NEW explanation for why God killed babies in the OT (Heresy?)

[BlackFriar]

So when you can demonstrate God spoke directly to you or anyone else in a completely non subjective way do come back to us. Me, I’ll assume psychosis when the message contradicts natural law…or, when delivered 2nd hand in a book, literary licence or device. Its so much more sensible in a subjective world of grey communication.

 

[BlackFriar]

If you have not yet fathomed the answer from above yet then nothing further I say will assist you sorry.

 

[BlackFriar]

You mean fallible men reported He did surely?

 

[BlackFriar]

Scripture is inerrant, revealed by The Holy Spirit, and the Magisterium is the teaching authority when guided by The Holy Spirit. Reading Scripture without faith and analysis of Scripture without the calculus of dogma is just randomly rewording a translation. Deep meaning is clearly to be generated by such highly valued academic techniques.

Who are you responding to?

 

[mkoopman]

Scripture is inerrant, revealed by The Holy Spirit, and the Magisterium is the teaching authority when guided by The Holy Spirit. Reading Scripture without faith and analysis of Scripture without the calculus of dogma is just randomly rewording a translation. Deep meaning is clearly to be generated by such highly valued academic techniques.

 

[Gorgias]

nothing further I say will assist you

I agree. What you’ve said so far hasn’t been of much value in assistance.

 

[BlackFriar]

BlackFriar:

If you have not yet fathomed the answer from above yet then nothing further I say will assist you sorry.

I agree…

By all means indulge your youthful need to have the last word regardless of its triviality.
The stage is yours…

 

[BlackFriar]

Good for you, wholly agree.

 

[Gorgias]

By all means indulge your youthful need to have the last word regardless of its triviality.

The stage is yours…

LOL… you mean, after you’ve done your own one-upmanship?

 

[runningdude]

God created man in the image of Himself. Man was never worthless. They we’re so valuable to God, that he sacrificed his own son to save them.

While it is true that no one could enter Heaven before Christ’s sacrifice, eternal damnation was not the only alternative. Following his death, Jesus descended into Hell to free the righteous from the Old Testament, and lead them up to Heaven.

 

[HarryStotle]

You mean fallible men reported He did surely?

“Fallible men” can and do report things accurately, especially when they are guided by the Holy Spirit to do so. You aren’t claiming fallible men are always wrong in their reporting, are you? That would be a fallacy of logic by one of those fallible men; who don’t, by the way, always commit fallacies, either.

 

[goout]

goout:

It’s interesting that popular opinions are vigorously batted back n forth authoritatively with no references to solid Church thought on this issue (maybe I missed something).

How about P Benedict in Verbum Domini sec 42?

The “dark” passages of the Bible

1. In discussing the relationship between the Old and the New Testaments, the Synod also considered those passages in the Bible which, due to the violence and immorality they occasionally contain, prove obscure and difficult. Here it must be remembered first and foremost that biblical revelation is deeply rooted in history. God’s plan is manifested progressively and it is accomplished slowly, in successive stages and despite human resistance. God chose a people and patiently worked to guide and educate them. Revelation is suited to the cultural and moral level of distant times and thus describes facts and customs, such as cheating and trickery, and acts of violence and massacre, without explicitly denouncing the immorality of such things. This can be explained by the historical context, yet it can cause the modern reader to be taken aback, especially if he or she fails to take account of the many “dark” deeds carried out down the centuries, and also in our own day. In the Old Testament, the preaching of the prophets vigorously challenged every kind of injustice and violence, whether collective or individual, and thus became God’s way of training his people in preparation for the Gospel. …
   I respect P Benedict.
   Any comments?

Those are good general principles, but the passages in question are problematic precisely BECAUSE the actions are commanded BY God. Therefore, these passages do not merely “describe… facts and customs, such as cheating and trickery, and acts of violence and massacre, without explicitly denouncing the immorality of such things.” God is implicated in those acts because he explicitly commanded them to be carried out.

You cut out the rest of P Benedicts quote. Interesting. Is that a section you do not like?
In your words God is implicated in genocide. That’a a very interesting take. “God in the dock” comes to mind. God on trial by human beings.

Basic Catholic tenet of scripture interpretation:
All of scripture needs to be read in context, with the

ultimate hermeneutical key “the Gospel and the new commandment of Jesus Christ brought about in the paschal mystery". (that is an important part of what you snipped above)

You can’t read one recorded understanding of the will of God out of context with the person of Christ.
If an interpretation is out of step with Christ, it is out of step period.

 

[goout]

Most of you will know that in the OT, God orders the killing of babies. This seems to be at odds with what Jesus taught in the NT about how we should love our enemy.

Seeing how the Catholic faith states that God does not change, how come God appears to change His mind on how enemies should be dealt with?

There’s been a lot of back and forth on your question.
The basic Catholic answer is that God does not change, human beings change.
The OT records the historical happenings along with imperfect understandings of God’s will and action.

