How to respond to those who call God a mass murderer?

[ErraticFaith]

‘’I request looking at the historical, cultural. and literary contexts to see what is actually happening with a careful eye.’’

Said Adolf Hitler, to Eichmann as the last Jew was forced onto the Train?

Some of you people are hilarious. You’d throw your own family under a bus, Isaac style, if your ‘God’ commanded it

It’s a valid question. One that a lot of people have. I dare say as long as answers to it remain as stupid as ‘God works in mysterious ways’ more and more millennials will join Dawkins and Carrier in ‘’mocking Christians’’ wherever they are found.

Most people who deny genocide find themselves in maximum security prisons in the Middle East.

Perhaps it’s about time the points raised were discussed seriously. Or people asking the questions were directed to those with the ability to correctly present answers.

‘Huehuehue it’s all good cos God can do’ is not an answer in the slightest. In fact that’s just as morally reprehensible as the original accusation.

 

[Agathon]

The justification for the more literalist readings of these passages where innocents are slaughtered at the hands of the Isrealites always boils down two things

they deserved it and God commanded it, so they cannot be innocent
the Israelites needed racial and spiritual purity to accomplish God’s will, and these peoples were contaminant

When you read the book of Judges, and consider God’s statement to Abraham that the wickedness of the Amorites had not yet been fulfilled, these two arguments make sense.

The"just deserts", racial purity, condescension and restraint ideas are anathema to the person of Christ.

The same Christ is going to come back as a judge.

 

[una_ecclesia]

My approach has been largely to make logical sense of the scriptures without becoming a moral monster in the process, since we cannot have God contradict himself… I hope I have done this as best as I could.

Having said all that, what are the answers that you might propose which avoid the stupidities you claim comprise the answers of others?

 

[una_ecclesia]

The"just deserts", racial purity, condescension and restraint ideas are anathema to the person of Christ

I don’t hold to either the “just deserts” or racial purity justifications. They are weak because they contradict both the other teachings in the scriptures and the actual fact of Harem warfare, which killed both innocent and guilty. condescension with restraint, on the other hand is something that is found within the scriptural dialectic, which is why Church fathers as early as St. Irenaeus used the principle to deal with not just the “hard passages” but also the changes in the law throughout salvation history. When you have scripture critiquing other scripture, not by saying that previous laws were evil, but rather that they were incomplete, when you have Jesus saying that certain parts of Deuteronomic law were concessions made to Israelites due to the “hardness of their hearts”, what you are getting is the principle of Divine condescension in play. It’s honestly, I think, the most important of the notions needed to deal with the hard passages without reading what we want to believe into the text.

 

[Reuben_J]

This question has been posted many times in CAF. My answer to it is still the same but probably not impressive nor it satisfies the enquirer.

The harsh realities in the OT goes only to show that we need Jesus. It demonstrates the need for Jesus to stop all the killing ordered by God.

No. 2. It was different era where God had to personally lead the chosen people to reveal who and what He is as a prerequisite to the coming of Jesus.

No.3 God is not a murderer as been mentioned by some posters here because life is His. He gives and He takes. Death anyway, is not the end of the story. Good people die young all the times

God bless.

 

[goout]

It must be remembered that Scripture is the Inspired word of God in human words. We cannot fail to appreciate the full humanity involved in the Scriptures, or we run afoul of the incarnation itself.

I. CHRIST - THE UNIQUE WORD OF SACRED SCRIPTURE

101 In order to reveal himself to men, in the condescension of his goodness God speaks to them in human words: "Indeed the words of God, expressed in the words of men, are in every way like human language, just as the Word of the eternal Father, when he took on himself the flesh of human weakness, became like men."63

Scripture is a divine/human partnership. God is The Author, human beings are God’s fully co-operative instruments. The writers of Scripture are not robots under God’s control, nor are they dictation machines, nor are they in an inspired trance under God’s control.
The writers are full and free human beings, rooted in history and culture, with fully unique understandings of God’s will and action.
Scripture interpretation must take this into account.
The more fundamentalist interpretations of scripture rob the scriptures of their full life, because they lock the scriptures in the present, in the literalist word as we understand it, without leaving room for the divine/human relationship.

