I cannot understand the acts of war by the Israelites in light of Catholic teachings

[manualman]

chosen people, long time no see (read)!

As always, great to hear your perspective.

 

[cc42]

It’s atleast possible that the actions were not carried out. There is no description of any of the killing of women and children taking place and in 1 Samuel 15 when Samuel kills King Agag he is still described as King of the Amalekites and Samuel says “As your sword has made women childless, so your mother shall be childless among women.” How can he still be the king of an anihilated group of people and have a mother if everyone was killed? Of course the Amaelekites also appear later in 1 Samuel and it has been argued that they were therefore not anihilated but it has also been argued that in 1 Samuel 15 not the whole nation was attacked but only part of it, though considering that the King was captured it seems it was the whole nation. Anyways it is atleast possible that eventhough this command and others were given they were not always carried out because after all Abraham was commanded to sacrifice Isaac but that action was not ultimately carried out. In the end we just have to trust in God’s mercy and justice because the Bible does not tell us everything.

 

[meltzerboy]

Here’s a disturbing thought. Imagine what it must be like to believe that the Old Testament is the word of God but not the New Testament. Without the countervailing influence of the New Testament (love your enemies, turn the other cheek) the message of God comes through loud, clear, and unfettered: annihilate your enemies; show them no mercy; wipe them off the face of the earth.

What about Proverbs, Psalms, and other passages of the Hebrew Bible, which say things such as “Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth”? The Hebrew Bible contains many verses in which G-d’s mercy is emphasized and G-d commands us to love our neighbors as well as not gloat over the misfortunes of our enemies.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Without getting overly specific, my understanding has been aided by the notion of God as Father. The OT represents God’s people in “infancy.” A child is sometimes taught in different ways than an adult. For instance, spanking a child is a way of teaching that would not be appropriate for a mature adult.

Also, the OT must be understood in light of the NT. In that view, the enemies often smitten by God or God’s people tell us what will happen to sin. God, through His Son, and His adopted “sons and daughters” will defeat sin. Many stories in the OT point to this. The whole bondage to Pharoah parallels bondage to sin. Gal. 4:24ff talks about how Hagar and Sarah depict two covenants of those in bondage to sin and those freed. Etc… I think many of the OT events are ultimately about sin.

 

[WoundedIcon]

We need to keep in mind that we’re dealing with nation and people versus nation and people in the OT, whereas in the NT it’s an individualized focus. God wants us to be merciful as individuals, but even the Church acknowledges that there are times where the guns have to come out. If anything worries me the most it’s the Psalms and it’s emotive imprecations. I don’t know how to deal with wishing violent death on Babylonian babies.

 

[WoundedIcon]

You know… according to Catholic Encyclopedia it’s actually considered sinless in moral theology to wish or even pray death upon someone so long as it’s for a just reason and not out of personal spite.

Hatred in general is a vehement aversion entertained by one person for another, or for something more or less identified with that other. Theologians commonly mention two distinct species of this passion.

• One (odium abominationis, or loathing) is that in which the intense dislike is concentrated primarily on the qualities or attributes of a person, and only secondarily, and as it were derivatively, upon the person himself.

• The second sort (odium inimicitiae, or hostility) aims directly at the person, indulges a propensity to see what is evil and unlovable in him, feels a fierce satisfaction at anything tending to his discredit, and is keenly desirous that his lot may be an unmixedly hard one, either in general or in this or that specified way.

This second kind of hatred, as involving a very direct and absolute violation of the precept of charity, is always sinful and may be grievously so. The first-named species of hatred, in so far as it implies the reprobation of what is actually evil, is not a sin and may even represent a virtuous temper of soul. In other words, not only may I, but I even ought to, hate what is contrary to the moral law. Furthermore one may without sin go so far in the detestation of wrongdoing as to wish that which for its perpetrator is a very well-defined evil, yet under another aspect is a much more signal good. For instance, it would be lawful to pray for the death of a perniciously active heresiarch with a view to putting a stop to his ravages among the Christian people. Of course, it is clear that this apparent zeal must not be an excuse for catering to personal spite or party rancour. Still, even when the motive of one’s aversion is not impersonal, when, namely, it arises from the damage we may have sustained at the hands of others, we are not guilty of sin unless besides feeling indignation we yield to an aversion unwarranted by the by the hurt we have suffered. This aversion may be grievously or venially sinful in proportion to its excess over that which the injury would justify.

So there’s your reconciliation.