Logical Scripture: A Criticism

[JohnHasSeriousQ]

1. The common and convenient Catholic response that the New Testament is not as violent as the Old does not sit well with me. Are there violent writings in the Bible? Are there writings in the Bible where God commits violence? What are the consequences (both past and future) for non-believers of Christianity as written in the Bible?
   
2. Please explain how apparent violent writings in the Bible, (of God offering his Son to be crucified for our sins so that we may eat his flesh and drink his blood in the early prophets of the New Testament, or of writings of God who smites so many including Jehoram in his bowels until they fell out on the floor in II Cor., or of the horrific violent writings of fate to come where God will sic Hell and Death on non-believers in Rev.), somehow, metaphorically, or mystically, or spiritually or in any other sense translates into something that is altogether wholesome and good, being imbued only with love and justice, mercy, faith and grace from God, and thus therefore should not really be read and understood as actually symbolizing violence?
   
3. If ‘mercy’ can be used in the following sense: If and only if one chooses to believe in God that one will more fully experience the ‘awesomeness of Gods’ mercy’, but where God will have ‘no mercy’ for the one who does not believe; How then is ‘Gods’ mercy’ not merely being saved from ‘Gods’ violent wraith’? Hint: The common Catholic response that we are all in control of our own destiny and thus have the choice to prevent the consequences resulting from being a non-believer does not answer my question.
   
4. In order to narrow my focus, I except that violence committed by a Catholic, or violent historical acts commonly attributed to Catholicism (like those of the Inquisition era or the more recent allegations of child sexual abuse by Catholic priests), are individual acts of violence and not necessarily representative of Catholicism, and so please only respond to my criticism that much of the writings involving apparent violence in the Bible are ignored, watered-down, or in some other way justified and promoted as less violent by Catholics. Am I to really believe that because I do not have to kill my first born son because God offered his own son to die for my sins, or that in spite of God smiting non-believers left and right, that Christianity is non-violent, or that phrases used to promote Catholicism (and some other religions), like ‘mercy of God’, or ‘grace of God’ are mere nice ways of saying of ‘wraith of God’, ‘vengeance of God’ and thus ‘violence from God’?

 

[eliasaph99]

Too many questions for one thread. Pick one and start a different thread, and I’ll answer it.

 

[JohnHasSeriousQ]

There is only one very simple question here. Why do Catholics (and other believers of the Jesuit Religions) ignore or skirt the issue of violent writings in scripture?

 

[Crumpy]

There is only one very simple question here. Why do Catholics (and other believers of the Jesuit Religions) ignore or skirt the issue of violent writings in scripture?

The Jesuits are a religious order within the Catholic Church. Perhaps you could clarify what you mean by the Jesuit Religions? Do you mean, Christian faiths?

The question of violence is not skirted although I wouldn’t call the Bible a handbook on the subject.

In our highest ideals, we are told to welcome the stranger and to love our neighbor. That has a lot to say about the use of violence.

I think of the Quakers more properly called the Friends Society (I think) and maybe the modern Amish in the U.S. who denounce violence entirely, albeit under the military protection of the United States. Adherents of virtuall all religions in the world have embraced violence at least in the name of self-defence, if not so also in more aggressive ways.

the late Beatle John Lennon composed a song wherein he challenges us to imagine a world without religion, where the violence associated with it has gone away.

It doesn’t seem that you have to reject religion to get beyond into a realm of non-violence. Officially, the United Nations accepts the principle of freedom of religion, but the member nations don’t always adhere to that lofty ideal.

Criticism? Is that your point? Christians who have been combatants in conflicts? Scripture predicts that there will be wars until the end.

 

[JohnHasSeriousQ]

We are getting somewhere…The Jesuit religions I and many seculars refer to are Christianity, Islam and Judaism, but I will concede to agree that many here will have a different meaning and I do not want to get caught up in semantics of this type…and so I’ll restate my question, hopefully in a more balanced way. Any insight into how to read scripture critically and wholly without perceiving that much of it is grossly violent would be most helpful?

 

[runandsew]

Because God loves us.

 

[eliasaph99]

These kinds of questions are always a puzzle to me.