You see this when every scenario is proposed to justify a violent God except for the flawed human understanding of God’s will.
It is simply a reality that ancient writers had inadequate understandings of God’s will and action in their lives. As we still do.

As a result, what happens for many lay apologists is a fearful interpretation of scripture:
“If I admit the writer is not perfect, then Scripture is compromised.”
Not so. The integrity of scripture is not compromised by it’s fully human element. God accomplishes His will in scripture, even with the sinfullness and inadequacies of his human creatures.

I would suggest to all those reading:
go to solid and more official Catholic sources to discern these passages.
The CCC: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm
Benedict’s Verbum Domini, especially sections 42 and 44. Please note, this is not casual opinion, this is Pope Benedict’s apostolic exhortation:

TO THE BISHOPS, CLERGY,
CONSECRATED PERSONS
AND THE LAY FAITHFUL
ON THE WORD OF GOD
IN THE LIFE AND MISSION
OF THE CHURCH

http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedi...ts/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini.html
It doesn’t get much more authoritative than this. If you want to get a feel for Catholic Scripture interpretation, these sources are where you should be going.

When we get these things wrong, we scandalize people, as evidenced by the never ending threads here questioning God’s seeming cruelty.
And you know what? Some of the atheists have a better moral sense for scripture than Catholic lay apologists.

 

[Agathon]

That ultimately doesn’t solve all the problems. It conveniently ignores the fact that God ordered those events. God Himself gives the reason for herem warfare in Genesis 15:16 when He tells Abraham, “But in the fourth generation they shall come here again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.”

 

[una_ecclesia]

Harem warfare is found mainly in Deuteronomy, and I’m pretty sure I mentioned my main thoughts under the heading of Good commanding people to kill people. I did talk about the harem warefare as an act of judgment on nations, but that alone can’t justify the actions. You need Divine condescension for it to work.

 

[Agathon]

Do you believe that it’s God who decides who lives or dies? That should be enough.

 

[una_ecclesia]

Scriptural inerrancy extends to the literal sense, however, not merely the spiritual senses. People might have a flawed understanding of God’s will, but their flaws can’t result in positive errors in scripture, in the sense that what the author meant to write about God is a wrong position about God. You definitely take into account context, genres, etc. You might even let certain typos slide by. But you can’t say that the human author meant to write something that turned out to be a wrong view of God. That’s straight from Dei Verbum.

 

[wiggbuggie1]

I think a lot of posters are dodging the question by simply saying just ignore people like that. This is not a new issue or question its been on theologians minds for hundreds of years ever since the beginning of the church really with Marcionism, Gnosticism with their dualist theology.

One response we can fight this misunderstanding is saying how God is the author of life and death he gives and takes away from Gods perspective it wouldn’t be murder. There is also a book on this subject haven’t read it but heard good things

https://www.amazon.com/God-Moral-Mo...monster+by+paul+copan&dpID=51eSgKutocL&preST=SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40&dpSrc=srch

 

[goout]

una_ecclesia:
I’d appreciate a reference that the writers of scripture had a perfect understanding of God’s will. I don;t think you’re going to find that.
I do not think you present a complete view of inspiration here.

The primary sense of scripture is ALWAYS, always, the literal. Spritual senses of scripture flow from the literal integrity of scripture.
And here’s the point that most people cannot absorb: there is no dichotomy between the literal and spiritual senses of scripture. Your post above presents a dichotomy, between literal and what you call “merely spiritual”. There is no “merely” in the spiritual sense of scripture. If the passage is in there, it has a primary literal sense, and derived spiritual senses are integrated with that literal sense.