In Christ, all the OT is brought to light and fulfillment.
In Christ, and only through Christ.

No passage of scripture stands in a vacuum.
That’s what fundamentalism does.

 

[HarryStotle]

So when you can demonstrate God spoke directly to you or anyone else in a completely non subjective way do come back to us. Me, I’ll assume psychosis when the message contradicts natural law…or, when delivered 2nd hand in a book, literary licence or device. Its so much more sensible in a subjective world of grey communication.

So in this story from Numbers about Balaam’s donkey…

When the donkey saw the angel of the Lord, it lay down under Balaam, and he was angry and beat it with his staff. Then the Lord opened the donkey’s mouth, and it said to Balaam, “What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?”

Balaam answered the donkey, “You have made a fool of me! If only I had a sword in my hand, I would kill you right now.”

The donkey said to Balaam, “Am I not your own donkey, which you have always ridden, to this day? Have I been in the habit of doing this to you?”

“No,” he said.

Then the Lord opened Balaam’s eyes, and he saw the angel of the Lord standing in the road with his sword drawn. So he bowed low and fell facedown. (Numbers 22:21-41)

…who would you assume to be psychotic? The donkey, the angel of the Lord, Balaam, or any reader who accepts that God could speak through a donkey? And if a donkey why not fallible humans?

Why couldn’t the infallible God use fallible humans to speak his words, infallibly? I mean, given that he could even use a donkey, despite that it contradicts natural law? I guess we could say that the donkey was God’s “literary device.”

Ah, you will say, but God couldn’t… Or, rather, he wouldn’t.

I don’t know about that. Sometimes humans can be bigger jack***** than even jack*****, which is why he opened the mouth of one and spoke through it. An object lesson, right there.

 

[HarryStotle]

I think the problem here is interpreting Christ the way we want him to be rather than the way he is. It is far easier to ignore the fact that God commanded the Israelites to decimate some of the enemy groups for the sake of retaining a pacifistic view of Christianity than it is to take the passages as they were written and grapple deeply with them.

So who exactly is the Christ that we are supposedly “out of step with?” Is that Christ one we are merely imagining as we want him to be or the way he is? I would suppose that these passages were included in the Old Testament to counterbalance our proclivity to tame God and turn him into merely a doting old grandfather figure.

It is, I think, a far more accurate representation of God to refrain from characterizing him as predictable and domesticated, just as it is in our best interests not to view an African lion as a domesticated house cat. God has his ways which can be, to us, inexplicable because his ways are not always our ways. We are better off retaining that sense of profound awe in our relationship to God, than to turn him into our own personal djinn who can never act against us.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

…who would you assume to be psychotic? The donkey, the angel of the Lord, Balaam, or any reader who accepts that God could speak through a donkey? And if a donkey why not fallible humans?

You are if you think Catholics have to accept this incident actually happened or somehow lose their faith.

The question isn’t whether faith depends upon the acceptance of a particular event, the question is one of explaining why the event was included in writings that have infallibly been declared as inspired by the Church. If there is absolutely no reason to include these stories, why were they?

Were they completely of no significance, then?

That question definitely impinges upon the “problem” passages where God commands the deaths of a group in war. That command wasn’t merely of no significance because clearly it has repercussions on faith. So why were these included?

I would suggest they were included because they happened as reported.

You have to default to a position where they were included by something like a grave error and not by divine intent since they are difficult to explain and, as they stand, undermine the faith of some.

How did these stories get included, then, in your view?

And how are we not, by the admission that they were mistaken, thereby not compelled to admit that all of Scripture is then “up for grabs” because if some parts were received or included by error, then any or all of them could have been?

 

[goout]

I think the problem here is interpreting Christ the way we want him to be rather than the way he is. It is far easier to ignore the fact that God commanded the Israelites to decimate some of the enemy groups for the sake of retaining a pacifistic view of Christianity than it is to take the passages as they were written and grapple deeply with them.

So who exactly is the Christ that we are supposedly “out of step with?” Is that Christ one we are merely imagining as we want him to be or the way he is? I would suppose that these passages were included in the Old Testament to counterbalance our proclivity to tame God and turn him into merely a doting old grandfather figure.

It is, I think, a far more accurate representation of God to refrain from characterizing him as predictable and domesticated, just as it is in our best interests not to view an African lion as a domesticated house cat. God has his ways which can be, to us, inexplicable because his ways are not always our ways. We are better off retaining that sense of profound awe in our relationship to God, than to turn him into our own personal djinn who can never act against us.

It’s the Christ of the Gospels. I believe you may be the one building an image.
Christ is the lamb slain. He is the unsealer of the scrolls.

To consider that genocide is compatible with God’s literal will is beyond belief.

If you are going to read scripture with kind of fundamentalist eyes, you will have to show us the hammered dome over the sky, because that is exactly what it says God created in Genesis.

 

[HarryStotle]

If you are going to read scripture with kind of fundamentalist eyes, you will have to show us the hammered dome over the sky, because that is exactly what it says God created in Genesis.