Don’t you realize that the morals from which you are judging the supposed violence of the Christian Scriptures are derived from those very Scriptures? The high moral horse you sit upon is the moral horse constructed by the Catholic Church over its 2000 years of instruction to the Western World. The morals of the Church permeate and saturate our society to the point that you take them for granted and don’t even realize where they have come from. Other religions, in particular the religions of the West which preexisted Christianity, don’t teach that each individual human being is worthwhile. This assumption, which underlies your question, is a Catholic teaching, unheard of before the Church existed and still not accepted in much of the world. Before the Catholic Church existed, the questions you ask wouldn’t have even entered the mind of a common citizen of the West. Just explore the morality offered by the old pagan religions. It was essentially a morality which stated that the stronger god will prevail, and the plunder goes to the victor.

More importantly, the underlying worth of the individual is still not an assumption present in most societies around the world. ‘Human rights’ are a joke to them. Thats why the UN barely works.

I am also puzzled when atheists or secular humanists, advance the argument that God has no right to send people to hell. This is such an illogical argument that it boggles my mind that they could even make it. Once someone is assuming, even just for the sake of argument, that a Creator God exists, it immediately follows that you have no rights before such a God. If God created you from the void then how can you argue that you now have a right to exist separate from your creator? By analogy, if I build a chair in my garage, does the chair have a right to exist separate from me? No. It is mine, I built it, and if I so decide, I’ll chop it up for firewood. It has no right to object, because it wouldn’t exist without me.

Your question is also loaded and an attempt to be inflammatory. The Bible, overall, is not violent. There are some violent acts in the Bible, as there would be in any book which contains almost 2000 years of history. If you want an interpretation of some particular violent act in the Bible, go to the Early Church Fathers or the current Church theologians and read their commentary on the topic. Or ask a specific question about a specific event. Don’t just break out your shotgun questions and shoot like a madman. It’s annoying.

 

[FCEGM]

We are getting somewhere…The Jesuit religions I and many seculars refer to are Christianity, Islam and Judaism, but I will concede to agree that many here will have a different meaning and I do not want to get caught up in semantics of this type…

It’s not a matter of semantics but of reality. The Jesuits are but one of many religious Orders within the one Catholic Church - or “religion”, if your prefer. I’m sure Muslims and Jews would be just as surprised as the Jesuits would be to learn that there are Jesuits among them.

 

[mark_a]

There is only one very simple question here. Why do Catholics (and other believers of the Jesuit Religions) ignore or skirt the issue of violent writings in scripture?

Can you point out the violence of the Word incarnate?

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Jesus is the prince of peace. Jesus also said “I came not to bring peace but a sword”!

Both things are true.

Since the Bible says that God commanded Israel to go to war and since Eccleasiastes says there is a time for everything–war included–these things ARE TRUE.

Every command of God was good.

That doesn’t mean that any war or any violence is good.

The cross shows that the greatest evil of all times–DEICIDE–can be used by God to achieve the greatest good.

Violence is bad. When Jesus physically removed the moneychangers from the temple it was good.

Jesus said "greater love hath no man than that he lay down his life for his friends.’

Sometimes defense of others is an act of love–other times suffering violence for others or for the kingdom of god is an act of love.

 

[JohnHasSeriousQ]

Thank you for the challenge mark a (“Can you point out the violence of the Word incarnate?”), and although I am neither an expert in Philosophy or language, nor am I an expert in Christian or Catholic thought, I except.

The first thought that comes to mind is in what sense do you mean? Incarnate in its literal form means ‘to make into flesh.’ Philosophically, this could have many ‘meanings’ depending on the philosophy of the one defining it. It is an interesting word, where in its most literal form (having such a broad meaning) I cannot see how it is violent.

Should it be safe to assume that you have more specific meanings of the word incarnate (please correct me if I am wrong in thinking that the word ‘Word’ in your question intentionally starts with a capital letter); these would be meanings derived only of the Word of God. Using two examples in the Word, incarnate is something Jesus does after death, and will do again sometime in the future. That is to say that the Word uses incarnate in the sense to proclaim that Jesus was ‘made back into flesh after death’ and will ‘rise again in the flesh in the near future’. The language used here to define or add some meaning to the Word incarnate includes God giving his Son to be killed for our sins such that we no longer have to kill our first born sons (in part), or is something that has meaning only after God sics Hell and Death on me (and others) as a non-believer as prophesized in Revelations. How is this not violent?

