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

[goout]

And in response to the idea “God can do anything he wants with his creation”.
Yes that is true. God is omnipotent. God has dominion over all of existence.

And at the same time, He reveals to us, through Christ, what Godly power is and how He wills to exercise it.
Christ’s paschal sacrifice on the cross should cause us to reflect on that.

 

[BoyGenius]

These are different moral situations.

In the first place, God is not subject to morality. So your questions can serve as thought experiments but cannot be direct analogies.

God cannot contradict Himself and His nature. And since we know in Saint John’s Gospel that God is Love, He therefore could never act in conflict with that.

God is God.

He also cannot oppose justice. God is also not an arbitrary judge. For, even as you stated, God is not confined to morality. However, since morality extends from Him (i.e. The Ten Commandments.) And, Jesus Christ came to fulfill the law and the Commandments (i.e. the Covenant.) Then again, Jesus Who is God in flesh, did place Himself under human authority. Thus, shows and renders God Himself is governed under morality. Since morality nonetheless belongs to Him. And does also extend/come from Himself. Otherwise Jesus would not had died for our sins.

So to say God is not subject to morality, would be like saying God is not subject to the Ten Commandments. But yet, the greatest of these is "love.’ And God cannot contradict His nature.

 

[BoyGenius]

The heart of the question at hand is whether it is in God’s nature to command one human being to kill another innocent human being.

God asked Abraham to offer Isaac (i.e. God commanding one human being to kill an innocent human being.) Because, Abraham’s heart by choosing to have a child with Hagar, outside of his marital union with Sarah, prompted Abraham to think as man does (similarly to Saint Peter.) God made a Covenant with Abraham. And, Abraham took matters into his own hands, instead of relying on God for that fulfillment. So that is why God tested Him. For showing he would sacrifice his son Isaac, for whom he was letting go of close to his heart, and for whom he was placing in the way of God.

That is why it is attributed to Abraham for his faith (i.e. trust) in God.

 

[goout]

I agree with what you say. God is the good itself and the end of moral evaluation, the goal of it. And he does not violate the commandments or “live counter to them”. I would disagree with your terminology that “God Himself is governed by morality”, but I agree with the point of His condescension.
Morality is the evaluation of human acts. So yes, we can look at Christ and see that he lives in an entirely moral way, and he is in fact The Way.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Lying is a sin. If I were a bettin’ man, I’d say that there was far more that happend that “we” are not privy to.

 

[BoyGenius]

would disagree with your terminology that “God Himself is governed by morality”

If morality extends from His nature, and God is love, then He could/would not contradict that.

But the question begs, then why would God ask person’s to kill the innocent?

First, in God’s eyes, we are born into sin. So, before Him, no one is innocent.

In the human principle of morality, no doubt there is culpability to each singular person their own action. Not what he/she is born into/with. Human morality judges differently than that of God’s.

In the world, which festers with sin. God judges that the innocent are already being condemned. Their state in life is already in the hand basket going to Hell (so-to-speak.) Does God render such a judgement of killing them because they cannot help but enter into an existence of sin? Well, then those who kill the innocent and unborn, judge it cannot be helped when a child is born into poverty or crime. Therefore better to kill it then and now in the womb. Would human morality then not stipulate from God’s law on justice/morals (i.e. from God Himself)? I think not.

For this very reason, He does not will the death (i.e. eternal damnation) of anyone. In a fallen, broken, and human world, God has to contend with the nature of sin. When He works with fallen and broken Israelites, He can only render action/course to them to follow because of the “coldness of their hearts” (hence Deuteronomy - Secondary laws.) And that’s why He had ordered the Israelites to battle. Because, God was working with fallen human beings to create a place for His Divine Justice and Mercy; a place of Salvation for all souls.

If God intended to wipe out an entire people’s from His own commandments. Then, the Canaanite women in the Gospel would not exist. In fact, since the Israelites really didn’t fulfill God’s instructions, why did He not just go about killing those people rather than leave them in the hands of the Israelites to do the work? Because, the Israelites were a “stubborn generation.” Hence, God asked them to carry out the work for humility. Not servile humility. But humility for Salvation and Justice.

