T
TankGirl
Guest
.
So, you’re conflating arrogance with truth?
- Status
So, you’re conflating arrogance with truth?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
While I might agree that this is one of the two toughest questions proposed by atheists, there are coherent responses.
I’ll give you the condensed version, but I recommend you read the full version here:
jimmyakin.com/2007/02/hard_sayings_of.html
Akin explores this subject in some depth, so grab a cup of coffee and block out some time to get through it all.
Short version:
God has granted to each person and infinite life: x amount of years on earth and infinity hereafter. A person who lives to 100 has the same amount of life as the child who is slaughtered at the age of two: infinite years. Their lives would look like this:
Man dying at 100: 100 + infinity = infinity
Child murdered at two: 2 + infinity = infinity
Now, since God is more than capable of making sure that the child who dies at two has an infinite amount of joy and happiness of an infinite number of years, that child has not been cheated out of anything by not living to be 100. If anything, that child may have been spared 98 years of suffering and pain.
Consequently, God is equally fair and generous to all of His beloved children regardless of their circumstances in this life.
Akin provides a lot more than this, of course.
Hope this helps. :tiphat:
T
TankGirl
Guest
Okay, then. We can now support Euthanasia, and possibly abortion.
This is a great step forward in Catholic apologetics.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Oh. I thought this was a serious discussion. And to think that you were the one going on about the “willful ignorance” of Christians in another sub-forum. Talk about irony. You obviously don’t WANT to have this question answered because then you will have one less justification for your own position. Now,* that’s* willful ignorance.
Let me know if you decide to read and understand what Akin wrote. Thanks.
T
TankGirl
Guest
I’m not allowed a flippant post? Sorry, I had no idea.
So, a substantive response:
Akin’s solution is seriously problematic, and I believe self-contradictory. It is written from a Biblical-literalist standpoint (i.e. ‘God really did directly will these deaths’) which is not the majority opinion in recent Catholic teaching. However, in being literalist, it contradicts the literal teaching of OT scripture about long life. Either long life is always a good, and gift, and even a reward, or life/death is subject to a utilitarian calculation about probabilities (which is the point of my above post that I guess was too obscure).
O
OneSheep
Guest
Yeah, it doesn’t sound like “good news”. Have you read “Good Goats” by the Linns? I think you would enjoy it a lot.
As far as the stereotype, well, I am Catholic. Watch me
:Stories of vengeance are those of humans acting unilaterally somewhat without God’s sanction.
God wants us all to protect ourselves, indeed, it is in our nature. It is also in our nature to desire the resources someone else has. Also in our nature is the capacity to dehumanize our enemy, in fact, desire itself clouds our minds as to the humanity of those we want things from. So, as part of our nature, the possibility of some atrocious acts are real, and God made us that way.
Jesus, however, frees us from our nature. As we follow His example to love and serve everyone, we are also shown God’s beneficence beneath all of these problematic drives and capacities. We are called to forgive, which wipes away all desire for vengeance.
There have been many people(s) who certainly perceived that God wanted them to destroy their enemies, even those who had resources that they wanted but were not belligerent. It is difficult centuries later to condemn the mindset, the ancient Jews did not have a big U.S. flag protecting them. God as they knew Him wanted their nation to survive, they did what they thought was necessary. We have come a long way, have we not?
I Thank God.
Today, we have other means of dealing with these problems.… even though there are people in high offices unwilling to use those other means…
Have a great day!
T
TankGirl
Guest
So, OneSheep, are you saying that Samuel was not speaking for God? How does this square with the Nicene Creed? Did the Holy Spirit speak through the Prophets?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
My apologies. I had no idea that you were joking.
You read the entire article in 15 minutes or less? Impressive. I would have expected some pause for reflection in there somewhere. But okay…let’s move on.
First, why wouldn’t Akin deal with the literalist interpretation? Isn’t that the interpretation that the atheist will present when making the case AGAINST Christianity? Don’t those who attack the faith WANT to hold our feet to the fire precisely because it is GOD who orders the slaughter of women and children? Akin’s response is aimed at addressing this argument head on.
Second, it is true that in the OT long life is generally considered to be a sign of favor from God. And why not? The Jews did not have the same understanding of the afterlife that we have now. So, while I can’t speak for Jimmy, I would suspect that he would say that this is *normatively *the case, but not *absolutely *true. After all, God took Elisha and Enoch to heaven while they were still alive rather than leaving them here on earth for more years. Did God deprive them of some gift or did He grant them an even greater gift by assuming them into heaven without requiring them to die?
