How to Respond to Old Testament Violence?

[Gorgias]

“When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. … At that moment she fell down at his feet and died.”

I’m dying to know your answer, so that I can finally know whether God is bloodthirsty or whether the NT contains fiction. Thanks.

Inspired by Jesus’ approach to loaded questions, I answer ‘neither’. God is not bloodthirsty – where in this narrative, which I’ve copied here, does it say that God reached out and killed them? Rather, they died. That, in all its simplicity, is the essence of Church teaching: when we reject God’s love and we do not approach Him for forgiveness, we die – literally! Ananias and Sapphira conspired to defraud God and His Church, and did not show remorse. Death wasn’t a penalty; rather, it was a result.

And, of course, your second option is no better: the NT is not a collection of fictionalized accounts. Yes, its narratives are woven with the goal of converting the unbeliever and lifting up the Christian, but that does not equate to ‘fiction.’

God is neither bloodthirsty nor does He lie. He’s asking you to accept Him, and making that offer to you today. Will you take Him up on it, or take the risk of Ananias?

 

[Zipply]

Could you be more specific about your question?

Sure. Clem is proposing (very cogently) that OT violence is not indicative of a bloodthirsty God, but rather of a bloodthirsty humanity who ascribes to God a violent nature as they struggle to explain the events in their world. I would call this the ‘Modern Catholic scolarly majority’ opinion. I.E., the Jews were living in a violent time and place, they did what they did in the name of God, and so retroactively called it God’s will.

This is an incomplete but tempting explanation of violence ascribed directly to God in the OT. It allows us to, as Clem does, insist that God is unchanging and avoid the Marcionite solution.

What are the criticisms of Clem’s position? One, the not-so-nice teachings of Christ in the Gospels alluding to violence in the afterlife, and Two, the very OT-style deaths of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts.

Clem’s solution works for the OT because the Popes have specifically allowed a ‘fuzzy’ interpretation of the OT, as proposed in Provendentissimus Deus and Divino Afflante Spiritu and Dei Verbum. No such fuzzy interpretation is allowed of the NT…so these two deaths sort of undo Clem’s solution.

I’m hoping Clem is a genius and proposes a real solution to this, since I would love to have one.

 

[Zipply]

Gorgias wrote:

Inspired by Jesus’ approach to loaded questions, I answer ‘neither’. God is not bloodthirsty – where in this narrative, which I’ve copied here, does it say that God reached out and killed them? Rather, they died.

Well, that has to be the most pie-eyed interpretation of a verse I’ve ever seen. I guess it’s too bad Peter didn’t play the lottery that day, since the odds were cosmically in his favor, eh?

That, in all its simplicity, is the essence of Church teaching: when we reject God’s love and we do not approach Him for forgiveness, we die – literally!

No, and I think you need to go to the dictionary and look up ‘literally’. I have been Catholic for over a decade and have had to confess mortal sins before, and hey, I’m still here. Ask my confessor why I’m still here and he’ll say 'Because God loves me and wants to give me every chance to repent". That sort of contradicts your answer completely and totally. Again, go look up the word ‘literally’.

Ananias and Sapphira conspired to defraud God and His Church, and did not show remorse. Death wasn’t a penalty; rather, it was a result.

Ah, ok. Well, I expect the majority of humanity to drop dead right about…now.

What? They didn’t? Why not? Gorgias said…

 

[PRmerger]

Sure. Clem is proposing (very cogently) that OT violence is not indicative of a bloodthirsty God, but rather of a bloodthirsty humanity who ascribes to God a violent nature as they struggle to explain the events in their world. I would call this the ‘Modern Catholic scolarly majority’ opinion. I.E., the Jews were living in a violent time and place, they did what they did in the name of God, and so retroactively called it God’s will.

A tenable position, to be sure.

This is an incomplete but tempting explanation of violence ascribed directly to God in the OT. It allows us to, as Clem does, insist that God is unchanging and avoid the Marcionite solution.

How does the fact that it’s a “tempting explanation” make it false?

I could say: the reason I didn’t put my blinker on when I pulled over was because the EMS vehicle was approaching and I had to get over immediately…

and you could respond, “That’s a tempting explanation”…

but what if that’s the true explanation?

What are the criticisms of Clem’s position? One, the not-so-nice teachings of Christ in the Gospels alluding to violence in the afterlife,

Firstly, who said that Christ’s teachings had to be “nice”?