Ok, you may say that I am reading too much into it; these stories in the Word where the word incarnate is used, mystically or symbolically ‘means’ that God loves us so much that He has created a perfect plan for us ‘to live in the flesh after death like Jesus’, should we only follow His plan. Following this thinking the necessary consequences from not following His plan (not that I ‘fear’ the consequences, because I do not believe), seem painfully violent no matter how long these consequences last. Furthermore, it seems violent to use fear as a means to persuade someone’s beliefs. Am I really to hold a belief of ‘fear of not believing in God’ as merely one GOOD, NON-VIOLENT reason to believe in God?

Again, correct me if I’m wrong in my thinking, but the more focused meanings associated with the Word incarnate implies that God ‘made us in the flesh’ and that this gift of God should be most appreciated by us (for after all without Gods’ gift of ‘life in the flesh’ how could we appreciate anything at all), and promises to allow us to ‘live in the flesh after death’ with Him, if and only if we believe in Him, where consequently non-believers will ‘have their flesh taken back’ by God, and are subject to having their ‘flesh burned off over and over again for all of eternity after death’. In spite of who may or may not have given me this gift of being ‘made in the flesh’ (wholly imbued with the ability to think critically, even if sometimes I am wrong in my thinking), let me be clear, I do not willingly ‘choose’ to suffer these consequences, not only because I am a non-believe, but also because I am not into pain.

Because I do not mean to be inflammatory, and thus really do have very serious questions as to why I should believe in God or the Word, and because I do not actually believe in God or the Word (in spite of my belief that I could be wrong in my beliefs), please respond with very serious answers to how the meaning of the Word incarnate includes a NON-VIOLENT solution for me (and other non-believers), and then how this transformation in my thinking could then lead me to believe that God and the Word are not violent? For after all, I must first be convinced that God does not include violence as a solution for me in His plan, because then and only then would it be possible to convince me that He is the reason why I was ‘made in the flesh,’ and that it is GOOD (not violent) that He can take this gift back at anytime.

 

[eliasaph99]

OK. I’ll try to go bit by bit, although I’m not going to respond to everything you have written.

Thank you for the challenge mark a (“Can you point out the violence of the Word incarnate?”), and although I am neither an expert in Philosophy or language, nor am I an expert in Christian or Catholic thought, I except.

The first thought that comes to mind is in what sense do you mean? Incarnate in its literal form means ‘to make into flesh.’ Philosophically, this could have many ‘meanings’ depending on the philosophy of the one defining it. It is an interesting word, where in its most literal form (having such a broad meaning) I cannot see how it is violent.

**The Word incarnate refers to Jesus Christ. In the Gospel of John, we are told the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. This refers to Christ.

So, (Mark can correct if I’m wrong), the question is asking you to point to violent acts committed by Christ.**

Should it be safe to assume that you have more specific meanings of the word incarnate (please correct me if I am wrong in thinking that the word ‘Word’ in your question intentionally starts with a capital letter); these would be meanings derived only of the Word of God. Using two examples in the Word, incarnate is something Jesus does after death, and will do again sometime in the future. That is to say that the Word uses incarnate in the sense to proclaim that Jesus was ‘made back into flesh after death’ and will ‘rise again in the flesh in the near future’.

This is not a correct understanding of Christian theology. The incarnation happened when Christ was born. When Christ rose from the dead, He was not re-incarnated (i.e. put into a new body.) rather His old body was brought back to life by His power over death. Christ will not rise again. He is risen and lives now. Currently, He is in Heaven with the Father. From there He shall come again. This is quite different from ‘rising again’.

The language used here to define or add some meaning to the Word incarnate includes God giving his Son to be killed for our sins such that we no longer have to kill our first born sons (in part), or is something that has meaning only after God sics Hell and Death on me (and others) as a non-believer as prophesized in Revelations. How is this not violent?

**There is no place in the Bible where believers are commanded to kill their first born sons. There is a law in Deuteronomy which states that the first born male to exit the womb belongs to the Lord. If it is an animal, it is to be sacrificed. If it is a human, a substitionary sacrifice is to be made.

The practice of child sacrifice is soundly condemned in the Old Testament. The Canannites, who inhabited the Promised Land before Israel, used to engage in a practice called ‘putting their children through the fire.’ It was a sacrifice to their god Molech. It was detested by the Lord.