Afterall Christ died for our sins. The same stubborn generation with the coldness of their hearts was met up by Christ against the Pharisee and Sadducee. Thus, Christ shows God does not contradict Himself nor His nature. Nor does He violate the Ten Commandments set down by Himself through each generation. But, the Israelites did.

 

[goout]

goout:

would disagree with your terminology that “God Himself is governed by morality”

If morality extends from His nature, and God is love, then He could/would not contradict that. (true)

But the question begs, then why would God ask person’s to kill the innocent? (another question would be "is it in God’s fully revealed nature to do that, in literalist fashion? We can’t leave some questions unanswered)

First, in God’s eyes, we are born into sin. So, before Him, no one is innocent. (true)

…(apologies for the snips to make a point)

Afterall Christ died for our sins.
…

All Scripture must be read in the context of Jesus Christ.
From the start of your thoughts on human sinfullness, to the conclusion of redemption in Christ, you must see how Christ changes our way of seeing who God is. And God is eternally unchanging. Marcionism doesn’t work.
So, I’m going with Christ and reading the text in that light. (that’s what the Church exhorts us to do!)

 

[Agathon]

So the commandments you quote might be of that late.

Even if the commandments were written late (which they weren’t), there had to be an oral tradition around. So my point still stands.

 

[goout]

goout:

would disagree with your terminology that “God Himself is governed by morality”

In the human principle of morality, no doubt there is culpability to each singular person their own action. Not what he/she is born into/with. Human morality judges differently than that of God’s.

I would just make the academic point that the term and concept “morality” does not apply to God. Morality is an evaluation of good and evil.

God is the good. God does not evaluate between choices.
God does not start from a point of not knowing the course of action, then evaluating, then moving to a decision.
God simply is.
For us, yes, God in Christ embodies and fully demonstrates morality.

PART THREE
LIFE IN CHRIST

SECTION ONE
MAN’S VOCATION LIFE IN THE SPIRIT

CHAPTER ONE
THE DIGNITY OF THE HUMAN PERSON

ARTICLE 4
THE MORALITY OF HUMAN ACTS

1749 Freedom makes man a moral subject. When he acts deliberately, man is, so to speak, the father of his acts. Human acts, that is, acts that are freely chosen in consequence of a judgment of conscience, can be morally evaluated. They are either good or evil.

I. THE SOURCES OF MORALITY

1750 The morality of human acts depends on:

• the object chosen;
• the end in view or the intention;
• the circumstances of the action.

The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.

1751 The object chosen is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. It is the matter of a human act. The object chosen morally specifies the act of the will, insofar as reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity with the true good. Objective norms of morality express the rational order of good and evil, attested to by conscience.

None of this applies to God as a subject. God is the objective good.

 

[Gorgias]

It is a myth that at the time of Elijah there were Mosaic laws in effect. You are creating hypothetical situations for your own entertainment.

Umm… pardon? How do you figure?

I mean, if you want to claim that the people weren’t doing so well following the Mosaic law, that’d be reasonable. If you want to claim that the kings in the North were making up new laws as they went, that’s reasonable, too.

However, to claim that the Mosaic law was not in effect in the time of Elijah? You’re gonna hafta substantiate that one, because on its face it’s not a credible claim…

 

[Gorgias]

It is not clear if the fragment of the Book of Deuteronomy found in the 7th century BC, at the time of the king Josiah was written by Moses or not. Moses lived in the 13th century BC, some 600 years earlier.

Whether or not Deuteronomy was written by Moses is a red herring here. Even if he didn’t, Deuteronomy is the second telling of the law; the other books of the Pentateuch were extant at that point in time.

Probably, the book had not existed before that date at all.

Right. 'Cause people often find and rediscover books that do not exist.

 

[Agathon]

We have to focus on both sides of Christ. Christ is all loving but He is all just.

 

[Agathon]

Agathon:

Ananias’s sin was in lying to the community.

