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

[goout]

You have no idea of what you are speaking.

Oh ok…
I will agree with the guidance of Pope Benedict and the major thrust of Catholic scripture interpretation.
Read Fr Barron
Origen
The list is endless.

God has the power to do anything. That doesn’t mean any action is consistent with God’s revealed nature.

Natural death is not the same thing as genocide. Can you see that?
The fundamentalist interp of this passage has God commanding the slaughter of innocent life by human hand.
That is not the same thing as God taking a life as he sees fit.
Your view is inconsistent with Jesus Christ.
(yea, go ahead and find all the passages where Jesus is a really tough guy…)

Your view of God has much consonance with Islam as well: seeing God as arbitrary and without “logos”.
Read Benedict’s Regensburg address.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

You have no idea of what you are speaking.

Oh ok…
I will agree with the guidance of Pope Benedict and the major thrust of Catholic scripture interpretation.
Read Fr Barron
Origen
The list is endless.

God has the power to do anything. That doesn’t mean any action is consistent with God’s revealed nature.

Natural death is not the same thing as genocide. Can you see that?
The fundamentalist interp of this passage has God commanding the slaughter of innocent life by human hand.
That is not the same thing as God taking a life as he sees fit.
Your view is inconsistent with Jesus Christ.
(yea, go ahead and find all the passages where Jesus is a really tough guy…)

Your view of God has much consonance with Islam as well: seeing God as arbitrary and without “logos”.
Read Benedict’s Regensburg address.

You have no idea what my view is, so don’t go saddling me with your unfounded notions.

Being with “logos” does not imply the most simplistic or obvious thoughts are always correct.

God’s ways are not always ours and he has reasons for commanding what he does that are, at times, not ours to know or understand. He does not need our permission to carry out his purposes. That does not imply that whatever any human imagines is the will of God necessarily is.

My view is not “consonant” with Islam precisely because there is a profound difference between the human psyche and God’s Holy Spirit.

 

[HarryStotle]

Natural death is not the same thing as genocide. Can you see that?

No, actually, I cannot.

There are some “natural” deaths that are far more gruesome and painful than a quick slash of a sharp sword.

The critical point for resolving this is only found in the nature of God and his relationship to every human heart. We will all be accountable for what we have done and what we haven’t done, despite all our attempts to hide behind an elaborate facade of self-justification. That includes jihadists who are enticed by their own mental coercions and deficiencies.

 

[goout]

goout:

Natural death is not the same thing as genocide. Can you see that?

No, actually, I cannot.

I believe that is the root of our problem here. This misunderstanding is a serious issue

O

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

goout:

Natural death is not the same thing as genocide. Can you see that?

No, actually, I cannot.

I believe that is the root of our problem here. This misunderstanding is a serious issue

O

Of course, the “root” of the problem or misunderstanding is that one is natural and the other is not.

Just a tad simplistic from where I stand.

The difference doesn’t explain anything really, without begging a whole boatload of questions.

 

[BlackFriar]

Mate if you believe Christianity stands or falls on whether Balaam’s donkey talked then intelligent conversation is no longer possible. Our Gods live in parallel universes.
Over and out.

 

[HarryStotle]

Mate if you believe Christianity stands or falls on whether Balaam’s donkey talked then intelligent conversation is no longer possible. Our Gods live in parallel universes.
Over and out.

I was beginning to think you have some kind of aversion to talking donkeys.

But now I think it is an aversion to a God who is omnipotent and actually does extraordinary stuff in the reality in which we abide.

Unfortunately, it appears that your Christianity falls and does not stand if Balaam’s donkey really talked.

You are the one saying it could NOT have happened.

Out and over.

 

[goout]

goout:

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.

Do you realize you quoted the bible in Latin as definitive original language and meaning?
Really?
In original Hebrew, which is what the passage is actually written in, the term used refers specifically to “hammered metal dish or dome”.

“Firmamentum” is a translation of that idea. It is a good translation, and you somehow believe that detracts from the original language and meaning?
Really?
Please, take and read.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06079b.htm

If you are going to insist on fundamentalist ideas of inspiration and meaning, you are going to have to show us the hammered metal dome in the sky.

 

[HarryStotle]

You have to go out on a clear evening and tilt your head at an oblique angle to the setting sun.


See it’s like a rectangle with an X through it. The X is the hammered part.

 

[goout]

You have to go out on a clear evening and tilt your head at an oblique angle to the setting sun.

You don’t need to condescend.

You brought up the topic.
You apparently can’t address mainstream Church thought on your topic and the rebuttals to it.

Now where are you? Condescending to others who are trying to help?

And seriously, if the topic wasn’t the justification of genocide as God’s will, I’d probably be talking to someone else.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

goout:

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.

Do you realize you quoted the bible in Latin as definitive original language and meaning?
Really?
In original Hebrew, which is what the passage is actually written in, the term used refers specifically to “hammered metal dish or dome”.

“Firmamentum” is a translation of that idea. It is a good translation, and you somehow believe that detracts from the original language and meaning?
Really?
Please, take and read.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06079b.htm

If you are going to insist on fundamentalist ideas of inspiration and meaning, you are going to have to show us the hammered metal dome in the sky.

Oh, my. . It appears I have run up against a scholar of ancient Hebrew who is expert in hammered metal domes in the sky.

I’d best be careful since I do not wish to be made to appear foolish.

 

[goout]

goout:

HarryStotle:

goout:

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.

Do you realize you quoted the bible in Latin as definitive original language and meaning?
Really?
In original Hebrew, which is what the passage is actually written in, the term used refers specifically to “hammered metal dish or dome”.