God is not siccing Hell and Death on you. You are suffering from the sin of Adam, the many-times great-grandfather of us all.

Moreover, your use of the word non-believer is misleading. Catholic theology is much more complex than what you are portraying or have been lead to believe. We believe that there are many different spiritual states of those who do not have the same fullness of understanding that we have as Catholics. We do not lump all of humanity into the damned and the undamned.

Hell is a place of punishment for the devil and his angels. This is clearly stated in Revelation. It was built for them.

In other places in the Bible, it states that the devil is currently prince of this world. One day, things will be set right again. It is up to you to choose whom you will side with, the prince who rules now, or the King who will rule. If you choose the prince, then you can be with him for all of eternity. If you choose the King, you can be with him.

cont…**

 

[eliasaph99]

Cont.
Ok, you may say that I am reading too much into it; these stories in the Word where the word incarnate is used, mystically or symbolically ‘means’ that God loves us so much that He has created a perfect plan for us ‘to live in the flesh after death like Jesus’, should we only follow His plan. Following this thinking the necessary consequences from not following His plan (not that I ‘fear’ the consequences, because I do not believe), seem painfully violent no matter how long these consequences last.

Although the Bible uses physical depiction to describe the torment of Hell, many theologians believe that the most tortuous element will be regret. You will live forever with the knowledge that you could have chosen to live with God, but you rejected Him. If you have ever felt regret over a choice you have made, you know how painfully unbearable it can be. This is not to say that there will not be physical elements of pain. However, I do not see how you or I are in a place to question the justness of this. As I stated in an earlier post, the sense of morality you are claiming to judge these realities is derived from the scriptures you are condemning. Before the Christian scriptures became widespread, such morality was completely unknown. Individuals were considered worthless and unimportant.

Furthermore, it seems violent to use fear as a means to persuade someone’s beliefs. Am I really to hold a belief of ‘fear of not believing in God’ as merely one GOOD, NON-VIOLENT reason to believe in God?

**Christianity did not spread by fear. It spread by love.

People do not remain Christians out of fear. If someone who is Catholic decides they want to be Hindu, or Muslim, or Protestant, they may go and do so, without fear.

People remain Christian, and Catholic especially, because the love of God is palpable to the Catholic. I feel it all the time.**

Again, correct me if I’m wrong in my thinking, but the more focused meanings associated with the Word incarnate implies that God ‘made us in the flesh’ and that this gift of God should be most appreciated by us (for after all without Gods’ gift of ‘life in the flesh’ how could we appreciate anything at all), and promises to allow us to ‘live in the flesh after death’ with Him, if and only if we believe in Him, where consequently non-believers will ‘have their flesh taken back’ by God, and are subject to having their ‘flesh burned off over and over again for all of eternity after death’.

**The last sentence is a paraphrase of a quote from the Quran. I don’t believe the Quran, so have no response for it.

Again, you are grossly oversimplifying Catholic Theology. It’s not like no one ever thought of these questions for the last two thousand years. Research it yourself and you’ll see that its been dealt with. For most of your questions, I suggest Aquinas, although someone else might be able to suggest someone more pertinent.**

In spite of who may or may not have given me this gift of being ‘made in the flesh’ (wholly imbued with the ability to think critically, even if sometimes I am wrong in my thinking), let me be clear, I do not willingly ‘choose’ to suffer these consequences, not only because I am a non-believe, but also because I am not into pain.

**Criminals don’t choose prison. They still have to go.

cont…**

 

[eliasaph99]

Cont.
Because I do not mean to be inflammatory, and thus really do have very serious questions as to why I should believe in God or the Word, and because I do not actually believe in God or the Word (in spite of my belief that I could be wrong in my beliefs), please respond with very serious answers to how the meaning of the Word incarnate includes a NON-VIOLENT solution for me (and other non-believers), and then how this transformation in my thinking could then lead me to believe that God and the Word are not violent? For after all, I must first be convinced that God does not include violence as a solution for me in His plan, because then and only then would it be possible to convince me that He is the reason why I was ‘made in the flesh,’ and that it is GOOD (not violent) that He can take this gift back at anytime.

**Your equating good with non-violence is a falsity. Wasn’t the Allied invasion of Europe during World War Two good? Of course it was, and it was very violent.