Who said lying to the community was such a grave sin that deserved capital punishment? Would lying in self defense be a bigger sin than killing in self defense? Private data was being compromised by a communistic interrogation that respected no privacy and no private property. Ananaias and Sapphira became victims of an overreaching ideological assault on their private lives. That is why the church had to backtrack later from the excesses of its first Bishop, Peter.

God speaking through Peter did.

 

[Russell_SA]

I believe you can have objective assessments based on the situation referenced. Such as the situation on addressing what is nutritious for people. It is objectively bad to drink battery acid if the goal of that situation is nutrition for humans. You seem to present the idea that we need a reference point for our decisions based on a deity. But you have not demonstrated that deity to exist in reality and why we should agree that deity’s positions are to be a reference point on morality. If you site it’s power, then you worship the biggest bully in the room and I will always fundamentally disagree with this and fight that type of world view every where it pops up.

Actor’s opinion - If you do not understand why your choices are bad, you can not assess your actions as bad. Only after you have become convinced of what is good and bad would you change your actions. Your beliefs directly dictate your actions. You believe X about reality therefore, by that understanding you do Y. Until you have become convinced as to why your beliefs/conclusions are wrong, you will continue to use your understanding of reality as a reference point. Some beliefs can be demonstrated to be part of reality and some can not, like your belief in a deity. I can demonstrate that gravity exists and why you shouldn’t walk out the 5th floor window in the morning to go to work. You can not demonstrate a deity is part of reality at all at this point. Your belief in a deity is an unjustified opinion. My belief in gravity is a testable universal fact of our experienced reality.
Infallible truth - because you don’t like how reality presents itself and has this problem of not being able to pick the one correct solution for every problem does not mean we are to take your solution to this seriously. Inventing the idea of a deity to solve this problem is not a solution because first you have not demonstrated that your deity exists and why we should accept it as a reference point to these problems.
The nature of your deity is always good huh? So again, I repeat, you are shelving your ability to assess this entity in any moral sense and are assuming everything it does is good by default. This, by definition, implicates you as not taking this deity morally seriously. No one’s actions are inherently good. Good and bad assessments are given to those actions of the deity by the entities affected by that deity’s actions. This, again, is the mindset of Stockholm Syndrome.

 

[Gorgias]

you have not demonstrated that deity to exist in reality

Great! If God doesn’t really exist, then He’s not a “mass murderer” or “bully”! We’re done here!

Actor’s opinion… Until you have become convinced as to why your beliefs/conclusions are wrong, you will continue to use your understanding of reality as a reference point.

We’re in agreement here: the moral agent’s actions are a reflection of his personal understanding, and not of objective morality, per se. One hopes that the actor is attempting to follow the virtues of an objective morality, however.

Infallible truth - because you don’t like how reality presents itself

Who says I don’t like reality?

and has this problem of not being able to pick the one correct solution for every problem does not mean we are to take your solution to this seriously.

Who says that objective morality doesn’t provide guidelines that enable us to identify ‘good’ and ‘evil’? I haven’t made that claim. Is that what you think?

Inventing the idea of a deity to solve this problem is not a solution because first you have not demonstrated that your deity exists and why we should accept it as a reference point to these problems.

No one has “invented the idea of a deity”. You, on the other hand, have invented the idea of the non-existence of a deity. Good luck proving that one…

Your protestations are getting wilder and even less logically stable than when you began.

The nature of your deity is always good huh? So again, I repeat, you are shelving your ability to assess this entity in any moral sense and are assuming everything it does is good by default. This, by definition, implicates you as not taking this deity morally seriously. No one’s actions are inherently good.

And, here we go again. Applying human standards (“no one’s actions are inherently good”) to God? And I’m the one who’s not taking this discussion seriously?

 

[curious_cath]

the Mosaic law was not in effect in the time of Elijah? You’re gonna hafta substantiate that one

Our view of the Scriptures has been greatly shifted by biblical archaeology in the last 150 years. A tangible history has arisen in the form of archaeological artifacts. Think of this tangible history as a lost book of the Bible! Archaeology revealed that before Persian king Cyrus the Great deported a group of exiles from Babylon to Jerusalem, the Holy Land, both in the North and in the South, had an abundance of ‘high places’ where the Canaanite gods Hadad, Baal and Asherah were worshiped.