No, it doesn’t. It says firmament. Fiat firmamentum in medio aquarum: et dividat aquas ab aquis.

To consider that genocide is compatible with God’s literal will is beyond belief.

Not sure what kind of “fundamentalist eyes” are required to misconstrue this passage…

Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did in opposing the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”

So Saul summoned the people, and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred thousand foot soldiers, and ten thousand soldiers of Judah. Saul came to the city of the Amalekites and lay in wait in the valley. Saul said to the Kenites, “Go! Leave! Withdraw from among the Amalekites, or I will destroy you with them; for you showed kindness to all the people of Israel when they came up out of Egypt.” So the Kenites withdrew from the Amalekites. Saul defeated the Amalekites, from Havilah as far as Shur, which is east of Egypt. He took King Agag of the Amalekites alive, but utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword. Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep and of the cattle and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was valuable, and would not utterly destroy them; all that was despised and worthless they utterly destroyed.

Saul Rejected as King
The word of the Lord came to Samuel: “I regret that I made Saul king, for he has turned back from following me, and has not carried out my commands.” Samuel was angry; and he cried out to the Lord all night. Samuel rose early in the morning to meet Saul, and Samuel was told, “Saul went to Carmel, where he set up a monument for himself, and on returning he passed on down to Gilgal.” When Samuel came to Saul, Saul said to him, “May you be blessed by the Lord; I have carried out the command of the Lord.” But Samuel said, “What then is this bleating of sheep in my ears, and the lowing of cattle that I hear?” Saul said, “They have brought them from the Amalekites; for the people spared the best of the sheep and the cattle, to sacrifice to the Lord your God; but the rest we have utterly destroyed.” Then Samuel said to Saul, “Stop! I will tell you what the Lord said to me last night.” He replied, “Speak.”

Continued…

 

[HarryStotle]

Samuel said, “Though you are little in your own eyes, are you not the head of the tribes of Israel? The Lord anointed you king over Israel. And the Lord sent you on a mission, and said, ‘Go, utterly destroy the sinners, the Amalekites, and fight against them until they are consumed.’ Why then did you not obey the voice of the Lord? Why did you swoop down on the spoil, and do what was evil in the sight of the Lord?” Saul said to Samuel, “I have obeyed the voice of the Lord, I have gone on the mission on which the Lord sent me, I have brought Agag the king of Amalek, and I have utterly destroyed the Amalekites. But from the spoil the people took sheep and cattle, the best of the things devoted to destruction, to sacrifice to the Lord your God in Gilgal.” And Samuel said,

“Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices,
as in obedience to the voice of the Lord?
Surely, to obey is better than sacrifice,
and to heed than the fat of rams.
For rebellion is no less a sin than divination,
and stubbornness is like iniquity and idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
he has also rejected you from being king.”

Saul said to Samuel, “I have sinned; for I have transgressed the commandment of the Lord and your words, because I feared the people and obeyed their voice. Now therefore, I pray, pardon my sin, and return with me, so that I may worship the Lord.” Samuel said to Saul, “I will not return with you; for you have rejected the word of the Lord, and the Lord has rejected you from being king over Israel.” As Samuel turned to go away, Saul caught hold of the hem of his robe, and it tore. And Samuel said to him, “The Lord has torn the kingdom of Israel from you this very day, and has given it to a neighbor of yours, who is better than you. Moreover the Glory of Israel will not recant or change his mind; for he is not a mortal, that he should change his mind.” Then Saul said, “I have sinned; yet honor me now before the elders of my people and before Israel, and return with me, so that I may worship the Lord your God.” So Samuel turned back after Saul; and Saul worshiped the Lord. (1 Sam 15)

I suppose the fact that a death sentence authorized by God hangs over the head of every human being who has ever lived doesn’t phase you but the fact that the authority of God brings a death sentence on one group of people does?

Perhaps you ought to be railing at God that every human being dies, not just isolated groups of peoples here and there. Where is your outrage for that?

I suspect your outrage is misplaced.

Or does God not have the authority nor the right to pronounce who ought to live and who ought to die as he justly determines by his right as the Supreme Creator and Author of life?

You have no idea of what you are speaking.

 

[HarryStotle]

It’s the Christ of the Gospels. I believe you may be the one building an image.
Christ is the lamb slain. He is the unsealer of the scrolls.

And here is one of the scrolls he unrolls…

When he opened the sixth seal, I looked, and there came a great earthquake; the sun became black as sackcloth, the full moon became like blood, and the stars of the sky fell to the earth as the fig tree drops its winter fruit when shaken by a gale. The sky vanished like a scroll rolling itself up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place. Then the kings of the earth and the magnates and the generals and the rich and the powerful, and everyone, slave and free, hid in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains, calling to the mountains and rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of the one seated on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb; for the great day of their wrath has come, and who is able to stand?” (Rev 6:12-17)