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

[curious_cath]

You slander the saints by accusing them of murder and blasphemy.

Why do you say that? I never slandered them. The Bible writer states in 1 Kings 18:40:

“Then Elijah said, “Capture the prophets of Baal! Don’t let any of them run away!” The people captured all the prophets. Then Elijah led them down to the Kishon Valley, where he killed them.”

I truly feel responsible for those so-called heroes in the Old Testament, because they did not get a chance. They had to kill. That is what we do without Jesus, we murder for fun because we are wicked. That is why Jesus tells us about those people who had to live without Him:

“Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.” (Matt 11:11)

 

[ericc]

I did not talk about lawful or unlawful murder. Law is always relative to the given system of laws. I talked about murder as it is: killing someone deliberately. Period.

You accused a servant of God as a mass murderer yet you wouldn’t cite which law did he break? A murder by definition is unlawful killing. Yes , there is lawful killing, indeed sanctioned by God.

Thou shall not “ratsach” in Hebrew could mean “murder” or “slay”. It could have the following meanings:

1. Murder. Unlawful killing with malice.
2. Capital punishment. Lawful killing under Mosaic law or state.
3. Unintentional killing. Accidental.
4. Self defense. Lawful.
5. War. Lawful.

It is absurd to apply the meanings of 2,3, 4 and 5 to the commandment. Therefore it could only apply to murder. Mosaic laws instituted capital punishment for various offenses. Among them is idolatry and blasphemy.

The title of mass murderer that you pinned on Elijah is exactly what Moses and the Levites did to those worshipers of the Golden Calf. Exo 32:26-28. 3000 died. This is right after Moses got his stone tablets.

Elijah was executing capital punishment to Ahad’s false prophets. See Deu 13:1-5. He is faithfully executing Mosaic law. Hence, I failed to see how you can falsely accuse Elijah of such a heinous crime. I suggest you retract your condemnation.

Secondly, on what authority were you given to condemned others of wrong doing? Was it based on your own interpretation of what the commandments say or mean or some other authority? Or were you taught erroneously? Your personal definition of murder isn’t even correct. You just lynched Prophet Elijah on public media. And Jesus made such a public appearance with him on his Transfiguration Day. Bad choice by Jesus or you just lynched the wrong person?

 

[goout]

This response could be a brother selling the idea to his daughter why she should be married off a creapy guy looking for a child bride as well. He wants wants is best for his child bride, what is best for her is a relationship with this child rapist. See the creapiness of your responce. You don’t ever bother to assess the morality and character of your deity. If its clearly wrong then its on you for not understanding it. Says the woman who keeps going back to her abusive husband after beating her. This mentality is taught from the pulpits and the religious leaders everywhere and a clear example of why I could never be religious and why, until this teaching stops, I will continue to fight against this cult of Stockholm Syndrom.

If I want to claim full knowledge and mastery of all sea creatures, I can’t do it by looking into a fishbowl. Eh?
If I did limit myself to a fishbowl, I could proclaim the seas a boring and simplistic place that doesn’t live up to it’s claims of abundant life. “It’s a lie! The seas are not what they are supposed to be.”
And I would be right, but only as far as my own limited bias and perspective allow. Even the most accomplished scientists would agree you: the fishbowl sucks!

But that doesn’t mean you know anything like the full subject. You’re simply looking at a fishbowl.

If you want to know Catholicism you have to look outside the fishbowl.
That is the heart of this discussion: whether we are going to confine God to a fundamentalist fishbowl.
Scripture is not the essence of God. Sacred Scripture reveals God in human words. Scripture is part of revelation, not the sum total. Christ is the fullness of revelation, so all of revelation must be in Him. Catholics do not make Scripture into God as other denominations do.

Christ reveals who God is to the fullest extent. What does he say, how does he act, how does he treat others, especially his persecutors? All of Scripture must be read and interpreted in light of Christ.
And this is not just another opinion to compete with fundamentalism, this is highest level magisterial teaching for us as Catholics. (as referenced). Object to Christ, and we have a serious discussion.

 

[Gorgias]

This response could be a brother selling the idea to his daughter why she should be married off a creapy guy looking for a child bride as well. He wants wants is best for his child bride, what is best for her is a relationship with this child rapist. See the creapiness of your responce. You don’t ever bother to assess the morality and character of your deity. If its clearly wrong then its on you for not understanding it. Says the woman who keeps going back to her abusive husband after beating her. This mentality is taught from the pulpits and the religious leaders everywhere and a clear example of why I could never be religious and why, until this teaching stops, I will continue to fight against this cult of Stockholm Syndrom.

Notice the subtle way you’ve attempted to turn the discussion. @Reuben_J notes that for “personal reasons… [some] think He is an evil Father.” Not that He is, but that this is their misconception. Yet, you insist that God is ‘creepy’, ‘immoral’, ‘abusive’. How sad. I’ll pray for you.