And what references to violence in the afterlife are you talking about?

and Two, the very OT-style deaths of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts

What’s your objection to their deaths? I’m still not understanding.

Clem’s solution works for the OT because the Popes have specifically allowed a ‘fuzzy’ interpretation of the OT, as proposed in Provendentissimus Deus and Divino Afflante Spiritu and Dei Verbum. No such fuzzy interpretation is allowed of the NT…so these two deaths sort of undo Clem’s solution.

How so? Are people not supposed to die in the NT?

 

[clem456]

A tenable position, to be sure.

How does the fact that it’s a “tempting explanation” make it false?

I could say: the reason I didn’t put my blinker on when I pulled over was because the EMS vehicle was approaching and I had to get over immediately…

and you could respond, “That’s a tempting explanation”…

but what if that’s the true explanation?

Firstly, who said that Christ’s teachings had to be “nice”?

And what references to violence in the afterlife are you talking about?

What’s your objection to their deaths? I’m still not understanding.

How so? Are people not supposed to die in the NT?

There is a difference between the fact of death, and the murder of one people by another, yes?

 

[PRmerger]

There is a difference between the fact of death, and the murder of one people by another, yes?

Sure.

 

[PRmerger]

Ah, ok. Well, I expect the majority of humanity to drop dead right about…now…

Mortal sin…kills.* Literally*. Hence the use of the word “mortal”.

Or do you think God lied when He told Adam and Eve that they would die if they did what He had forbade them to do?

 

[Zipply]

How so? Are people not supposed to die in the NT?

God killed Ananias and Sapphira for their sin. They dropped dead in front of Peter. They did not have Ebola. They were not heavy smokers. They were killed for their sin by God.

My point is that anyone wanting to ‘gloss over’ Old Testament violence ordered or carried out by God as being a ‘human interpretation’ of things has to deal with these two deaths and explain them.

Let us say that Jesus met Ananias, perhaps sitting in a sycamore tree, Jesus would say to him…what? Drop dead?

 

[Zipply]

Wow, you people all need to go to the dictionary and look up “literally”.

Or do you think God lied when He told Adam and Eve that they would die if they did what He had forbade them to do?

They neither died literally at that moment, nor were they consigned to Hell. Adam is a Saint of the Catholic Church. Looks like the burden is on you to explain.

catholicism.org/saint-adam-and-saint-eve-first-age-of-the-world.html

 

[PRmerger]

Wow, you people all need to go to the dictionary and look up “literally”.

Perhaps your error lies in looking at death as physical ONLY.

That’s the problem with such fundamentalist thinking. Using “only” where it is not applicable.

Bible ONLY = fundamentalist.
Science ONLY = fundamentalist.
English ONLY = fundamentalist.

Death means physical death ONLY = fundamentalist.

 

[PRmerger]

God killed Ananias and Sapphira for their sin. They dropped dead in front of Peter. They did not have Ebola. They were not heavy smokers. They were killed for their sin by God.

Yes. We all die, Zipply. Some sooner rather than later.

My point is that anyone wanting to ‘gloss over’ Old Testament violence ordered or carried out by God as being a ‘human interpretation’ of things has to deal with these two deaths and explain them.

The explanation is that all of us die from our sins and our choices.

I am bemused by your inability to understand this.

Let us say that Jesus met Ananias, perhaps sitting in a sycamore tree, Jesus would say to him…what? Drop dead?

He would say: when you sin mortally, you die. Literally.

 

[PRmerger]

They neither died literally at that moment, nor were they consigned to Hell. Adam is a Saint of the Catholic Church. Looks like the burden is on you to explain.

To explain what? That he was a sinner and a saint? Why would I need to explain that?

 

[PRmerger]

Wow, you people all need to go to the dictionary and look up “literally”.

I wonder, Zipply, if you have ever looked in the dictionary under the word “mortal”?

What does it say?

Is death mentioned in the definition?

Yes?

So apply it to the Catholic term "mortal sin".

Do you see how the Church teaching that we die, literally, from some sins is true?

 

[Zipply]

Do you see how the Church teaching that we die, literally, from some sins is true?

Actual Church teaching:

CCC 1855 Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God’s law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.

Ananias and Sapphira committed a sin which destroyed charity in their heart, according to the Church. Why did they drop over physically dead at the moment they were discovered?