To insist on this complete separation of violence and goodness is not to live in reality. Here, in the real world, violence happens and sometimes it is good. Sometimes it is good to go to ones death fighting for what one believes in, even if that means the death of others or of self. To everything there is a purpose and a time under heaven.

Love and violence cannot be separated. You love your spouse; won’t you fight to protect them? Of course you will.

If you must be convinced that there is no violence in the plan of God, then you’ll never believe the plan of God. Why? Because there is violence in it. There is blood and tears and pain and suffering. There is martyrdom and death. There is love and the laying down of ones life. There is suffering on the behalf of others. There is coming to love a stranger so much, that you’ll take his place when the death squad comes.

All of this is in Gods plan. And it is Good.**

 

[Eschato]

These kinds of questions are always a puzzle to me.

Don’t you realize that the morals from which you are judging the supposed violence of the Christian Scriptures are derived from those very Scriptures? The high moral horse you sit upon is the moral horse constructed by the Catholic Church over its 2000 years of instruction to the Western World. The morals of the Church permeate and saturate our society to the point that you take them for granted and don’t even realize where they have come from. Other religions, in particular the religions of the West which preexisted Christianity, don’t teach that each individual human being is worthwhile. This assumption, which underlies your question, is a Catholic teaching, unheard of before the Church existed and still not accepted in much of the world. Before the Catholic Church existed, the questions you ask wouldn’t have even entered the mind of a common citizen of the West. Just explore the morality offered by the old pagan religions. It was essentially a morality which stated that the stronger god will prevail, and the plunder goes to the victor.

More importantly, the underlying worth of the individual is still not an assumption present in most societies around the world. ‘Human rights’ are a joke to them. Thats why the UN barely works.

I am also puzzled when atheists or secular humanists, advance the argument that God has no right to send people to hell. This is such an illogical argument that it boggles my mind that they could even make it. Once someone is assuming, even just for the sake of argument, that a Creator God exists, it immediately follows that you have no rights before such a God. If God created you from the void then how can you argue that you now have a right to exist separate from your creator? By analogy, if I build a chair in my garage, does the chair have a right to exist separate from me? No. It is mine, I built it, and if I so decide, I’ll chop it up for firewood. It has no right to object, because it wouldn’t exist without me.

Your question is also loaded and an attempt to be inflammatory. The Bible, overall, is not violent. There are some violent acts in the Bible, as there would be in any book which contains almost 2000 years of history. If you want an interpretation of some particular violent act in the Bible, go to the Early Church Fathers or the current Church theologians and read their commentary on the topic. Or ask a specific question about a specific event. Don’t just break out your shotgun questions and shoot like a madman. It’s annoying.

AMEN!

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

1. The common and convenient Catholic response that the New Testament is not as violent as the Old does not sit well with me.

Not heard that one​

Are there violent writings in the Bible? Are there writings in the Bible where God commits violence?

“Yes” to both - why should that be a problem ? It’s mistaken to expect that because A results in B, the qualities of B must necessarily be present in A. The NT is seen by Christians as in some sense fulfilling the Tanakh - that’s why we call the Tanakh the OT. It doesn’t follow that because there are certain ethical values in NT Christianity, those values must necessarily be identical with the values in the OT. ##

What are the consequences (both past and future) for non-believers of Christianity as written in the Bible?

2) Please explain how apparent violent writings in the Bible, (of God offering his Son to be crucified for our sins so that we may eat his flesh and drink his blood in the early prophets of the New Testament, or of writings of God who smites so many including Jehoram in his bowels until they fell out on the floor in II Cor., or of the horrific violent writings of fate to come where God will sic Hell and Death on non-believers in Rev.), somehow, metaphorically, or mystically, or spiritually or in any other sense translates into something that is altogether wholesome and good, being imbued only with love and justice, mercy, faith and grace from God, and thus therefore should not really be read and understood as actually symbolizing violence?

3) If ‘mercy’ can be used in the following sense: If and only if one chooses to believe in God that one will more fully experience the ‘awesomeness of Gods’ mercy’, but where God will have ‘no mercy’ for the one who does not believe; How then is ‘Gods’ mercy’ not merely being saved from ‘Gods’ violent wraith’?