 

[curious_cath]

A murder by definition is unlawful killing.

Perhaps, yes. Perhaps, no! All deliberate killing can be construed as murder. The question is what is truly wrong with murder? I have a personal dislike for murder. But I understand that not everybody share this dislike. The prophet Elijah wore murder as a badge of honor. It was considered a proof of his zeal for God! I do think mass murder can be taken as a badge of honor. I just dislike it!

Mosaic laws instituted capital punishment for various offenses. Among them is idolatry and blasphemy.

This is a myth. Perhaps, a good myth to discourage named practices in the realm of God’s pedagogy for mankind. But in reality this law was mostly unknown in the history of Israel. We see the archaeology of the “high places” all around the Holy Land.

I did not accuse Elijah of heinous crime, I stated the bare fact by Scripture that he murdered 450 innocent people for unknown reason. So I did not condemn Elijah. As I wrote before, even a mass murderer can be a saint. Who was righteous before our Lord died on the cross? Not one! There was no chance for living without murder before the Precious Blood was shed for us.

And Jesus made such a public appearance with him on his Transfiguration Day

No. For whatever reason it was not a public appearance! Only 3 Jewish apostles could see it who brought the news to the people of Jerusalem as part of divine pedagogy. Other folks did not even know who the prophet Elijah could have been. Only the Jews could understand or reject the message about Elijah that was designed for them in a special manner. We are still to see if this message works for them.

 

[Gorgias]

I did not accuse Elijah of heinous crime, I stated the bare fact by Scripture that he murdered 450 innocent people for unknown reason.

450 “innocent people”? “Unknown reasons”? Are you sure about that?

The queen of Israel had been murdering the prophets of God, and she set up pagan prophets in their place, and they were tearing the people away from the worship of God and toward the worship of idols. In the very land God gave His people!!!

You’re gonna call the pagan prophets who were leading His people away from Him “innocent”?!?!?

That’s certainly an odd definition for that word…

 

[curious_cath]

they were tearing the people away from the worship of God

This is hardly true. King Ahab and the prophet Elijah lived in the 9th century BC. Archaeology presented the facts that the worship of Baal, Hadad and Asherah was overwhelmingly present until the 6th century BC when Persian King Cyrus deported a mass of captives from Babylon to Jerusalem. This fact demonstrates that the worship of idols at “high places”, the altars of these polytheistic gods, was present all around the Holy Land long after the time of the prophet Elijah.

It is justified to say that the killing of 450 priests of Baal who only followed their own religion did not make any impact on pagan practices in the region. The deep seeded corruption of the people of God continued up until the time of Jesus.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

they were tearing the people away from the worship of God

This is hardly true. King Ahab and the prophet Elijah lived in the 9th century BC. Archaeology presented the facts that the worship of Baal, Hadad and Asherah was overwhelmingly present until the 6th century BC when Persian King Cyrus deported a mass of captives from Babylon to Jerusalem. This fact demonstrates that the worship of idols at “high places”, the altars of these polytheistic gods, was present all around the Holy Land long after the time of the prophet Elijah.

The fact that they continued to worship idols in no way contradicts the assertion that their presence in the 9th century wasn’t leading the people away from God.

It is justified to say that the killing of 450 priests of Baal who only followed their own religion did not make any impact on pagan practices in the region.

I disagree. However, the people continued to return to idols. The entire Biblical narrative of the Northern Kingdom is a story about how the people (and their kings) continued over and over again to turn away from God.

Moreover, the prophets of Baal weren’t the babes in the woods that you make them out to be. They would have known that they had entered into the land of the God of the Israelites. It’s not “merely practicing their religion”… it’s an invasion of God’s land by foreign gods! They would have known this!

The deep seeded corruption of the people of God continued up until the time of Jesus.

No… the “deep seated corruption” of the Northern Kingdom ended with the Assyrian exile.

(In the South, it was a different story. Sometimes they did well, and other times they did poorly…)

 

[mythbuster1]

Actually, they were practicing the religion of the Canaanites, who were already there when Israel arrived. Of course, they were also the people that Israel was commanded to drive out of the Promised Land under pain of death, precisely because they not only worshiped idols, but did so with abominable practices, including public orgies, ritual prostitution of men and women, bestiality, and burning infants alive. The Lord warned Israel that they must get rid of the Canaanites, lest Israel become ensnared by their abominations. When Israel failed to complete the mission of driving out the Canaanites (Judges 2), that is exactly what happened, and the idols and abominations became a snare to Israel on and off for nearly 1000 years.

 

[curious_cath]

Scripture is not the essence of God. Sacred Scripture reveals God in human words.

