P
PaleoConCatlick
Guest
This isn’t necessarily an atheist question. It’s a reasonable question.
How can God be against abortion when he ordered the deaths of Amalekite infants/children?
- Status
G
Gorgias
Guest
Note that, in fact, the Israelites didn’t wipe out the Amalekites to the very last child. There were survivors who show up in 1 Chronicles 4. So, you would have to amend your argument to deal with either the fact that God’s will wasn’t done (hmmm…) or that it was done, and in such a way that didn’t require killing all the children and pregnant women of the Amalekites (in fact, for them to be called ‘Amalekites’ at all, in the time of Hezekiah, it implies that there were still male Amalekites around…).
I’m not sure how you see this. You seem to be calling ‘equivalent’ one case in which God makes a command that people obey (‘fight the Amalekites’) and another in which God makes a command that people disobey (take your pick: either the Scriptural commandment not to murder, or the contemporary Church teaching forbidding abortion). If this is the distinction you’re trying to make, then I think you’ll need to explain a bit further, since it seems that your assertion fails on its face.
So… you’re suggesting that God works through people by telling them to commit sin? You’d need to substantiate that assertion, since it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny on its own merits…
P
PetrusRomanus
Guest
The law of Moses was not the law of God.
“from the beginning it was not so!”
“from the beginning it was not so!”
P
PetrusRomanus
Guest
Nope. God never allowed divorce, Moses did though.
O
openmind77
Guest
The obvious answer is that the Old Testament is wrong. That God did not order any massacres There is so much nonsense in the Old Testament that I have difficulty understanding how people believe in this stuff in this day and age.
The God of the Old Testament who kills people for no reason (Chronicles 21:9-14) or orders Joshua to kill women and babies is totally incompatible with the loving, merciful God preached by Jesus. It is ridiculous to believe in such a violent, vengeful and irrational God.
However, I don’t think this has anything to do with the morality of abortion. But the story of the nasty God of the Old Testament is just not true (along with the earth being 6000 years old and the Sun revolving around the earth). These are stories made up by people who wanted to justify their evil actions (killing of women and children even during war is never acceptable).
B
bzkoss236
Guest
Another important question for the OP:
Have you ever seen, read, or heard about what actually happens in the various forms of abortion?
Have you ever seen, read, or heard about what actually happens in the various forms of abortion?
Q
QuiteCatholic
Guest
Oh for the love of pete!!!
Q
QuiteCatholic
Guest
Oh for the love of Pete!
B
Beryllos
Guest
You can say that again
S
Suslar
Guest
First, God, who is all Good, cannot be immoral. That defies the nature of God.
Second, the death of a pregnant woman is not the same as performing an abortion in which the child is extracted from its mother’s womb. So there is no implication that “would have required the Hebrews to commit many abortions.” That’s just not true. God does prohibit abortion. I think the OP made a huge leap that cannot be substantiated.
I think it’s also interesting when a passage is pulled from Scripture as a supposed defense or justification for an action or belief. How one can use this to support abortion is beyond me. In the NAB, 1 Samuel 15 is titled “The Disobedience of Saul” as that is what the story is actually about. Saul was ordered by God to carry out the punishment of the Amalek people without sparing any people or livestock. Saul did not obey. He took the king (Agag) with him as well as the best livestock. In v9, we are told, “They refused to put under the ban anything that was worthwhile, destroying only what was worthless and of no account.” And then in v23 and v28, we learn what Saul endured as punishment – “Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, the LORD in turn has rejected you as king” and “The LORD has torn the kingdom of Israel from you this day, and has given it to a neighbor of yours, who is better than you.” There was not a double standard from God – the Amalekites were punished for their wrong-doing AND so was Saul.
So what about the innocent people (like the women and children)? Note in verse 6 that Saul warns the Kenites, and he comes with an enormous army so that anyone wishing to flee the city certainly could have. It was not a surprise attack. Scripture tells us that Saul waited (“ . . . after the Kenites left . . . “ v6). Those who were innocent could have chosen to leave. And we know some did leave and were spared death that day because Amalekites fought again in King David’s time (1 Sam 27).
Remember, the Amalekites were a blood thirsty, predatory clan. They surely knew of God’s promise to Abraham (as they were descendents of Esau – Jacob’s brother) which included not only the promised land, but also the promise to “make you into a great nation and bless you” (Gen 12:1-3). This included the promise “I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse.”
