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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Harry123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mkoopman said:
posting large parts of the Summa because you refuse to read it
Click to expand...
Trust me… I’ve read it. 😉

All we’ve got is your unsubstantiated assertion that you understand the Summa perfectly and we mere mortals are ignorant. Quod gratis asseritur gratis negatur. 😉

Now, if you have an actual argument with substantiation from the Summa, we’d love to hear it.
mkoopman said:
The use of immutable in this context is not what you appear to think it is
Click to expand...
“unchanging”. Are you asserting it means something else?
mkoopman said:
In this context it was intended to make clear that death does not change the human person, as the whole person.
Click to expand...
Umm… the body becomes a corpse, separated from the soul, and experiences decay. You don’t consider that “change”…? :roll_eyes:
mkoopman said:
Death, however, although leaving only our spiritual components locomotive does not convert us into Angel souls.
Click to expand...
Who in the world said that? In fact, my claim is that angels are pure spirit, and simple, without the kind of ‘soul’ material beings have!
mkoopman said:
Really, please read the Summa rather than just flying off at the handle.
Click to expand...
Pot, meet kettle. 😉
 
If “God” was also an ancient way of uncritically personifying the mysterious forces of nature (today we still speak of mother nature though we are more critical and able to discern the difference most of the time) then yes, “God” killed most of the human population.

But was that actually the same God we speak of today?
I think there are acceptable Catholic views to the contrary which do not necessitate that affirmation.
 
As you read it you should know how many related points need to be made to draw a satisfaction. The grouping of clauses is an academic exercise which you have shown will be a waste of my time regarding your attitude. You denied the immutable form of the human person.
So, I expect your choice to lie and claim a Thomistic perspective where you choose to take the Platonist view and “open” the door, or perhaps better the Windows 10, on one end of from conception to natural death also implies you fight for your reproductive right to transgenderism. Thomas’ clarification on the immutable form of the human person comes from the fact that God made us male and female. This does not change since it is God who made us.
The other possibility is you read the Summa but came to no understanding of what you read. You can not miss disputations so basic and gain any knowledge from Aquinas work.
 
Last edited:
mkoopman said:
As you read it you should know how many related points need to be made to draw a satisfaction. The grouping of clauses is an academic exercise which you have shown will be a waste of my time regarding your attitude. You denied the immutable form of the human person.
Click to expand...
Then show me where Thomas claims that the human person is ‘immutable’.

Otherwise, this just boils down to “you challenged my assertion, blah blah blah, and I’m not gonna respond.” 😉
 
“Harry123 said:
Jesus’ death on the cross is the defining moment separating the OT and the NT. Mankind was given an opportunity to leave behind his heart of stone to be replaced with a real heart – a heart of flesh.

Has far as this title New explanation for why God killed babies in OT>>human beings did, not our Heavenly Father.

Caesar’s where rulers over their Empire, thought also they were gods, their own children called themselves sons of god, wanted to be known as a god, could this not also be applied within OT, having rulers commanding, claiming also they were gods, ordering such?

Our Heavenly Father has a Name, God and Lords are Titles>not Names>OT is filled with History also of Nations and their rulers, had good Kings bad Kings? Where some using our Heavenly Father, >>God said, to justify their actions, deeds taken?

Are we truly, yet separated from the OT as one has stated?

First what did Jesus mean?>> Happy are those in the 1st Resurrection, but not so for those in the> 2nd Resurrection, for them it be like Sodom and Gomorrah?

God’s great plan of salvation since the beginning of time, he knows the beginning of His salvation plan and for all His Creation>> God knows its end, when He comes in all His Glory?

One Testament? When Jesus walked the earth, there was no NT it did not exist, correct?
So where was Jesus heavily quoting from?

Jesus reading from what about Isaiah?
Jesus asking questions and mentioning those who came before us naming names from OT?
What was written in what we call the OT, does Jesus not quote from and repeats, by giving us all The Ten Commandments written 2x found in the OT is it not?
And the Sermon on the Mount can it be found there also?
Where is St Paul heavily quoting from also, when he says > As it is Written?
When Jesus was alive and when He walked the earth, did he not command, his listening audience to search the Scriptures, what Scriptures?

Is it not true the NT did not exist till decades later after Jesus Apostles St Paul all pass? St Peter and St Paul passed about the same time maybe a year or two apart, know St Paul wrote epistles to the churches after Jesus dies.

If we did not have the OT, we would have no Jesus or prophecies of Him coming would we or know about The God who created all?

