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

[Agathon]

You’ve called people literalists for doing just that.

 

[goout]

reference please. …

 

[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 contaminants

Isn’t that reference enough?

 

[goout]

goout:

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 contaminants

Is that reference enough?

That’s a complete non-sequitur.
You claimed I reject the historical sense of scripture.

Where exactly?
You should provide a quote and demonstrate.

 

[Agathon]

That’s a complete non-sequitur.

No it isn’t. Whenever someone ha sleep approached the text of Scripture with these dark passages examining the literal sense of Scripture, you say that person is being fundamentalist.

 

[goout]

goout:

That’s a complete non-sequitur.

No it isn’t. Whenever someone ha sleep approached the text of Scripture with these dark passages examining the literal sense of Scripture, you say that person is being fundamentalist.

A slightly different but related accusation.

When you accuse someone of something, you should take the person’s words, quote them, show that you understand them, and rebut them.

 

[Agathon]

When I said this:

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 said this:

You do not understand what inspiration is.

 

[goout]

When I said this:

Agathon:

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 said this:

You do not understand what inspiration is.

ok.
And?..

 

[Agathon]

When you accuse someone of something, you should take the person’s words, quote them, show that you understand them, and rebut them.

Which is EXACTLY what I did.

 

[Spyridon]

human being to kill innocents

If God commands one human to kill another, the one being killed is not innocent, for God the Supreme Judge has judged them as deserving death.

We need to stop placing human judgment above the Just Judge’s Judgment.

 

[Agathon]

When I posted sources on interpretations of these passages you said:

Stick with the Church, abandon modern fundamentalism.

You’ve just invoked one Feenyite source.

Pretty much confirms my claim.

 

[goout]

goout:

When you accuse someone of something, you should take the person’s words, quote them, show that you understand them, and rebut them.

Which is EXACTLY what I did.

Provide references that I reject the historical sense of scripture.

 

[Spyridon]

but if God is unjust for commanding that.

How could the Lawgiver who is Justice Itself be unjust?

It’s a nonsensical question - how can Justice be unjust?

What we have is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of God.

God is not some creature who has an attribute of supposed justice - God’s very Being is Justice and Righteousness Itself.

 

[Agathon]

I did. You don’t accept them. Why should I post them again?

 

[goout]

I did. You don’t accept them. Why should I post them again?

No you didn’t
You threw a quote out and demonstrated that you don’t know what I’m talking about.
You don’t understand inerrancy or inspiration in Catholic thought.

 

[Spyridon]

Where does the Church teach the Scriptures contain historical error?

From the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dei Verbum(DV - the Word of God) #6:

"Through divine revelation, God chose to show forth and communicate Himself and the eternal decisions of His will regarding the salvation of men. That is to say, He chose to share with them those divine treasures which totally transcend the understanding of the human mind.

As a sacred synod has affirmed, God, the beginning and end of all things, can be known with certainty from created reality by the light of human reason (see Rom. 1:20); but teaches that it is through His revelation that those religious truths which are by their nature accessible to human reason can be known by all men with ease, with solid certitude and with no trace of error, even in this present state of the human race."

DV #11b

“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. Therefore “all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).”

The Church infallibly teaches the Scriptures to be without error, even without a trace of error.

When the Scriptures are narrating a historical event like the conquest of Canaan, they are without error. Sometimes figurative language is used regarding numbers and such, but the literal historical truth that an event occured is sure.

Can you provide any supporting evidence from the Magisterium saying the Sacred Scriptures contain historical error?

 

[CatholicSpirit]

We are his Gumby’s and Pokeys.

 

[goout]

Where does the Church teach the Scriptures contain historical error?

Nowhere to my knowledge.
?
Why do you ask?

And at the same time, the Church does not subscribe to 6 day creation.
And the Church does not subscribe to rigid journalist historicity in scripture.

The bible is rooted in history and culture and at the same time, it is not a history or science textbook.

It’s counterproductive for the Church to point out errors, although for scholars these things have to be parsed through.
The bible can have contradictions (they are countless) even while it is inspired and inerrant.

 

[goout]

Scott Hahn anyone?

Brant Pitre? (you have to buy the full thing…well worth it)

Bp Robert Barron well know scholar, seminary teacher, and of course Bishop.

Pope Benedict’s Verbum Dominin ( a long read but well worth it)
http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedi...ts/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini.html

 

[Agathon]

You don’t understand inerrancy or inspiration in Catholic thought.

And you do?