Inerrancy means the scriptures convey everything God wishes to convey, without err.
That is not the same thing as literalism .
That simple concept proves hard for the modern materialist and journalistic mindset.

http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedi...ts/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini.html
This is Pope Benedict, not random internet opinion. Deserves some consideration:

The “dark” passages of the Bible

1. In discussing the relationship between the Old and the New Testaments, the Synod also considered those passages in the Bible which, due to the violence and immorality they occasionally contain, prove obscure and difficult. Here it must be remembered first and foremost that biblical revelation is deeply rooted in history. God’s plan is manifested progressively and it is accomplished slowly, in successive stages and despite human resistance. God chose a people and patiently worked to guide and educate them. Revelation is suited to the cultural and moral level of distant times and thus describes facts and customs, such as cheating and trickery, and acts of violence and massacre, without explicitly denouncing the immorality of such things. This can be explained by the historical context, yet it can cause the modern reader to be taken aback, especially if he or she fails to take account of the many “dark” deeds carried out down the centuries, and also in our own day. In the Old Testament, the preaching of the prophets vigorously challenged every kind of injustice and violence, whether collective or individual, and thus became God’s way of training his people in preparation for the Gospel. So it would be a mistake to neglect those passages of Scripture that strike us as problematic. Rather, we should be aware that the correct interpretation of these passages requires a degree of expertise, acquired through a training that interprets the texts in their historical-literary context and within the Christian perspective which has as its ultimate hermeneutical key “the Gospel and the new commandment of Jesus Christ brought about in the paschal mystery”.[140] I encourage scholars and pastors to help all the faithful to approach these passages through an interpretation which enables their meaning to emerge in the light of the mystery of Christ.

 

[una_ecclesia]

Either I’m not being clear, or you have poor reading comprehension and are assuming things I never said:

I’d appreciate a reference that the writers of scripture had a perfect understanding of God’s will. I don;t think you’re going to find that.

I never said they had a perfect understanding, simply that they couldn’t positively affirm something wrong about God. For example, if I say “God is just and rewards each according to his due,” That isn’t wrong, but it’s an incomplete (i.e. imperfect) depiction of God, since at the same time, we also affirm “God is merciful.” This is different than saying, “God punishes those who have not sinned.” This is a positive error, an actual wrong claim about God. The scriptural authors can give a partial, but not wrong depiction of God, but they can’t say something actually wrong about him.

Inerrancy means the scriptures convey everything God wishes to convey, without err.
That is not the same thing as literalism .
That simple concept proves hard for the modern materialist and journalistic mindset.

I’m not promoting literalism though. I’m just pulling from Dei Verbum:

1. Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself. […]
   Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation. […].

The literal sense is (no pun intended) literally what the author was intending to write, and Dei Verbum asserts that what the author intended to write is precisely what the Holy Spirit wanted the author to write, and so is also inspired.

Your post above presents a dichotomy, between literal and what you call “merely spiritual”. There is no “merely” in the spiritual sense of scripture.

I never made a dichotomy between the actual spiritual and literal. It was your position that sounded like it was trying to split the two apart, not mine, because your position sounded like inerrancy is only covering the spiritual senses, which, based on your correct assertion that the spiritual flow from the literal, would have made no sense.

As for the Verbum Domini passage, note in particular:

Here it must be remembered first and foremost that biblical revelation is deeply rooted in history. God’s plan is manifested progressively and it is accomplished slowly, in successive stages and despite human resistance. God chose a people and patiently worked to guide and educate them.[…]

This is, by definition Divine condescension, so why are you arguing against it?

 

[PJM]

I have seen videos of Bill Maher where he essentially says the God of the Old Testament is a psychopathic mass murdered who enjoys killing people. I don’t know how to respond to people like this. There is a lot of killing in the Old Testament, much of it commanded by God.

My advice from many years of personal experience in apologetics.

Don’t even bother unless its unavoidable. They literally are blocked by God from being able to understand the bible correctly. This is a penalty for obstinate refusal to turn to him in humility and seek HIS Help.

If. if. you have to:

Share this defination of God.
God is "All Good things perfected"

Which teaches that God in order to be GOD, is the source of all goodness; can only DO {and Will} good things; although God can and does permit evil to exist as a freewill choice on His humanity; who alone in all of the Universe CAN {that is: IS ABLE} to do so as Life is the God test."

Also of NOTE Ask if Jesus is Good? if they say “yes” point out to them that there is but One True God; and the God of the OT is the SAME God in the New Testament.