Verse 1 of this story in Samuel talks about how the Amalekites attacked Israelites on their way out of Egypt a couple hundred years before. The Amalekites left their homeland to journey down to where the Israelites were to wage war and made their first targets the helpless (see Deut 25:17-19) who were worn out from their walk out of Egypt. The Amalekites cursed Israel by continuing to attack, terrorize and oppress Israel for 200+ more years before Saul’s attack. So they did have several hundred year’s “warning” and knowledge of the Truth of God’s plan for Salvation History.
Still, this wasn’t destruction of individuals on a whim. It is my understanding that God was destroying a corrupt and perverse culture – not necessarily all the people within it. Typically in Bible stories such as these, God destroys a corrupt nation or culture but drives out individuals. Usually, this is only after a long period of time and multiple second and third and fourth chances to cooperate with God’s grace. History of the period also shows that Israel was not just being a “land-grabber” but played a role in eliminating a spiritually and physically destructive threat. And in His justice, when Israel fell into sin and no long cooperated with God, God judged them in the same way and spit them out of the Promised Land too – with equally harsh warfare.
Knowing all of that, I don’t see how one can say the story supports abortion.
Second, the death of a pregnant woman is not the same as performing an abortion in which the child is extracted from its mother’s womb. So there is no implication that “would have required the Hebrews to commit many abortions.” That’s just not true. God does prohibit abortion. I think the OP made a huge leap that cannot be substantiated.
I think it’s also interesting when a passage is pulled from Scripture as a supposed defense or justification for an action or belief. How one can use this to support abortion is beyond me. In the NAB, 1 Samuel 15 is titled “The Disobedience of Saul” as that is what the story is actually about. Saul was ordered by God to carry out the punishment of the Amalek people without sparing any people or livestock. Saul did not obey. He took the king (Agag) with him as well as the best livestock. In v9, we are told, “They refused to put under the ban anything that was worthwhile, destroying only what was worthless and of no account.” And then in v23 and v28, we learn what Saul endured as punishment – “Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, the LORD in turn has rejected you as king” and “The LORD has torn the kingdom of Israel from you this day, and has given it to a neighbor of yours, who is better than you.” There was not a double standard from God – the Amalekites were punished for their wrong-doing AND so was Saul.
So what about the innocent people (like the women and children)? Note in verse 6 that Saul warns the Kenites, and he comes with an enormous army so that anyone wishing to flee the city certainly could have. It was not a surprise attack. Scripture tells us that Saul waited (“ . . . after the Kenites left . . . “ v6). Those who were innocent could have chosen to leave. And we know some did leave and were spared death that day because Amalekites fought again in King David’s time (1 Sam 27).
Remember, the Amalekites were a blood thirsty, predatory clan. They surely knew of God’s promise to Abraham (as they were descendents of Esau – Jacob’s brother) which included not only the promised land, but also the promise to “make you into a great nation and bless you” (Gen 12:1-3). This included the promise “I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse.”
Verse 1 of this story in Samuel talks about how the Amalekites attacked Israelites on their way out of Egypt a couple hundred years before. The Amalekites left their homeland to journey down to where the Israelites were to wage war and made their first targets the helpless (see Deut 25:17-19) who were worn out from their walk out of Egypt. The Amalekites cursed Israel by continuing to attack, terrorize and oppress Israel for 200+ more years before Saul’s attack. So they did have several hundred year’s “warning” and knowledge of the Truth of God’s plan for Salvation History.
Still, this wasn’t destruction of individuals on a whim. It is my understanding that God was destroying a corrupt and perverse culture – not necessarily all the people within it. Typically in Bible stories such as these, God destroys a corrupt nation or culture but drives out individuals. Usually, this is only after a long period of time and multiple second and third and fourth chances to cooperate with God’s grace. History of the period also shows that Israel was not just being a “land-grabber” but played a role in eliminating a spiritually and physically destructive threat. And in His justice, when Israel fell into sin and no long cooperated with God, God judged them in the same way and spit them out of the Promised Land too – with equally harsh warfare.
Knowing all of that, I don’t see how one can say the story supports abortion.
B
beehumble
Guest
This topic has been addressed at least if not more than once in CAF. It would probably be good before posting a question to do a search and read what is already there. Very good faith-grounded answers were given to this question, from what I recall. No need to re-invent the wheel on this.
God bless you.
God bless you.
R
Roscoe_Turner
Guest
I tried to point out ( think I formatted it wrong) that the O.T. didn’t consider the killing of the unborn murder, at least by this passage:
Exodus 21:22-23
[22] If men quarrel, and one strike a woman with child, and she miscarry indeed, but live herself: he shall be answerable for so much damage as the woman’ s husband shall require, and as arbiters shall award. [23] But if her death ensue thereupon, he shall render life for life.
