Without specific stories, I would say that these things had to happen not just because He is a loving God, but more importantly because He is our loving Father. The OT is saturated with accounts of how Israel displeased God by succumbing to the temptations of the neighbors. If He left them to their own devices, all would be lost. But by “leading us not into temptation” (empowering them to remove their temptations), God was allowing His first-born the greatest chance to someday enjoy the beautific vision and be the light to all nations. The towns that were condemned were so because they were wicked and disobeyed God. This shows that God is just, not vengeful.My middle school religion students are perplexed, and I struggle to reconcile for them how the same God who is loving and merciful and encourages peacemaking also in Old Testament times calls for wars, destroys a city supernaturally, etc. I have presented these things as a warning to us, consequences for sin, etc. Also that God is the author of life and has the right to take it. Can you help me to better understand and explain? Thanks.
This is why - in my admittedly amateur opinion - I’m leery about how Catholic kids are often taught from the catechism first and the scripture second, or it’s skipped over almost completely. Even if the catechism provides all of the teaching in a succinct, organized way, it’s kind of like skipping the part where you teach children how to do arithmetic and going straight to a calculator. They punch the numbers in to get the right answer, but they don’t actually know what’s really happening.My middle school religion students are perplexed, and I struggle to reconcile for them how the same God who is loving and merciful and encourages peacemaking also in Old Testament times calls for wars, destroys a city supernaturally, etc. I have presented these things as a warning to us, consequences for sin, etc. Also that God is the author of life and has the right to take it. Can you help me to better understand and explain? Thanks.
From ewtn: ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=360562&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=My middle school religion students are perplexed, and I struggle to reconcile for them how the same God who is loving and merciful and encourages peacemaking also in Old Testament times calls for wars, destroys a city supernaturally, etc. I have presented these things as a warning to us, consequences for sin, etc. Also that God is the author of life and has the right to take it. Can you help me to better understand and explain? Thanks.
The OT does not present an accurate picture of God And neither does the the NT for that matter. Albeit, the NT is a more enlightened conception of God. (Our understanding of God is evolving. I think that is the best way to approach it.)My middle school religion students are perplexed, and I struggle to reconcile for them how the same God who is loving and merciful and encourages peacemaking also in Old Testament times calls for wars, destroys a city supernaturally, etc. I have presented these things as a warning to us, consequences for sin, etc. Also that God is the author of life and has the right to take it. Can you help me to better understand and explain? Thanks.
this is a view that has always troubled me. yes, our understanding of God is evolving, but the books of the bible should not have “evolved.” if we are to believe the bible is the word of God, then how can we argue that the word of God has evolved? has the way God treats his children evolved? I think a better way of looking at it is from the perspective of an every day parent, like myself. I have two children, and I deal with them in different ways. I love them equally, but show them love differently. I discipline them equally, but talk to them and punnish them differently. I believe God acts in much the same way.The OT does not present an accurate picture of God And neither does the the NT for that matter. Albeit, the NT is a more enlightened conception of God. (Our understanding of God is evolving. I think that is the best way to approach it.)
That may be in your case, but we are talking about an entity that goes from door to door killing children…children who would be blameless in the events. God…using the lives of children to make a point…makes one go Hmmmmmm.this is a view that has always troubled me. yes, our understanding of God is evolving, but the books of the bible should not have “evolved.” if we are to believe the bible is the word of God, then how can we argue that the word of God has evolved? has the way God treats his children evolved? I think a better way of looking at it is from the perspective of an every day parent, like myself. I have two children, and I deal with them in different ways. I love them equally, but show them love differently. I discipline them equally, but talk to them and punnish them differently. I believe God acts in much the same way.
“Killing children”?That may be in your case, but we are talking about an entity that goes from door to door killing children…children who would be blameless in the events. God…using the lives of children to make a point…makes one go Hmmmmmm.
