P
PRmerger
Guest
So what is your conclusion from this? That Yahweh is a monstrous deity and you therefore refuse to worship Yahweh? That God doesn’t exist? That the OT God is different from the NT God?
- Status
G
Gorgias
Guest
Two thoughts…
First, the solution that’s found in Job: that’s nice that it seems to you that an alternative is out there, but by definition, we’re humans with limited perspective, and He’s the omniscient, omnipotent Creator of the universe. Does “it seems to me” trump His judgment?
Second, isn’t “restrict[ing] the bad consequences … for a limited time” exactly what God’s solution is? I mean, if this is your suggestion, then we can quibble over what a proper “limited time” is… but Adam and Eve are now in heaven, we’d suspect, as will we be if we follow God’s will. Their “limited time” is now over, and they’ve been forgiven. Looks like it meets your criteria perfectly!
How do you get from “this is not the state of affairs” to “God is unable to do this other thing”? I have not gotten up and run a marathon this morning. That doesn’t imply that I’m “not able to do that” (in the absence of any other evidence)…
G
Gorgias
Guest
You’re still seeing through the lens of 21st-century western perspective.
This narrative is taking place in a different context; in that context, the extended family – the clan structure – is the main social force in play. What happens to the individual, affects the entire family. What happens to the family, affects the individual. The two cannot be separated in the way that we’d conceive of, here and now.
So, as in Numbers 25, these Midianite princes and their clans (after all, it wasn’t all the Midianites, just these ones) attempted to pull the Israelites away from their God and their just worship of Him. According to the mores of the day (and this is where the historical context that Clem speaks of is so important), the entire clan is guilty. Therefore, all are subject to judgment. It’s no longer a matter of “seasonal warfare in order to increase lands and resources”, it’s a matter of God’s vengeance being satisfied (at least, to their perspective).
It’s interesting that you suggest that “the girls weren’t punished.” Do you call being taken into virtual slavery by the rivals who have killed your family “not punishment”?
C
clem456
Guest
The historical context forms the perspective of the author. The author is not a robot, and he does not go into a trance with God guiding the pen and writing the words for him. The Church does not accept those as valid modes of transmission (I’m not saying anyone here is claiming that specifically, but this idea seems to always be an undercurrent… it’s hard to avoid when we are thinking about the nature of inspiration.) The author is truly and fully human, with free will and his own intellect. All authors of scripture have a bias that is formed by the culture he lives in. Bias is not a bad thing, it just is. We are who we are. God is one at all times, yet not all human beings understand him the same way. Ancient cultures had ways of understanding God that we do not share now.
For one thing, we have the wonderful revelation of Christ’s life.
Can we accept the human perspective of the author, and still give our assent to the absolutely inspired nature of scripture? Yes we can, through faith and the guidance of the Church. Faith asks us to read and absorb scripture, pray over it, listen to the Church, and above all accept it in light of the person of Jesus Christ.
All scripture is a work of literature, but scripture is not literalist in the eyes of the Church. Not all scripture is factually and historically provable, or “true”. And yet it is all Truth.
Literalist interpretation of scripture is dangerous. It can be used to justify all kinds of evil in the name of “God’s will” and it has used this way over the centuries to this very day.
A Catholic is not required to accept that God literally willed the slaying of seemingly innocent people by others. It is ok for us to believe that the author had an understanding of God’s will that is influenced by the times and place he lived in.
But a Catholic is required to accept the inspiration of these passages and the Truth they convey. And this is why we have exhaustive study of Scripture in the Church, that the Truth might be expressed.
G
Gorgias
Guest
I agree with everything you’ve written here; yes, this is the Church’s perspective to understanding Scripture.
Are you asserting that the events we’re discussing never happened? If you were to make this assertion with, for instance, the narratives of the first few chapters of Genesis, I’d be right with you. However, you seem to be asserting that these events, as recorded here, are ‘made up stories.’ Made up in order to tell a Truth, as you put it, to be sure, but fictional nonetheless.
Is that what you’re asserting?
An overly allegorical interpretation of Scripture is likewise dangerous. It can be used to justify all kinds of dismissal of God’s word, and it has been used this way over the centuries to this very day.