If they say “no”, shake your head, walk away and just pray for them

Each person will choose hell or heaven by their life choices.

Now as for the true explanation of these events; a careful reading of the entire account will show that God choose to do so either to Protest His Chosen People; or to punish them for prolonged sinfulness. Both are viewed by GOD as being “Just” actions; and as GOD is Perfect He cannot error.

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[goout]

I never said they had a perfect understanding, simply that they couldn’t positively affirm something wrong about God.

This is the point in question: Is it in God’s nature to command mano a mano killing. That is the OP’s question and the consistent question of atheists and those scandalized by Christian fundamentalism.
You admit that writers of scripture do not have perfection tuned to the divine mind and will. Do you believe that or do you not? You can’t have it both ways when it suits a confirmation bias.

For example, if I say “God is just and rewards each according to his due,” That isn’t wrong, but it’s an incomplete (i.e. imperfect) depiction of God, since at the same time, we also affirm “God is merciful.” This is different than saying, “God punishes those who have not sinned.” This is a positive error, an actual wrong claim about God. The scriptural authors can give a partial, but not wrong depiction of God, but they can’t say something actually wrong about him.

Yes that’s true. It proves the point: God cannot literally will the slaughter of innocents at the hands of his people.
?

Inerrancy means the scriptures convey everything God wishes to convey, without err.
That is not the same thing as literalism .
That simple concept proves hard for the modern materialist and journalistic mindset.

I’m not promoting literalism though. I’m just pulling from Dei Verbum:

Yes Dei Verbum presents truth. And?

The literal sense is (no pun intended) literally what the author was intending to write, and Dei Verbum asserts that what the author intended to write is precisely what the Holy Spirit wanted the author to write, and so is also inspired.

That’s also true, but you are not interpreting it with the Church. You are confusing inspiration with a sort of dicatatorial factuality, as if the ancient writer was literally attuned to the divine will . The Church does not read scripture this way.

Your post above presents a dichotomy, between literal and what you call “merely spiritual”. There is no “merely” in the spiritual sense of scripture.

I never made a dichotomy between the actual spiritual and literal.

Yes, you really did, and still are. Read your own words. You are asserting a narrow use of the literal sense of scripture.

It was your position that sounded like it was trying to split the two apart, not mine, because your position sounded like inerrancy is only covering the spiritual senses, which,

No, I specifically did not. Read the words. Please don’t misrepresent what I specifically said to try and prove a point. I was the one who pointed to the Church’s whole and integrated view of the senses of scripture. Read the words.

As for the Verbum Domini passage, note in particular:

This is, by definition Divine condescension, so why are you arguing against it?

I’m not arguing against it, I am disputing your understanding of it.
It’s interesting, that in the context of this discussion, you cherry picked that section of Benedict’s words.
I’ll post the whole section again.

 

[goout]

http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedi...ts/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini.html

The “dark” passages of the Bible

1. In discussing the relationship between the Old and the New Testaments, the Synod also considered those passages in the Bible which, due to the violence and immorality they occasionally contain, prove obscure and difficult. Here it must be remembered first and foremost that biblical revelation is deeply rooted in history. God’s plan is manifested progressively and it is accomplished slowly, in successive stages and despite human resistance. God chose a people and patiently worked to guide and educate them. Revelation is suited to the cultural and moral level of distant times and thus describes facts and customs, such as cheating and trickery, and acts of violence and massacre, without explicitly denouncing the immorality of such things. This can be explained by the historical context, yet it can cause the modern reader to be taken aback, especially if he or she fails to take account of the many “dark” deeds carried out down the centuries, and also in our own day. In the Old Testament, the preaching of the prophets vigorously challenged every kind of injustice and violence, whether collective or individual, and thus became God’s way of training his people in preparation for the Gospel. So it would be a mistake to neglect those passages of Scripture that strike us as problematic. Rather, we should be aware that the correct interpretation of these passages requires a degree of expertise, acquired through a training that interprets the texts in their historical-literary context and within the Christian perspective which has as its ultimate hermeneutical key “the Gospel and the new commandment of Jesus Christ brought about in the paschal mystery”.[140] I encourage scholars and pastors to help all the faithful to approach these passages through an interpretation which enables their meaning to emerge in the light of the mystery of Christ.

