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

[BlackFriar]

So JPII was wrong to apologise to Galileo saying theologians up to that time were to inflexible in their interpretation of Scripture?

You must consider Raymund Brown a heretic also?

 

[AlNg]

2000 years ago, God came down from heaven and became man… 3000 years ago, God was not man. That seems like a change?

 

[Teek]

uncritical modern lay assumptions.

As a measly lay person, I’m beginning to feel that you think we lay people are somehow less intelligent than whatever you are.

 

[Gorgias]

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.

From The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, by the Pontifical Biblical Commission. Pay attention especially to the final two sentences:

The literal sense is not to be confused with the “literalist” sense to which fundamentalists are attached. It is not sufficient to translate a text word for word in order to obtain its literal sense. One must understand the text according to the literary conventions of the time. …

The literal sense of Scripture is that which has been expressed directly by the inspired human authors. Since it is the fruit of inspiration, this sense is also intended by God, as principal author.

 

[Kei]

So…are you admitting the Bible doesn’t actually record God demanding child sacrifice like you seemed to be claiming?

 

[Kei]

This was a test of trust. God did not intend for him to sacrifice Isaac.
However, Abraham had trust in God, who had told him that this specific child he is to sacrifice is going to be his heir.

It’s really a rejection of child sacrifice. Abraham, the son of an idol maker, grew around such. This is a rejection of it: God does not want you to sacrifice your child.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

2000 years ago, God came down from heaven and became man… 3000 years ago, God was not man. That seems like a change?

Only from a time-based perspective. From an eternal perspective, God the Son’s human nature has always been present.

 

[James817]

What I think of Galileo or Fr. Brown is irrelevant to the conversation on herem warfare. I’m pretty sure the contextual approach is that God really did order those deaths.

 

[Kei]

Yes, the boy was never intended to be sacrificed. It was a test of trust by God. Indeed, by stopping the sacrifice, God sets himself apart from the idols Abraham was used to.

Abraham had full trust in God, who said this son would be his heir. So he went through with God’s demands, as we all should trust in God.

 

[BlackFriar]

As a measly person with no set axe to grind I find it equally haughty, if indeed anyone is, that an amateur would attempt to weigh in on, say, atomic physics against the views of professionals (say that matter is not solid) in the field essentially stating that the only possibly correct view is their own simplistic everyday experience (say, that matter is solid).

Everyone is entitled to a view as noone has complete certainty.

To intimate that ones own amateur view must be the only one because its the only one that makes sense to me is, I humbly suggest, not indicative of having attained the heights of wisdom nor the depths of the Holy Spirit.

Nothing more to say if you dont get this.

 

[BlackFriar]

Its relevant to whether you accept this Biblical criticism approach now accepted by the Magisterium.
Your silence clarifies you do not accept it. Thats fine.
Please dont out of hand reject the interpretations of others who do use such methods as if they must be wrong. They are acceptably Catholic even if you personally cannot agree.

The title of this thread seeks new explanations.
This is such a one. It is acceptably Catholic.

God bless, nothing further to say.

 

[James817]

The approach I take has been acceptable for 2000 years. It is acceptably Catholic.

 

[Teek]

The infamous Dunning-Kruger Effect. One must tread carefully here…

“This overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it.” Dunning and Kruger

But there is also the flip side: the most competent people know enough to know they don’t know enough. The humility of knowledge. Or the knowledge of humility…which came first?

Or as Socrates was said to have said:

“I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know.
—attributed to Socrates, from Plato, Apology

Knowledge and humility—humility and knowledge…It is a much more beautiful choreography than the other option…
The pride of ignorance! Or the ignorance of pride!..

“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” Josh Billings

I find it equally haughty, if indeed anyone is, that an amateur would attempt to weigh in on, say, atomic physics against the views of professionals (say that matter is not solid) in the field essentially stating that the only possibly correct view is their own simplistic everyday experience (say, that matter is solid).

This isn’t a forum for professional theologians. We aren’t barging in on Joseph Ratzinger and Hans Urs von Balthasar discussing the eternal super-kenosis to tell them our own view on the matter. We are just having conversations to wrestle with our own beliefs and attempt to learn.

To intimate that ones own amateur view must be the only one because its the only one that makes sense to me is, I humbly suggest, not indicative of having attained the heights of wisdom nor the depths of the Holy Spirit.

What else can a person assert but their own view and what makes sense to that person? We cannot assert what we have not attained. And we are all amateurs when studying the all powerful, almighty, ever-living God who surpasses all knowledge and expectation.

So the question is: when you are so certain you are correct—are you certain you are correct—or is it that other thing?

“We are talking about God. What wonder is it that you do not understand? If you do understand, then it is not God.”
– St. Augustine

 

[JoshuaIsLord]

No no no. This is wrong.

I’ve read the OT, and I do not know what you’re talking about by saying God ordered the killing of babies. Are you confounding the rule of consecration of the first born son with something else?

Yep you are out there in left field picking daisies. The OT is full of God killing innocents either directly or indirectly.

 

[BlackFriar]

I have never denied your right to acceptably hold it?

The issue is why some contributors here appear unable to allow others the same toleration and why they assume that for their view to be legitimate others must necessarily be unacceptable.

 

[BlackFriar]

You are way overthinking things.
I am certain my view is acceptable amongst others…and for good reasons.

Its a pity amateurs often assume that their view is the only one that can be right and inferiority complexes sometimes kick in when professionals observe that sometimes non intuitive views are also acceptable.

 

[Teek]

Yes. A pity to be a thinking amateur.

 

[BlackFriar]

A pity to be a thinking amateur.

No pity at all. Its only regrettable when we go beyond our limits.
Limits clearly differ by dint of intelligence, education, years, effort and mandate.
Its not a thing to get resentful over but to take advantage of.

 

[goout]

BlackFriar:

you cannot understand [laundry list omitted] if you treat them as what we moderns call “literal” or “historical”.

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.

In fact the primary sense of scripture is the literal. This is not the same thing as literalism. I would suggest everyone read P Benedict’s “Verbum Domini” section 42 “Dark passages of the bible” for a healthy Catholic perspective on this. The idea that God could have ordered one human being to slaughter another innocent human being in literalist fashion is almost unthinkable given Benedict’s perspective on this, which makes perfect sense in light of Jesus Christ. Christ is the full light of scripture and the “ unsealer of the scrolls”. If an interpretation of scripture is counter to Christ, we must look deeper.

 

[James817]

Gorgias:

BlackFriar:

you cannot understand [laundry list omitted] if you treat them as what we moderns call “literal” or “historical”.

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.

In fact the primary sense of scripture is the literal. This is not the same thing as literalism. I would suggest everyone read P Benedict’s “Verbum Domini” section 42 “Dark passages of the bible” for a healthy Catholic perspective on this. The idea that God could have ordered one human being to slaughter another innocent human being in literalist fashion is almost unthinkable given Benedict’s perspective on this, which makes perfect sense in light of Jesus Christ. Christ is the full light of scripture and the “ unsealer of the scrolls”. If an interpretation of scripture is counter to Christ, we must look deeper.

This is the answer to every dilemma.

Or just take a quote from 1st Samuel: “He is the Lord; let Him do what He thinks best.”