Respectfully asking, Do we still have OT prophecies, that have yet to be fulfilled yet?
Bible Titled as " A New Covenant" This is a Prophecy>>>>Jeremiah 31:31-35 >>has this come to pass yet today?
Click to expand...
First Time, God wrote His Ten Commandments ( Laws) on Stone Tablets, this time He tells us, he will write His Laws upon our hearts of flesh?
All will know ME? is this true today?
Does Jesus not tell us we have harden hearts of stone?
Is the Lion laying down with the lamb yet?
Have we change our swords into plow shares yet?
Are we still being taught by others yet?
Wars and Rumors of wars must come first??

Peace 🙂 respectfully toward, opinion and questions only.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Or just take a quote from 1st Samuel: “He is the Lord; let Him do what He thinks best.”
 
The “divine command” approach to solving these issues has been on the backfoot since the age of scholasticism. Even Aquinas’s theological triple backward somersaults to justify God’s alleged commanding of adultery, child sacrifice, genocide etc have never been terribly convincing to his peers and followers.

Like the great theologians even up to Galileo’s time he was a child of the limitations of his age - an erroneous and too inflexible approach to the literal meaning of Scripture.

With the changes in approach to the Bible now accepted even by the Magisterium (one doesn’t have to go all the way to Modernism) the great pressure to accept that God actually commanded such things dissipates.

Natural Law remains intact and even God cannot contradict His own truth or ethics…which the arbitrary “divine command” theory (God doesn’t have to obey his own laws) is hard pressed to explain.
 
BlackFriar said:
justify God’s alleged commanding of adultery, child sacrifice, genocide etc have never been terribly convincing to his peers and followers.
Click to expand...
I wonder if there’s like two different versions of the Old Testament, because I do not see this in there. Perhaps one who does not understand ancient war texts may think genocide is mentioned, but I do not recall anything about commanding child sacrifice. In fact, God forbid child sacrifice. The closest is the sacrifice of the lamb/2 birds for the firstborn son. Is it a misunderstanding of the story of Jepthah?
 
You deny the Bible has God commanding child sacrifice?

I agree.
It wasn’t God’s command.
 
There is also the danger of departing from the intended meaning of the text. While we can say that God’s command of herem warfareis a hard issue, we must remember that the peoples God put under the ban weren’t the best people at all. God even told Abraham that the wickedness of the Amorites was not complete. We must also remember that God has His reasons for doing everything. One of the descendants of Agag the Amalekite ended up almost wiping out the Jews in Persia.
 
James817 said:
There is also the danger of departing from the intended meaning of the text
Click to expand...
That is my point. I am asserting that today’s alleged “intended meaning” of the text may not be the literal one and may not have even been the one that contemporary readers would have understood.

The Bible conveys many different types of meaning assuming context and - it is only us moderns who have this hang up on “the literal” meaning as somehow being the default go to in the OT.

Even children know not to take nursery rhymes, movies or horror stories literally.
The danger is to do so when the author or style signals that this is not how to understand the writing. Untrained Bible readers 4000 years later cannot be expected to understand all the flags and interpret accordingly.
 
Last edited:
You can’t understand Scripture if you don’t understand the literal sense. If we didn’t get the fact that God told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, we miss the fact that God was testing Abraham, and we miss the extent of Abraham’s faith and how he received Isaac back as a symbol.
 
BlackFriar said:
You deny the Bible has God commanding child sacrifice?

I agree.

It wasn’t God’s command.
Click to expand...
I mean…I don’t see it. Do you mean Abraham and his child? Because I really reccomend reading to the end of that tale (ps it’s about faith in God, Abraham was promised that that child (more like young adult) would be his inheritance already).
 
You cannot understand myth, you cannot understand poetry, you cannot understand stories (eg Creation) you cannot understand legend, you cannot understand prayer, you cannot understand parables or apocalyptic or allegory etc etc etc if you treat them as what we moderns call “literal” or “historical”.

That takes out quite a lot of the OT.
 
Last edited:
BlackFriar said:
you cannot understand [laundry list omitted] if you treat them as what we moderns call “literal” or “historical”.
Click to expand...
The thing, though, is that there really is such a thing as the “literal sense of Scripture”. That doesn’t mean that it’s literalistic; just that there’s something that the author intended, which we attempt to understand.
 
What the author intended is not what is meant by the “literal meaning”.
Often that is exactly what he did not mean in the OT.
 
It’s clear from the context of the passage about herem that it is history, just like it’s clear that Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac is history.
 
You are entitled to ignore 250 years of Biblical Scholarship and just go with your uncritical modern lay assumptions. Reminds me of The Quiet American.
 
Last edited:
I got 2000 years of eigesis on my side including the Apostles and the Fathers of the Church. It is you who assume.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top