I’ll leave it , thank you very much. Their death were “less of an evil” because of what their parents were doing? Remember, it is your belief system that says that God knew each and every one of these children before they were conceived. The God of Abraham created these children, knowing that He would kill them because their parents did not believe a certain way? BTW, which way was that at the time? The covenant was specifically with the Jewish people and Jesus was in the distant future.“Killing children”?
Again you’ve confined yourself to your perspective to your limited opinion.
If the eternal,invisible and immaterial are necessarily more important, more permanent, and thus more “real” than the corporeal and the temporary, then if follows that physical death is less of an evil than spiritual-eternal death.
Thus the deaths of children raised in institutional sin, such as pagan Egypt, or the physical deaths of Canaanite children who will have eventually been sacrificed to the Canaanite pagan god “Molech”, are less of an evil, and have even saved their souls, instead to allow them to sin as their parents did.
Thus, from the eternal perspective of God, their physical deaths were in fact merciful, for had they lived they would in fact be eternally lost.
That’s the truth. Take it or leave it.
this is the definition of “out of context.” let’s not forget that this was the TENTH plague bestowed on the Egyptians. the pharaoh was warned of this plague, and after witnessing the first nine plagues still would not free the Israelites. this wasn’t the first plague. it wasn’t done without warning. so was it God, or the actions of the pharaoh that killed those children? additionally, let’s also not forget that during their enslavement, millions of Israelite first born sons were killed by the Egyptians.That may be in your case, but we are talking about an entity that goes from door to door killing children…children who would be blameless in the events. God…using the lives of children to make a point…makes one go Hmmmmmm.
What their parents were doing the children were doing too. If you cannot see this trend throughout both the first two books of the Pentateuch and the consequences of such sinfulness, and how these consequences are laid out by Paul in Romans 1,then you are plainly more ignorant of Scripture than I originally suspected.I’ll leave it , thank you very much. Their death were “less of an evil” because of what their parents were doing?
Frankly, yes. God gave Pharaoh plenty of opportunities to NOT do what He did. In fact I would argue that their deaths and their blood is entirely on the hands of Pharaoh and not on God. Pharaoh had every chance and every opportunity to choose other than what he did; he in fact DID choose correctly and then later recanted.Remember, it is your belief system that says that God knew each and every one of these children before they were conceived. The God of Abraham created these children, knowing that He would kill them because their parents did not believe a certain way?
Wrong, the Abrahamic covenant was still in effect, which is the covenant with Abraham AND his descendants through faith; there was no Mosaic Law yet.BTW, which way was that at the time? The covenant was specifically with the Jewish people and Jesus was in the distant future.
Sorry…none of your excuses justify the murder of children by an all-powerful entity in any real world. Remember, I don’t believe that God had anything to do with it or that He is a murderer before calling me nihilistic.I believe in God…just not the one described in the bible.What their parents were doing the children were doing too. If you cannot see this trend throughout both the first two books of the Pentateuch and the consequences of such sinfulness, and how these consequences are laid out by Paul in Romans 1,then you are plainly more ignorant of Scripture than I originally suspected.
Frankly, yes. God gave Pharaoh plenty of opportunities to NOT do what He did. In fact I would argue that their deaths and their blood is entirely on the hands of Pharaoh and not on God. Pharaoh had every chance and every opportunity to choose other than what he did; he in fact DID choose correctly and then later recanted.
I would further argue that there is no reason not to expect that those children were saved by Christ and will be reunited with their bodies at the resurrection.
Your assertion only “works” if physical death is permanent; it is not. Eternal death is permanent for those, like Pharaoh and others who refuse him, who harden their hearts at God and reject His kindness and grace.
Thus God shows His infinite love and mercy as opposed to your nihilistic philosophy.
Wrong, the Abrahamic covenant was still in effect, which is the covenant with Abraham AND his descendants through faith; there was no Mosaic Law yet.
Non-sequitur. Already refuted. Repeating your false assertions ad-nauseum doesn’t make them any more true.Sorry…none of your excuses justify the murder of children by an all-powerful entity in any real world.