This is a proof that the population living there had no concept of Judaism or Mosaic law at that time. Again, Moses lived at about 1300 BC, Elijah prophesied at about 900 BC and King Josiah whose religious staff probably composed a “found book” of Moses lived at about 600 BC. Please, inspect the time line closely and you’ll see that the state of the society at the time of Elijah could not have contained a rigorously written ancient code of unknown origin.

 

[Agathon]

This is a proof that the population living there had no concept or Judaism or Mosaic law at that time. Again, Moses lived at about 1300 BC, Elijah prophesied at about 900 BC and King Josiah whose religious staff probably composed a “found book” of Moses lived at about 600 BC.

Josiah’s staff didn’t compose the Torah; they found it while making repairs to the Temple.

 

[Agathon]

Archaeology revealed that before Persian king Cyrus the Great deported a group of exiles from Babylon to Jerusalem, the Holy Land, both in the North and in the South, had an abundance of ‘high places’ where the Canaanite gods Hadad, Baal and Asherah were worshiped.

That just confirms the biblical account.

 

[Gorgias]

Our view of the Scriptures has been greatly shifted by biblical archaeology in the last 150 years. A tangible history has arisen in the form of archaeological artifacts. Think of this tangible history as a lost book of the Bible!

Wow. Equating a historical theory with inerrant Scripture? That’s a claim that won’t hold water with anyone who takes their Christian belief seriously…

Archaeology revealed that before Persian king Cyrus the Great deported a group of exiles from Babylon to Jerusalem, the Holy Land, both in the North and in the South, had an abundance of ‘high places’ where the Canaanite gods Hadad, Baal and Asherah were worshiped.

This is a proof that the population living there had no concept of Judaism or Mosaic law at that time.

Your evidence doesn’t support your conclusion, I’m afraid. It would be like an archaeologist 500 years from now claiming “we’ve found evidence of intense fan-dom toward the football teams the Pittsburgh Steelers, the Baltimore Ravens, and the New England Patriots. This is proof that the population of 21st century America had no concept of Major League Baseball at that time.”

See how your conclusion goes far beyond what the evidence demonstrates? Your ‘proof’ actually does demonstrate that there was significant worship of pagan gods. However, you only had to read the Old Testament to know that this is true – after all, it flat out admits that this is going on!

However, what your ‘proof’ does not demonstrate is a lack of presence of monotheistic, Mosaic practice of Jewish belief. That might be your personal opinion (or the personal opinion of your favorite historians and archaeologists), but it’s not supported by the evidence you’ve cited.

Again, Moses lived at about 1300 BC, Elijah prophesied at about 900 BC and King Josiah whose religious staff probably composed a “found book” of Moses lived at about 600 BC.

Got any substantiation for that “they made it all up” claim? Otherwise, it’s not defensible.

Please, inspect the time line closely and you’ll see that the state of the society at the time of Elijah could not have contained a rigorously written ancient code of unknown origin.

Please, inspect your claim. You’re saying that a 700-year spread between Moses and Josiah implies that the Mosaic code was unknown in 600 BC? What justification, let alone support, do you have for that position?

 

[curious_cath]

Your evidence doesn’t support your conclusion, I’m afraid.

If you want evidence that would force you to take one or other belief granted, then you probably won’t accept any evidence for anything in the Bible whatsoever. So why do you believe in the Moses myth? What is your evidence for his existence and authorship?

What we may say is that one or other explanation is more plausible than the other. In the end, you’ll only accept what best fits your character. If you are a closed minded fundamentalist, which I do not claim, then you probably won’t accept anything that has been said about the Bible in the last 150 years or so. But if you are an open minded person, then you won’t discard any plausible explanation, even if it is contrary to your current stance and might propel you out of your comfort zone of thinking.