have required the Hebrews to commit many abortions.

One defense I’ve often heard to the accusation that this was immoral of God is that God knew that when the Amalekite children grew up, they would try to exact vengeance against the Hebrews. Therefore they were part of the Amalekite evil that God was trying to destroy. But by this logic, one could argue that God might be working through couples choosing abortion to similarly arrange the future in accord with his will.

You could take any of history’s tyrants, for example, and argue that avoiding their evil could have been God’s will, and thus that aborting them would have been God working through the couple who chose the abortion and the doctor who performed it.

So if you believe that God prohibits abortion, how can you reconcile that with God’s actions in the Bible? There seems to be two alternatives: either God is guilty of murder because he commanded abortion, or abortion is not always murder because it might be the will of God.

You have to bear in mind that the Catholic/Christian God is no more true than any other man-made God. Too many posters get confused, by not realising this - There are bound to be inconsistencies, it is inevitable.