Similarly, God can grant to the children who died as a result of the actions of the Israelites happiness far beyond what they may have known in this life. Further, because they were the children of peoples that worshipped false gods, it is not certain that they EVER would have attained the beatific vision. Consequently, they may have gotten a very good deal - eternity in heaven in exchange for a few moments of pain and terror.
T
TankGirl
Guest
Although I am a fast reader, in this case I was already familiar. I’m a big Jimmy Akin fan for his reporting and analysis on modern Vatican news. I just sometimes disagree with him on his OT stuff, like this.
Do you know the meaning of the Proverb “never answer a fool according to the his folly”? Either Akin is or is not a Biblical literalist. If he’s not one, then his answer is not right one, even from his own opinion. If he is one, then frankly he’s not qualified to answer this particular question, smart as he is.
So, instead of teaching the Israelites about His nature in this way (which was the entire point of the divine pedagogy as posited by Catholic theologians) God is confirming the Israelites in their errors, keeping His justice a secret. Either the whole plan of the divine pedagogy is sensical, or it isn’t. The world is saying no, that teaching in great detail about the danger of covetousness while at the same time confirming the same people in violent vengeance is non-sensical if the goal is to eventually cultivate a merciful respect for all human life.
Bodily. He took them bodily into heaven. They never died. We can discuss this, but it’s apples/oranges when discussing deaths.
And, so this utilitarian thinking is contradictory to Catholic theology. It is a blessing of the ‘kill them all and let God sort them out’ ideas that have reared their heads at various times in history. Either it is always good for a person to live until natural death (Catholic teaching) or it is sometimes good for a person NOT to live until natural death.
Is this Catholic teaching because of the natural morality of this position, or merely because humans are ignorant of the state of people’s souls?
In saying what Akin is saying, is he not embracing a very anti-Catholic theodicy?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
You’ve been here a day. Perhaps you will find that some of us are not so hard-pressed to answer your questions, after all.
Okay. We’ll get better.
The world is demanding this? That’s a bit of hyperbole, isn’t it? Approximately 1/3 of the world is Christian, and another 1/3 Muslim - both monotheistic religions. Of the remaining 2 Billion or so, many of them are practitioners of various polytheistic or naturalist religions, and they aren’t really demanding anything of Christians. So, maybe “the world” is not so many, after all. Just you and a few of your friends and favorite authors, perhaps?
Where exactly does this group meet for worship on Sundays? I’m not familiar with them…
Well, who would want the caricature you have presented?
T
TankGirl
Guest
I’m presuming this a rhetorical device, since fundamentalists meet all over North America, and in plenty of other places. Dr William Lane Craig, a world-famous Evangelical apologist (look him up) even says that if any Amalekites existed today, we’d have to kill them.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
So, you’re an Akin fan? Uh…give me a moment to re-calibrate my thinking…
Are you a Catholic?
If you are an Akin fan, then you know his views on scripture are more nuanced than that. He is not a literalist, and this needs clarification if for no other reason than to make sure we are on the same page.
Catholics interpret the Bible in a “literal” sense, while many fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and others interpret the Bible in a literalist sense.
The “literal” meaning of a passage of Scripture is the meaning that the author of that passage of Scripture intended to convey. The “literalist” interpretation of a passage of Scripture is: “that’s what it says, that’s what it means.”
Let me give you an example to illustrate the difference. If you were to read a passage in a book that said it was “raining cats and dogs outside”, how would you interpret that? As Americans, in the 21st Century, you would know that the author was intending to convey the idea that it was raining pretty doggone hard outside. That would be the “literal” interpretation…the interpretation the author intended to convey. On the other hand, what if you made a “literalist” interpretation of the phrase, “it’s raining cats and dogs”?
The “literalist” interpretation would be that, were you to walk outside, you would actually see cats and dogs falling from the sky like rain. No taking into account the popularly accepted meaning of this phrase. No taking into account the author’s intentions. The words say it was raining cats and dogs, so, by golly, it was raining cats and dogs! That is the literalist, or fundamentalist, way of interpretation.
If someone 2000 years in the future picked up that same book and read, “It was raining cats and dogs outside,” in order to properly understand that passage in the book, they would need a “literal” interpretation, not a “literalist” interpretation.