The woman was murder, the unborn was not. Their idea of personhood was different.
S
Suslar
Guest
The OT is wrong?
As Catholics, we accept that the entirety of Scripture is TRUE, although not always historically factual given the nature of some genera of literature. We also accept that some people do have difficulty coming to terms with Scripture and other aspects of the Faith, but that’s not the same as denying Truths. We also know God doesn’t do anything “for no reason” because the nature of God is such that we humans cannot fully comprehend or understand God, God’s Will, or His reasons (doesn’t mean God doesn’t have a reason just because we don’t know it). Jesus preached a God of love AND justice – but also a God who mercifully meets us where we are. In OT times, the people lived in the midst of violence and vengeance inflicted on each other and surely God was there.
From a Catholic point of view, Scripture is inerrant. It is:
The Word of God
The words of the people
A book of covenants
A journal of God’s people.
Everything in it is TRUE because the infallible Author is God. It’s not necessarily factual because God used fallible human authors as His instruments who had the choice of what literary techniques and style each wanted to use, limited knowledge of the world, their own perspectives, and the boundaries of knowledge available at their place in history.
O
openmind77
Guest
The vengeful, angry, violent God of the Old Testament is totally incompatible with the loving, forgiving, merciful God that Jesus described. (I understand it takes a genius to maintain two contradictory ideas in your head, so we must have a lot of geniuses around here).The OT is wrong?
As Catholics, we accept that the entirety of Scripture is TRUE, although not always historically factual given the nature of some genera of literature. We also accept that some people do have difficulty coming to terms with Scripture and other aspects of the Faith, but that’s not the same as denying Truths. We also know God doesn’t do anything “for no reason” because the nature of God is such that we humans cannot fully comprehend or understand God, God’s Will, or His reasons (doesn’t mean God doesn’t have a reason just because we don’t know it). Jesus preached a God of love AND justice – but also a God who mercifully meets us where we are. In OT times, the people lived in the midst of violence and vengeance inflicted on each other and surely God was there.
From a Catholic point of view, Scripture is inerrant. It is:
The Word of God
The words of the people
A book of covenants
A journal of God’s people.
Everything in it is TRUE because the infallible Author is God. It’s not necessarily factual because God used fallible human authors as His instruments who had the choice of what literary techniques and style each wanted to use, limited knowledge of the world, their own perspectives, and the boundaries of knowledge available at their place in history.
If the will of the Father and the will of Son are the same, than according to you, Jesus must have agreed with ordering the massacres in the Old Testament (if you believe the Old Testament stories). If you think, Jesus could have ordered massacres of anybody (let alone women and children), I am afraid you don’t even begin to understand the message of Jesus and that of the New Testament.
D
devoutchristian
Guest
Says the guy who doesn’t even claim to adhere to the teachings of Jesus.
O
openmind77
Guest
I don’t think you need to be a Christian or a Catholic to adhere to Jesus’s teachings. In fact the only living person who I am sure loves his enemies is the Dalai Lama and he is a Buddhist…
D
devoutchristian
Guest
Just being a nice person does not mean that one adheres to Christ’s teachings. One must believe that he is the Christ first of all, since that was one of his teachings.
O
openmind77
Guest
Haha, who said I was a nice person? - just kidding. If you don’t love your enemies, you are definitely not adhering to Jesus’s teachings.
To get back to the thread - Jesus would never agree to the massacres of any people, let alone women and children and I am sure the Father (if that is the God of the Old Testament) is exactly the same way. God would never have ordered massacres. So the Old Testaments stories have been made up by people who want to blame God for their own atrocities.
S
Suslar
Guest
Then perhaps you don’t know enough people?
S
Suslar
Guest
It wasn’t a massacre - it was a forcible eviction. The wrongful inhabitants had 200+ years notice to prepare to leave . . . .
But then, as posted above, it is amusing that someone who is not Christian is attempting to evaluate what a Christian believes about Scripture, God, Jesus and love. You’ve made an error. Scripture is absolutely inerrant. Of course, you don’t have to believe that and there is nothing anyone on this forum could say to convince you. If you have a question to which you want a Catholic perspective, you are in the right place. If you want to argue, it won’t be with me.
I do wonder, if you are so sure about who and what God is, (as in your quote “I am sure the Father is exactly the same way”), why aren’t you Catholic? Would love to help you explore the beautiful Truths of the Faith (but in another thread). Peace to you.
- Status