Do you mean “wrath” ? A wraith is a type of ghost - specifically, that of a living man. ​

Faith is absolutely impossible without the grace of God - no one can have faith, unless God in His mercy draws that person to Himself. It is so entirely a gift of God, that not even the desire for it is possible to man, left to his own devices: in no case does God not make the first move, by coming to us before we so much as think of going back to Him. That is how great the kindness & good will of God to men is. ##

Hint: The common Catholic response that we are all in control of our own destiny and thus have the choice to prevent the consequences resulting from being a non-believer does not answer my question.

It’s grossly inadequate anyway - it is no better than atheism to say that we are in control: for the all-ruling Providence of God governs our least action, for His Glory, that in all things His Will may be done: even despite us.​

4) In order to narrow my focus, I except that violence committed by a Catholic, or violent historical acts commonly attributed to Catholicism (like those of the Inquisition era or the more recent allegations of child sexual abuse by Catholic priests), are individual acts of violence and not necessarily representative of Catholicism, and so please only respond to my criticism that much of the writings involving apparent violence in the Bible are ignored, watered-down, or in some other way justified and promoted as less violent by Catholics. Am I to really believe that because I do not have to kill my first born son because God offered his own son to die for my sins, or that in spite of God smiting non-believers left and right, that Christianity is non-violent, or that phrases used to promote Catholicism (and some other religions), like ‘mercy of God’, or ‘grace of God’ are mere nice ways of saying of ‘wraith of God’, ‘vengeance of God’ and thus ‘violence from God’?

As for the grace of God - it is not a euphemism. Maybe a reading of St.Paul on the subject would help.​

The ghastliness of human beings is a fact, in the Church as well as outside - but it does not cancel or rule out or undermine the graciousness of God. The legitimacy of Christianity is not founded on human goodness, so it can’t be discredited by human ghastliness. It is founded on the Goodness of God - not that of man. Of course man is horribly unpleasant - a lot of the Bible goes on & on about this. I don’t why know the nastiness of human nature is supposed to be a surprise to Christians.

There is nothing that human beings do not spoil, ruin, destroy, pervert - human nature is badly damaged, so it’s to be expected that we will act in a damaging way. One of the messages in the gospels is that God was on the receiving end of it, died of it, & overcame it by taking the full force of it into Himself. This shows both the worst that man can do, & the way that God copes with this worst: what He makes of it. That is grace: for Jesus (Who is God as man) brings new life to men out of the death and agony that they inflict on Him. He suffers the weight of the wrath of God which is due to sin, so that we do not have to, as we cannot.

 

[JohnHasSeriousQ]

We are getting somewhere, and thank you all for all your patience with me and your responses, most especially the serious attempts to actually answer some of my criticisms. Thank you so much for your contributions to corrections in my thinking and my spelling, and so please keep them coming. A common mistake people often make when communicating is in assuming that your audience knows from where you (the speaker) are coming. I think perhaps all of us make this mistake to some degree and at some times, and so I should clarify more specifically what are my real concerns.

To help with this I will start by laying out some of my relevant beliefs.
I am (according to some or many of my beliefs)…
…a believer…
…that there is no god
…that not all violence is bad
…that rarely is violence not bad
…that most of the time violence is bad
…that I could be wrong in any of my beliefs
I am (because of many or all of my beliefs)…
…not a/an…
…person void of beliefs
…pacifist person
…person limited to two choices (decisions/beliefs/acts) to avoid violence (perpetrated/received)
…violent person
…easily persuaded individual

I have never written in this forum that I am a pacifist or that I am necessarily always against violence.
I have questioned why so much violence is in the bible. Some questions have been answered to my moral satisfaction, but many more remain.
I have questioned why God has committed so much violence. Some Catholic insight has been given, but these questions remain largely unanswered.
I have not been clear to convey that my criticisms…
…are NOT that past/present/future people are violent, but that God IS not a good role model.
…are NOT so much that there is violence written in the bible, but that these writings DO not convey good morals.
…are NOT whole and complete as is, revisable, nor correct or representative (of Catholics, atheists, pacifists or even what is really in my mind)
I have not been clear to convey that I do ‘feel’ when I read the bible, or contemplate the existence of God; it is just that it does not ‘feel’ good.
I have not been clear to convey that I do ‘understand’ much of what I read, and challenged to ‘understand’ more when I do not, but only when I know.