 

[PRmerger]

Actual Church teaching:

Yep.

Ananias and Sapphira committed a sin which destroyed charity in their heart, according to the Church. Why did they drop over physically dead at the moment they were discovered?

Why they died “at the moment” of the discovery vs later on…I dunno.

Why is the timing important? Would it bother you if they died the next day? Or in a month?

 

[Zipply]

Why they died “at the moment” of the discovery vs later on…I dunno.

Why is the timing important? Would it bother you if they died the next day? Or in a month?

Because it’s a matter of God’s active vs. passive will and (I guess you forgot) this is a thread about OT violence and whether God is to ‘blame’ for it (is it a matter of His active or passive will).

Either we worship a God who strikes people down, or we worship a God who gives people every chance to repent. Which is it? That’s why the timing matters (how is that not obvious?).

 

[PRmerger]

Because it’s a matter of God’s active vs. passive will and (I guess you forgot) this is a thread about OT violence and whether God is to ‘blame’ for it (is it a matter of His active or passive will).

The violence in the OT is not part of God’s will, Zipply.

Either we worship a God who strikes people down,

If you worship a God who does not have the power to strike people down then you worship a false god.

God, if He is all powerful and the source of life, can give and take life as He sees fit.

or we worship a God who gives people every chance to repent. Which is it?

It’s the proverbial Catholic Both/And. There is no reason to create a dichotomy where none exists.

That fundamentalist “ONLY” thinking is rearing its ugly head again.

He give all of us sufficient time to repent.

But we could also die at any moment, which is why it’s soooo important to avoid sin.

We could decide to commit a mortal sin, and die immediately after that decision or act…and that would be tragic, indeed.

But it’s always a possibility, isn’t it?

That’s why the timing matters (how is that not obvious?).

Please 'splain. It’s not obvious to me.

 

[Zipply]

Please 'splain. It’s not obvious to me.

I tried. You’re using a sad ‘Catholic’ trick of telling anyone trying to get a straight answer that they are trapped in ‘either/or’ thinking. This is a pitiful dodge used by ignorant people.

There is a tremendous amount of ‘either/or’ in Catholicism. Either Jesus is God or He isn’t, etc. etc. A lot of the time, especially on the internet, when we Catholics get asked a tough question and we aren’t able to form a cogent answer, we just say “Oh, you’re using either/or thinking!”. in reality, that’s drivel. Not every hard question is incorrectly formed.

The violence in the OT is not part of God’s will, Zipply.

Oh, well, I guess you solved the entire problem then. Funny that nobody noticed. So, God didn’t will any violence in the OT, but He changed His mind and killed Ananias instantly for his mortal sin (which is by definition a violent act). Nice. Makes as much sense as I expected.

 

[PRmerger]

I tried.

Sorry if I missed it. How about if you just cut and paste the answer for me? Please?

You’re using a sad ‘Catholic’ trick of telling anyone trying to get a straight answer that they are trapped in ‘either/or’ thinking. This is a pitiful dodge used by ignorant people.

Careful, Zipply.You’re starting to get a bit contemptuous and hot under the collar. Perhaps a nerve has been hit when you see your arguments are untenable.

It’s good for you to be here and in dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics so it would be a shame for you to be banned. You need to continue dialogue.

There is a tremendous amount of ‘either/or’ in Catholicism.

Certainly. No one has denied that.

Oh, well, I guess you solved the entire problem then. Funny that nobody noticed. So, God didn’t will any violence in the OT, but He changed His mind and killed Ananias instantly for his mortal sin (which is by definition a violent act). Nice. Makes as much sense as I expected.

Sarcasm is the protest of the weak, Zipply. I rarely use it.

The OT violence is not willed by God. That it is permitted is a different story.

 

[Zipply]

It’s good for you to be here and in dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics so it would be a shame for you to be banned. You need to continue dialogue.

Nice use of a threat. I really enjoy being threatened.

The OT violence is not willed by God. That it is permitted is a different story.

So, you need to be precise about this. You are saying that when the OT says:

And Samuel said to Saul, “The Lord sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore listen to the words of the Lord. Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” (1 Sam 15:1‑3)

…that Samuel is lying.

Right?

Or, if you favor a different explanation, please be precise about it. Sarcasm is not the enemy of discourse, imprecision is.