Scripture is written by men for men. Inspiration leads the sacred writers to follow a language that can penetrate the hardest hearts and the most stubborn minds. In a way that groups and nations of human beings, according to their cultural development, can comprehend it in their historical times and setting.

This produced fire and brimstone for people who could comprehend things through stories of fire and brimstone. But also produced divine lyrics in psalms for those who learn from beauty, arts and music. The amazing thing about the Holy Bible is that it has something catchy for everyone who wants to turn toward or away from God. Eventually, it only makes sense in Jesus who crowns our knowledge of an eternal and unchanging Creator by his cross. He does not kill the sinner. On the contrary, He gives his own life for many.

 

[Agathon]

He does not kill the sinner.

What of Ananias and Sapphira?

 

[curious_cath]

What of Ananias and Sapphira?

Their death was an excess of St. Peter’s tremendous power and uncontrollable anger and had nothing to do with Jesus. Jesus has never required to liquidate your assets and distribute the proceeds.

After selling their real estate for the benefit of the community, Ananias and Sapphira wanted to keep some of the proceeds for themselves which was sheer prudence. They had all rights to do so. The Catholic community has no business dictating wealth management techniques and survival strategies for its members. But they made a venial mistake not to tell this right into the face of an impulsive Peter who had an unfortunate anger episode. Perhaps this was a reason he was replaced by the apostle James, the brother of Jesus, as a leader of the Jerusalem community.

 

[Russell_SA]

All judgments of good and bad are personal judgements from what we have been convinced of as the reference point of good and bad. Its always up to each of us to judge for ourselves. X is good as far as you can understand it. You may be wrong, but you can’t know that yet from what you currently understand about what good and bad is to you.

 

[Gorgias]

Actually, they were practicing the religion of the Canaanites

Right. But, the question isn’t “what religion were the Canaanites practicing?”, but rather, “what religion were the Israelites commanded to practice?”…

 

[Gorgias]

All judgments of good and bad are personal judgements

OK. I’ll grant you that. Personal judgements of moral issues are assessed personally. However, morality is merely opinion unless it may be objectively assessed. (Mind you, that assessment may take into account a moral actor’s personal thoughts, but the end result is objectively determinable.)

from what we have been convinced of as the reference point of good and bad.

That isn’t an assessment of truth, then – it’s a reflection of a moral actor’s opinion. Apples and oranges.

Its always up to each of us to judge for ourselves. X is good as far as you can understand it. You may be wrong, but you can’t know that yet from what you currently understand

That’s why your personal assessment isn’t an expression of infallible truth. It’s only “how you personally see it.” I might think that the Pittsburgh Steelers are the sine qua non of NFL virtue this year… but that opinion doesn’t make it true. One would need to be omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent in order to make the absolutely objective determination thereof. Which… oh! Look at that! That’s precisely what, by definition, God is!

what you currently understand about what good and bad is to you.

Right. Which is precisely “what my opinion is”, isn’t the final word. My notion that “God is good” and your notion that “God is evil” isn’t determinative – only God’s nature is. So… good luck convincing anyone that your personal opinion is necessarily ‘truth’, or should carry the day…

 

[TheLittleLady]

Do you maybe write speculative fiction for a living?

You do not believe God has the “right” to take away life, yet, you think Peter had the superpower to strike people dead ?

God stuck these people dead for their great sin. And to think this was over a “venial mistake” is one of the strangest things I have ever heard!

 

[Agathon]

Their death was an excess of St. Peter’s tremendous power and uncontrollable anger and had nothing to do with Jesus. Jesus has never required to liquidate your assets and distribute the proceeds.

What Jesus required people to with their money is beside the point. Ananias could have chosen to come clean and say “Here is part of my money” and no one would have a problem with that. Peter told him as much. But instead, the couple chose to lie about it to the community to gain popularity. They didn’t just lie to human beings: they lied to God.

 

[curious_cath]

They didn’t just lie to human beings: they lied to God.

This is exaggeration. They acted prudently to save their family interest that St. Peter as apostle and first bishop wanted to intrude in. Their minor offense of not telling what they did was by no means mortal. They had the right to protect their future from communism. The church later mitigated Peter’s unwise and misguided stance in the question. Today the Catholic Church states the property of men is to be respected.

We need a human face religion with true servants who lead, rather than a monstrous menace exerted on us by overzealous zealots demanding authority for their own personal use in our lives.

 

[Agathon]

This is exaggeration. They acted prudently to save their family interest that St. Peter as apostle and first bishop wanted to intrude in.

Inspired Scripture is against you on this. It has this to say about Peter’s intentions: “Peter was filled with the Holy Spirit.”

 

[curious_cath]

to think this was over a “venial mistake” is one of the strangest things I have ever heard!

What was exactly the grave nature of their mistake? To salvage some money from their own peoceeds for their old age?