1)Which is no God at all. Its a god of your creation, created after your own image and likeness.Remember, I don’t believe that God had anything to do with it or that He is a murderer before calling me nihilistic.I believe in God…just not the one described in the bible.
Ad-hominum. Which again proves what I said earlier to be true, Deism is NOT a tolerant belief system, especially to beliefs which contradict it.BTW, the last sentence was sarcasm to point out that the covenant did not apply to any of the people you deemed worthy of slaughter. Nor am I aware of any evangelists to the Canaanites. I guess the American Natives were just lucky that they didn’t get slaughtered.
I wonder why that was?.
The Depravity of the Canaanites
To understand why Jehovah told Israel to wipe out the Canaanites, one needs to understand Canaanite religion and customs.
At the heart of Canaanite religion was sex in all its perversions. The land was polluted with indescribable immorality. They were hopelessly lost and incurable. To illustrate:
And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the Lord. Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith; neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion. Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things; for in all these the nations are defiled, which I cast out before you. And the land is defiled; therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants. Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and mine ordinances, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, who were before you, and the land is defiled); That the land spew not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spewed out the nations that were before you. (Leviticus 18:21-28)
For the incredible corruption of the gods, see Albright’s Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, (pp. 76-77).
By the time of Christ, Israel was solidly monotheistic, and no longer tempted by the idolatrous practices of surrounding nations, although some were attracted to Greek humanism. Christ did not have to deal with people who threw their first born into the burning arms of Molech, but was talking to a people with a thousand years of monotheistic theological development behind them.The Canaanites lost no time in substituting carnality for the grace of the Babylonian originals. Both in these plaques and in later ones the female organs are accentuated in various ways, nearly all of them more direct and less restrained than was true of Babylonia . . . . The lily and serpent are characteristically Canaanite; the former indicates the charm and grace of the bearer - in a word, her sex appeal - and the latter symbolizes her fecundity. It was only natural that the Phoenicians would attribute to Astarte’s two sons, named (according to Philo) “Sexual Desire” (Pothos) and “Sexual Love” (Eros). . . . At its best there can be little doubt that there was a certain amount of aesthetic charm about Canaanite literary and artistic portrayal of these goddesses; in the Keret Epic, for instance, the hero’s betrothed is poetically described as having “the charm of Anath” and “the beauty of Astarte.” At its worst however, the erotic aspect of their cult must have sunk to extremely sordid depths of social degradation. Besides being patronesses of sexual life these interesting ladies were also goddesses of war. Anath or Astarte is depicted in Egyptian representations of the New Empire as a naked woman astride a galloping horse, brandishing shield and lance in her outflung hands. In the Baal Epic there is a harrowing description of Anath’s thirst for blood. For a reason which still escapes us she decided to carry out a general massacre: “With might she hewed down the people of the cities, she smote the folk of the seacoast, she slew the men of the sunrise (east).” After filling her temple (it seems) with men, she barred the gates so that none might escape, after which “she hurled chairs at the youths, tables at the warriors, footstools at the men of might.” The blood was so deep that she waded in it up to her knees - nay, up to her neck. Under her feet were human heads, above her human hands flew like locusts. In her sensuous delight she decorated herself with suspended heads, while she attached hands to her girdle. Her joy at the butchery is described in even more sadistic language: “Her liver swelled with laughter, her heart was full of joy, the liver of Anath (was full of) exultation (?).” Afterwards Anath “was satisfied” and washed her hands in human gore before proceeding to other occupations. (See all of pp. 68-94 for fuller details.)
Primitive interpretations of events should be taken with a large pinch of salt particularly when they conflict with the teaching of Jesus that all of us have a loving Father in heaven:My middle school religion students are perplexed, and I struggle to reconcile for them how the same God who is loving and merciful and encourages peacemaking also in Old Testament times calls for wars, destroys a city supernaturally, etc. I have presented these things as a warning to us, consequences for sin, etc. Also that God is the author of life and has the right to take it. Can you help me to better understand and explain? Thanks.
Matthew 5:45But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.