Agreements so far:
The scripture itself tells a violent tale at times.
God committed violence.
Violence is not always bad.

Not yet addressed:
God has not been shown to be a good role model.

Answers not satisfying:
Violence committed by God that was ALWAYS good.
The interpretation presented of the actual words written in the bible seems too convenient to be true.

Disagreements:
The violence that God commits cannot be both good and bad, and still be ultimately good.
Faith will necessarily lead to wisdom

Because there is a big difference here in interpretation, and because it is the truth we seek, please forgive me, but below you will find more shotgun questions. I understand that the follow interpretation of scripture may cut right through the core of Catholic Theology, and thus may seem annoying or even offensive, but they must be answered to my moral satisfaction to move forward.

This is how I see things.
God sent the angel Gabriel down to enter the Virgin Mary without her knowing about it in advance (where in response to her fear was told she was blessed).
Do I really need to point out that hiring someone to rape a virgin (where if she tries to scream to also lie to her to put her mind at ease), is the wrong kind of violence?
Is This an Example of Gods’ GOOD Violence?
God sent His Son (which is really Himself) to suffer for all of us for all of our sins that Adam caused.
(Apparent schizophrenia of God His Son or Himself set aside, being it is a different criticism) do I really need to point out that there is something masochistic for someone (even God) to WANT to take on the suffering for all of us for all of our wrongdoings, that there is something unfair about someone else (even God) ACTUALLY taking on the suffering for all of us for all of our wrongdoings, and that no one ever causes another to do wrong?
Is This Lost Greek Mythology or GOOD Violence?

 

[JohnHasSeriousQ]

I should be able to reject these beliefs with no consequences. Why (solely because of my beliefs) do I only have the choice of God and heaven, or the prince of darkness and suffering? I choose (if I have the option to do so) to not suffer after death for my wrongdoings here in this world (after all I have not done much that is wrong, and I have already suffered plenty to fulfill my responsibility); and I choose not to follow in the footprints of a role model whose morals and ethics I find questionable. In other words I choose to take on the responsibility of my wrongdoings in this life, to die and physically turn to dust, and hopefully live on only in what deeds I may leave behind. I choose not to reside after death with an (unnecessarily) violent King or prince. Can’t I just die physically, and live on only in the Classical sense when I die? Is it hard to see that my only two choices (according to some here) of King of rape and unwarranted suffering (if my interpretations are correct) or prince of death and hell, are both grim?

 

[mark_a]

Thank you for the challenge mark a (“Can you point out the violence of the Word incarnate?”), and although I am neither an expert in Philosophy or language, nor am I an expert in Christian or Catholic thought, I except.

Thank you for your response. I’m not chickening out of this discussion, but eliasaph99 did an absolutely great job of answering your questions. Much clearer than I could have done.

My easy answer would be to say that God joined himself to mankind, became part of mankind, to show us how to love one another.

Even though mankind’s own history is aweful, and even though the teaching authority Jesus instituted here has it’s own aweful history, we still have the most perfect example of the most perfect love, Jesus, we must each try to emulate.

In the end, God isn’t going to give us Catholics a wink and a nod and tell us to move to the front of the line.

 

[mark_a]

I should be able to reject these beliefs with no consequences. Why (solely because of my beliefs) do I only have the choice of God and heaven, or the prince of darkness and suffering? I choose (if I have the option to do so) to not suffer after death for my wrongdoings here in this world (after all I have not done much that is wrong, and I have already suffered plenty to fulfill my responsibility); and I choose not to follow in the footprints of a role model whose morals and ethics I find questionable. In other words I choose to take on the responsibility of my wrongdoings in this life, to die and physically turn to dust, and hopefully live on only in what deeds I may leave behind. I choose not to reside after death with an (unnecessarily) violent King or prince. Can’t I just die physically, and live on only in the Classical sense when I die? Is it hard to see that my only two choices (according to some here) of King of rape and unwarranted suffering (if my interpretations are correct) or prince of death and hell, are both grim?

That whole hell thing is tough. But hell is pretty easy to avoid. I think it’s a mistake to dwell on hell.

I heard Fr. Groeschel say that hell is the kindest place that someone who has no intention of accepting God’s love could spend eternity. The kindest place. I like that thought, not because it sounds easy, but because it sounds so compassionate.