You might notice the phrase “without explicitly denouncing the immorality of such things.” (that you left off the end of the cherry pick)

 

[Agathon]

una_ecclesia:

I never said they had a perfect understanding, simply that they couldn’t positively affirm something wrong about God.

This is the point in question: Is it in God’s nature to command mano a mano killing. That is the OP’s question and the consistent question of atheists and those scandalized by Christian fundamentalism.
You admit that writers of scripture do not have perfection tuned to the divine mind and will. Do you believe that or do you not? You can’t have it both ways when it suits a confirmation bias.

We must also remember that God speaks through those imperfect writers. So to say otherwise smacks of Marcionism.

Yes that’s true. It proves the point: God cannot literally will the slaughter of innocents at the hands of his people.

The truth is in the eyes of God, humanity isn’t innocent. And regardless of whether a person’s innocent or not, He has the supreme right to take away life. That being said, we humans aren’t in a position to question God’s will with our fickle nature and limited knowledge.
Then the Lord spoke to Job out of the storm. He said: “Who is this that obscures my plans with words without knowledge? Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me.”

Inerrancy means the scriptures convey everything God wishes to convey, without err.
That is not the same thing as literalism .
That simple concept proves hard for the modern materialist and journalistic mindset.

I’m pretty sure without error means without error. Which would mean people who claim “historical errors” are in passages that took place in history are wrong,

 

[goout]

goout:

una_ecclesia:

I never said they had a perfect understanding, simply that they couldn’t positively affirm something wrong about God.

This is the point in question: Is it in God’s nature to command mano a mano killing. That is the OP’s question and the consistent question of atheists and those scandalized by Christian fundamentalism.
You admit that writers of scripture do not have perfection tuned to the divine mind and will. Do you believe that or do you not? You can’t have it both ways when it suits a confirmation bias.

We must also remember that God speaks through those imperfect writers. So to say otherwise smacks of Marcionism.

Please do not put words in people’s mouths, or throw a word out that does not apply to my comment. Nowhere did I say anything Marcionistic. Where did I say that God does not speak through the writers of scripture? I said nothing of the sort.
You do not understand what inspiration is.
Again, show us the hammered dome over the sky, if you are going to be consistent in your modernist fundamentalist view of scripture.

and we may as well stop there.
Please read Benedict’s Verbum Domini par 42. Can you find the link? Can you comment on it, specifically on it, without rephrasing your confirmation bias again?

 

[whyeyeman]

“But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is moulded say to its moulder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honourable use and another for dishonourable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?”
Romans 9:20‭-‬24 ESV

 

[Agathon]

Agathon:

goout:

una_ecclesia:

I never said they had a perfect understanding, simply that they couldn’t positively affirm something wrong about God.

This is the point in question: Is it in God’s nature to command mano a mano killing. That is the OP’s question and the consistent question of atheists and those scandalized by Christian fundamentalism.
You admit that writers of scripture do not have perfection tuned to the divine mind and will. Do you believe that or do you not? You can’t have it both ways when it suits a confirmation bias.

We must also remember that God speaks through those imperfect writers. So to say otherwise smacks of Marcionism.

Please do not put words in people’s mouths, or throw a word out that does not apply to my comment. Nowhere did I say anything Marcionistic. Where did I say that God does not speak through the writers of scripture? I said nothing of the sort.
You do not understand what inspiration is.
Again, show us the hammered dome over the sky, if you are going to be consistent in your modernist fundamentalist view of scripture.

and we may as well stop there.
Please read Benedict’s Verbum Domini par 42. Can you find the link? Can you comment on it, specifically on it, without rephrasing your confirmation bias again?

And you do? Because you seem to go against any interpretation of the so-called “dark” Bible passages that actually uses the historical context of the passages. Or is this merely your pride talking? And while we’re at it, can you explain to me clearly how you say there are innocents when none is righteous, not one?