Are you suggesting that this is what I’m asserting? Certainly, it is not. I am not suggesting that God willed the deaths of innocents. I’m claiming that, in the historical context of these narratives we’re discussing, the people who were punished weren’t innocents. It’s a subtle – but critical! – difference…
C
clem456
Guest
No. No one has any way of disputing what happened historically. I accept that the Israelites recorded our history, inspired by God. What I would not accept is…the taking out of context of the various writings which record God demanding and actually verbally requesting the slaughter of others in questionable circumstances. (“God said to Moses, slay them”…). Did God actually say “go and do this”? Or did the author impute to God the words and will to see ancient justice done by human violence? And I think this is exactly what Pope Benedict is asking us to consider in his discussion of the dark passages. If we had a conversation with Jesus of Nazareth about these events, what would he say about the nature of God? How would he deal with non-combatants? Benedict calls Christ “the ultimate hermeneutical key”.
For me personally, and I think for anyone of faith, the message of these passages is loud and clear: “Root sin out of your life, and do it completely and definitively. Take “the sword” to it”.
That’s for sure. We go through this in a bible study I participate in. Because a couple of the members don’t believe things “actually happened”, they dismiss the OT. And unfortunately they lose whatever it is God is saying to them through these passages. And he is saying something, we need not be deaf. A searching and probing exegesis is good, deafness is not.An overly allegorical interpretation of Scripture is likewise dangerous. It can be used to justify all kinds of dismissal of God’s word, and it has been used this way over the centuries to this very day.
My apologies. I did conflate the two ideas.Are you suggesting that this is what I’m asserting? Certainly, it is not. I am not suggesting that God willed the deaths of innocents. I’m claiming that, in the historical context of these narratives we’re discussing, the people who were punished weren’t innocents. It’s a subtle – but critical! – difference…
We might disagree over the imputation of guilt and punishment to these others, but that’s just a difference of reading. And honestly, I cannot debate whether they were guilty of something. I would agree with the point that participation in sin always bears consequences.
S
Sky_River
Guest
God did order and condone the Old Testament violence. He ordered Moses to kill thousands of Israelites to punish them for their idolatry.
The arguement that God didnt order the OT violence is a myth and a fallacy.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
God in the OT seems to be very harsh. But God in the NT seems to be very charitable and understanding. How is it possible that there is this huge difference since the essence of God is unchanging.
S
Sky_River
Guest
Is that a statement or a question? I dont understand what exactly youre trying to say.
S
Sky_River
Guest
The OT and NT seem very contradictory. In Leviticus 21 9 KJV (the verse may not be literal), it says that the punishment for clergy daughter becoming prostitutes was death by burning, in the law of Israel that God gave to moses, and the OT laws that God (Jesus is God the Son) gave to israel, said that adulterers were to be put to death. But Jesus in the NT didnt seem like he supported those laws.So what is your conclusion from this? That Yahweh is a monstrous deity and you therefore refuse to worship Yahweh? That God doesn’t exist? That the OT God is different from the NT God?
Some have said that God was less harsh towards humanity after the crucifixion because their sins were forgiven by his death on the cross, but Jesus forgiving the woman who committed adultrey, and showing mercy to other sins (whom the Law of israel gave the death penalty to), happened before the Crucifixion.
Hebrews 13 8 says God never changes-but how can that be true if Jesus/God acted very different in the OT than in the NT?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Only in the same way that you as a parent might be construed as being “very contradictory” when you treat your 2 yr old differently than you do your 12 yr old?
Do you think that would be a fair assessment to say that you are contradicting your parenting principles since you are different to the toddler than the preteen?
Z
Zipply
Guest
Welcome to Marcionism.
I have a lot of sympathy for Marcion. More so than any other heresiarch.
When faced with these difficult passages, two urges are in tension. One is to defend the inspiration of scripture, the other is to defend the justice of God. Marcion decided God’s justice and goodness were more vital than the inspiration of the OT (or than monotheism, the main reason he got kicked out).
This is, in my opinion, the greatest challenge facing the Church. A skeptical world demands that God be just on at least a human level. They do not want to worship a God who is not at least fair in matters of life and death. Small wonder, considering that an appeal to the universality of morality has been part of basic Christian apologetics since Paul. We taught them to see morality as written on their hearts, now their consciences speak loudly against the brutalities of the ancients.
The Church is caught in this snare of our own devising. We had no reason to deeply consider this issue for most of our 2000 years. Over the last century and a half, the movement has begun, but not too fast lest the opposite error, simple disbelief in scripture, take too firm a hold. Only in such an environment could the perfect interpreter of God’s word be so hesitant.