Akin is not a literalist.
The world? Isn’t appealing to “the world” a logical fallacy? Why not just say, “I think” and be done with it?
The OT is a pretty big collection of books, and I think the subjects you suggest are *not *being taught well are actually covered pretty thoroughly therein.
Agreed. So, did he deny them the gift of a longer life or give them a greater gift by assuming them into heaven. If the latter, then long life is the lesser gift. Thus, God is able to give children killed in an Israeli massacre a greater gift, also.
Either/or? That’s not how Catholics typically view things, is it? If I’m going to live for an infinite number of years, then it matters not a whit how many of them are spent on this earth in the long run if I am happier elsewhere, does it?
Or because it is just plain logical? But hey, you do know you can call Catholic Answers and ask Jimmy yourself, right? I’ve spoken to a number of their apologists over the years…they’re real people, and they do answer their phones.
WE cannot take a life because that is above our pay grade since life is taken or given by God alone. If, OTOH, His purposes are fulfilled by the taking or giving of a life, then that is his prerogative to do so.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I’m pretty familiar with Craig having listened to many of his debates on YouTube and read many of his articles. Frankly, not many of the popular atheist apologists making the rounds of the television talks shows and university speaking circuits have been able to hold a candle to him.
However, I am not familiar with the point you are asserting, and without context, I am unable to comment.
That aside, your main point seems to have been that fundamentalists all over the world are meeting regularly to revel in God’s vengeance.
This suggests either an amazing lack of understanding about the fundamentalist message or (given what I perceive to be your sharp intellect) willful ignorance on your part. Or, come to think of it, you’re simply playing to the audience by throwing out empty rhetoric. This is not a college auditorium filled with first-year philosophy majors.
Vengeance is not the heart of the Gospel message. And you know this. :sad_yes:
S
Scottgun
Guest
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
T
TankGirl
Guest
Are you really claiming that fundamentalists don’t revel in God’s vengeance? You know how much fun trolling the internet to find juicy examples of this is going to be, don’t you? All I have to do is Google “Typhoon evangelist God” and “Tsunami evagelist smite” and “New Orleans God wrath” and we’ll have more examples than we can shake a stick at, and that’s in modern history. Go to “Revelation God smite unrighteous” and you’ll have shedloads.
O
OneSheep
Guest
I had to familiarize myself with the story.
The priest that presented to our Bible study said that we can take the Bible literally unless there appears to be a contradiction. God telling Samuel that all members of a particular community are to be killed is one of those contradictions to me, and I am sure that it is for you also. (I hope!)
So, what do we do with the contradiction? Options:
- The story is a myth.
- Samuel was misrepresented.
- Forgive Samuel, for he did not know what he was doing.
Can secular members modern society forgive the errors of the “religious”? If they do so, they beat Christians “at their own game”, so to speak.
I feel free to say that Samuel did not know what he was doing. However, I cannot hold it against him, as it is very difficult for me, an ignorant person, to judge his actions centuries later. Do you see what I mean? Can you forgive Samuel?
Forgiveness does not mean acquittal. For me, what it means is to be able to walk in someone shoes and say, “I could have done that, given their scope of the situation.” It is not a rationalization of people’s errors, it is a reconciliation. Can you see that the world needs a spark of reconciliation, rather than condemnation? I pray for such reconciliation.
Do you see what I mean? Reactions to such stories by modern people are understandable. We have a much clearer understanding of what Love is. Awareness evolves, does it not? I have a thread started on the topic, FYI.
Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut on this!
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Can you write a post longer than one sentence.
I am not a mind reader.
Are you a Catholic? Or what?
T
TankGirl
Guest
- The story is a myth.
- Samuel was misrepresented.
Misrepresentation of Samuel by the inspired authors is tempting, but is it allowable?
- Forgive Samuel, for he did not know what he was doing
Is that an allowable Catholic opinion? I really don’t know.
Someone?
F
Floyd_Lawson
Guest
That’s sort of my question and direction. If God is a merciful God, how and why would send his only Son to die for our sins? Why not just forgive us our sins as human beings? God created us so how can he expect his only Son to die for our sins? If we are flawed it is He who created us.
What kind of Father would demand a sacrifice like that from his Son?
That whole premise gives me a hard time.
- Status