“Firmamentum” is a translation of that idea. It is a good translation, and you somehow believe that detracts from the original language and meaning?
Really?
Please, take and read.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06079b.htm

If you are going to insist on fundamentalist ideas of inspiration and meaning, you are going to have to show us the hammered metal dome in the sky.

Oh, my. . It appears I have run up against a scholar of ancient Hebrew who is expert in hammered metal domes in the sky.

I’d best be careful since I do not wish to be made to appear foolish.

It looks like you are done then.
Ok, have a good day and God bless.

 

[HarryStotle]

You apparently can’t address mainstream Church thought on your topic and the rebuttals to it.

Define "mainstream Church thought” without simply nullifying anyone who doesn’t agree with you.

Now where are you? Condescending to others who are trying to help?

And seriously, if the topic wasn’t the justification of genocide as God’s will, I’d probably be talking to someone else.

I suppose you first have to establish your street cred as the final arbiter of what was and was not, could and could not be, God’s will – and that without belittling a body of writing upon which any understanding of God’s will is, for the most part, based.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

You have to go out on a clear evening and tilt your head at an oblique angle to the setting sun.

You don’t need to condescend.

Now where are you? Condescending to others who are trying to help?

My Condescension Detector™ says the condescension started right about here…

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.

Speaking of condescending…

Wouldn’t you suppose the ancients could grasp the difference between a metaphor – hammered dome over the sky – and an actually miraculous event, say, the parting of a sea in front of their eyes?

No, it ALL must boil down to the primitive credulity of a backwards group of hillbillies from the hills of Palestine.

Condescending, much?

 

[BlackFriar]

Mate you are the only one getting concerned if Balaam’s donkey didn’t talk.

Pleaser quote me where I said it could not happen?
I certainly don’t believe it happened and Catholic faith does not stand or fall on its historical truth.
Nor do I believe God told Abraham to kill his son.

You hold a fragile Christianity if you hold otherwise - unchanged from the days of Galileo it seems.

 

[HarryStotle]

You hold a fragile Christianity if you hold otherwise - unchanged from the days of Galileo it seems.

Actually, essentially unchanged from the days of Jesus Christ.

And yours?

First time I’ve heard stable and unchanging characterized as fragile.

 

[BlackFriar]

Ah, off on a trivial tangent, avoidance of the challenge.

 

[HarryStotle]

Ah, off on a trivial tangent, avoidance of the challenge.

Oh, look! A challenge! Lot’s of shiny planets to investigate! And hey, there goes a squirrel!

Lot’s of trivial tangents… …uh, “challenges.”

What was that you said about “avoidance of the challenge?” Or is the avoidance really about a number of “trivial tangents?”

You say tomahto, I say tomayto. You say challenge, I say trivial tangent. I say challenge, you say trivial tangent.

You say Galileo, I say Jesus Christ. Which of those were more into critical challenges, and which more into trivial tangents?

You can decide as you will.

 

[BlackFriar]

BlackFriar:

Ah, off on a trivial tangent, avoidance of the challenge.

Oh, look! A challenge! Lot’s of shiny planets to investigate! And hey, there goes a squirrel!

Lot’s of trivial tangents… …uh, “challenges.”

What was that you said about “avoidance of the challenge?” Or is the avoidance really about a number of “trivial tangents?”

You say tomahto, I say tomayto. You say challenge, I say trivial tangent. I say challenge, you say trivial tangent.

You say Galileo, I say Jesus Christ. Which of those were more into critical challenges, and which more into trivial tangents?

You can decide as you will.

Lets calm down and remind you of the substance…

Mate you are the only one getting concerned if Balaam’s donkey didn’t talk.
Pleaser quote me where I said it could not happen?
I certainly don’t believe it happened and Catholic faith does not stand or fall on its historical truth…as you do.
Nor do I believe God told Abraham to kill his son.

 

[HarryStotle]

Mate you are the only one getting concerned if Balaam’s donkey didn’t talk.

Pleaser quote me where I said it could not happen?

I suppose “psychotic episode” does not strictly imply “could not happen,” but it is as close as possible to pushing it over the rim of possibility without actually doing so.

And this is the problematic bit for natural law based Catholicism. Does God really command special individuals to breach natural law? And if he did would this be an indication I was having a psychotic episode and it was not reallyGod but something else “speaking”?

Wouldn’t Balaam’s donkey qualify as a “psychotic episode” since it meets your criteria that it is not really God but “something else” speaking – coincidentally, a very “special individual” who breaches all “natural law” by speaking?

Ergo, it appears that your version of Catholicism would, indeed, stand or fall on this “problematic bit” where the donkey breaches natural law.

Unless, of course, you strictly mean “natural law” in terms of its moral repercussions, but then you still need to base those moral repercussions upon the natures of things. That would still appear “problematic” since donkeys aren’t known to be eloquent, by nature.

In which case these stories in ths OT are best judged as more parable or poetic licence to make a theological truth than absolute history in every detail.

I would be willing to wager that your version of Catholicism does, indeed, stand or fall on whether Balaam’s donkey did speak, since it infringes completely upon your view of reality and how that reality is underpinned.

A point of interest: I suspect your view of reality is essentially the same as the author of this little list of talking donkeys:

Top 10 Talking Donkeys - Listverse

This is a list recognizing the ten greatest talking donkeys from books, movies, and television. Some of the donkeys on this list are special because they were never expected to talk (like any normal donkey) and it is either magical or miraculous that they did. Others simply live in a world where...

listverse.com

Note the embarrassment of that author when they report #4 on Balaam’s donkey. Of course, modern thought does not and cannot abide a version of Christianity or Catholicism where donkeys do talk, especially by the prompting of God.

This one is just plain awkward. Unlike the tale of Muhammad’s talking donkey which is obscure at best, the Judeo-Christian version, amazingly, is right there in the scriptures.