Left with nearly useless formulations (‘symbols which describe real events’) our preachers fumble to explain the OT and eventually most just avoid. Saying ‘you must be sensitive to genre’ is not the same as actually using this principle to determine what happened.
I have a lot of sympathy for Marcion. More so than any other heresiarch.
When faced with these difficult passages, two urges are in tension. One is to defend the inspiration of scripture, the other is to defend the justice of God. Marcion decided God’s justice and goodness were more vital than the inspiration of the OT (or than monotheism, the main reason he got kicked out).
This is, in my opinion, the greatest challenge facing the Church. A skeptical world demands that God be just on at least a human level. They do not want to worship a God who is not at least fair in matters of life and death. Small wonder, considering that an appeal to the universality of morality has been part of basic Christian apologetics since Paul. We taught them to see morality as written on their hearts, now their consciences speak loudly against the brutalities of the ancients.
The Church is caught in this snare of our own devising. We had no reason to deeply consider this issue for most of our 2000 years. Over the last century and a half, the movement has begun, but not too fast lest the opposite error, simple disbelief in scripture, take too firm a hold. Only in such an environment could the perfect interpreter of God’s word be so hesitant.
Left with nearly useless formulations (‘symbols which describe real events’) our preachers fumble to explain the OT and eventually most just avoid. Saying ‘you must be sensitive to genre’ is not the same as actually using this principle to determine what happened.
po18guy
Well-known member
In the OT, before the Incarnation, God used various people, races, wars, violence, etc to carryout His justice. There was only reward (mercy) for doing right, and contemporaneous punishment (justice) for violating God’s commandments. That all changed at the Incarnation. All justice has been handed over to His Son, who was sent not to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. Thus, we do not see NT wars against Chaldeans or Moabites, since it is not the Old Covenant, but the new covenant in Christ’s Blood. The Hebrews have been scattered across the face of the earth and all nations are now subject to the Son. What we will experience is the judgment of the earth at the end of time - which might be today. So, we are to “watch.”
T
Tomdstone
Guest
But I thought that God does not change. Now you tell us that everything changed at the Incarnation.
po18guy
Well-known member
God is unchanging. His covenants with man, however, do change. If they do not, you might have to find a Rabbi with a scalpel.
Z
Zipply
Guest
There are a limited number of solutions. Which one you take largely determines your place in the Church:
1.The OT is literally true, including the motivations ascribed to God. God is jealous and angry from time to time. This explains natural disasters, particularly ones that happen to foreign people. - you will probably end up in an FSSP or SSPX chapel.
2.The OT is purely symbolic, the symbols being inventions of scribes who had no knowledge of actual Israeli history and had a heterodox conception of God. - you will be happiest in a progressive parish in an urban, coastal diocese.
3.The Entire Bible is myth. - you might want to consider emigrating to Northern Europe. Belgium is nice, and you’ll have several pews all to yourself.
4.The OT is completely true in a way we cannot define, but also symbolic(especially the beginning of Genesis and anyplace it says God kills somebody) which might mean it didn’t happen and might not. We just know we have to be sensitive to genre even though no one ever actually uses that principle to teach us anything. Oh, and we pretend not to know about Ananias and Sapphira. - welcome to your neighborhood parish.
1.The OT is literally true, including the motivations ascribed to God. God is jealous and angry from time to time. This explains natural disasters, particularly ones that happen to foreign people. - you will probably end up in an FSSP or SSPX chapel.
2.The OT is purely symbolic, the symbols being inventions of scribes who had no knowledge of actual Israeli history and had a heterodox conception of God. - you will be happiest in a progressive parish in an urban, coastal diocese.
3.The Entire Bible is myth. - you might want to consider emigrating to Northern Europe. Belgium is nice, and you’ll have several pews all to yourself.
4.The OT is completely true in a way we cannot define, but also symbolic(especially the beginning of Genesis and anyplace it says God kills somebody) which might mean it didn’t happen and might not. We just know we have to be sensitive to genre even though no one ever actually uses that principle to teach us anything. Oh, and we pretend not to know about Ananias and Sapphira. - welcome to your neighborhood parish.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Why would Gold want to change so much from the OT to the NT? Since God is unchanging, it seems like He would not want to make so many changes to his laws?
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Not sure that the NT was more difficult. After all, there were 600+ commandments to fulfill in the OT and many of those have been discarded by Christians today.
S
Sky_River
Guest
I dont get the joke about the rabbi with a scalpel.
P
PRmerger
Guest
- Status