Pope XVI's Defense of Old Testament Violence - Verbum Domini

[jordanmhall]

I’ll try to be brief and succinct. There are many passages in the Old Testament that contain violence. Pope Benedict XVI refers to them as “Dark passages”. When I speak of violence I refer to passages that say God requires stoning for working on the sabbath (Deuteronomy), taking virgin women as captives of war (Numbers), even dismembering the hands of women who interfere in scuffles between men (Deuteronomy). God himself even causes the illness that lead to the death of David’s illegitimate child (Samuel)

Pope Benedict XVI says that God’s plan is manifested progressively in successive stages with the Israelites.

I can’t help shake the feeling that Christians accept the conclusion that Christianity is true, and are thus forced to defend it. This runs counter to classical logic and Aristotelian argumentation and reason: usually one argues from premises to conclusion and not the other way around.

 

[MPat]

I can’t help shake the feeling that Christians accept the conclusion that Christianity is true, and are thus forced to defend it. This runs counter to classical logic and Aristotelian argumentation and reason: usually one argues from premises to conclusion and not the other way around.

You are assuming that “Christianity is true.” must always be a conclusion and never a premise. But that’s absurd: any true proposition can be a conclusion in some arguments and a premise in some other arguments. In fact, that’s often what is supposed to happen: we show that some proposition is true and then use it in further arguments.

Mathematicians even have a special term “lemma” for a proposition that is proved so that it would become a premise in another proof.

Also, let me guess: you are not really going to do what you are demanding from Catholics. You are not going to drop your claim at the first sign of trouble (and perhaps even complete disproof). Instead you are going to try to “defend” it.

 

[jordanmhall]

Thank you for your response!

I think you’re saying basically two things:

1. The proposition “Christianity is true” can be a premise or a conclusion.
2. I wouldn’t drop a claim at the first sight of trouble; I would defend it.

Thinking about it I guess the only real problem might be how someone would authenticate the claim that God’s plan is manifested progressively in successive stages with the Israelites. Us as Christians (I’m Catholic) would need to prove this claim to avoid an ad hoc fallacy, since its simply posited as a defense to hold up another claim.

I realize there can be an infinite regress in the justification of claims and propositions, and respect that slippery slope but it just seems ad hoc to me - the whole idea of coming up with other propositions just to defend the soundness of another already accepted.

 

[Dan_Defender]

The context of the OT is one where all civilizations were violent. They were doing worse things like human sacrifices. Verbum Domini says that God was willing to tolerate some of the things they were determined to do, through the hardness of their hearts, and over the course of time educate them to a higher level of understanding and acceptance of his will.
This is illustrated in Mark 10-25: ‘And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to put her away.” But Jesus said to them, “For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.”’
Just my take on your post. Not interested in a debate.

 

[jordanmhall]

That’s actually a wonderful response. Thank you.

 

[MPat]

Thinking about it I guess the only real problem might be how someone would authenticate the claim that God’s plan is manifested progressively in successive stages with the Israelites. Us as Christians (I’m Catholic) would need to prove this claim to avoid an ad hoc fallacy, since its simply posited as a defense to hold up another claim.

First, why exactly would we need to prove it?

Second, I get an impression that you have something against proof of this form:

1. Christianity is true. (premise)
2. If not X, Christianity would be false. (premise)
3. X. (from 1, 2)

But there is nothing wrong with it. “Christianity is true.” is a true proposition and can be used in arguments.

I realize there can be an infinite regress in the justification of claims and propositions, and respect that slippery slope but it just seems ad hoc to me - the whole idea of coming up with other propositions just to defend the soundness of another already accepted.

How exactly is that different from just finding out other true propositions?

but it just seems ad hoc to me

Don’t leave it at “it just seems”, or it will cause you endless trouble.

Try to formulate that “seeming” as an argument and check if it is a good argument. I’d say it is unlikely to be good. Then you will be able to drop it and move on.

Try to be as precise, as you can.

The problem might be just a vague irrational fear “But what if I’m wrong?”. Precision will help you see how irrational it is.

 

[jordanmhall]

We would need to prove it because it is the only thing I can think of (and Pope Benedict XVI) that makes sense of violence in the Old Testament (i.e. the examples aforementioned from Deuteronomy, Samuel and Numbers). If it isn’t proven to be true, it might still make for a valid argument but not a sound one.

In other words, for the sake of argument, if I grant that Christianity is true, the only defensible proposition I can think of to reconcile Christianity with violence in the Old Testament is that God’s plan is manifested progressively in successive stages with the Israelites.

I’ve forgotten the rules of affirming the antecedent/consequent, modus ponens etc. so I can’t comment on your second question. I do recall agreeing with classical deductive logic though.

Honestly I’m stricken with an excessive amount of doubt and skepticism that most Catholics can’t even dream of. I was an atheist for a long time, but after RCIA and prayer came back to the faith. I just can’t shake the doubt. It sucks. Every time I read about a miracle in the Bible or something I hear the siren of doubt whispering in my ear. That is just where I’m coming from.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

‘Faith’ is both an act of belief or trust and also that which is believed or confessed, fides qua and fides quae , respectively. Both aspects work together inseparably, since trust is adhesion to a message with intelligible content, and confession cannot be reduced to mere lip service, it must come from the heart.

You don’t seem to have a problem with the intelligible content of Benedict’s reasoning of OT violence. Your issue seems to be with theology, specifically the aspect of faith, and the faith in the primacy of the Word of God, which includes scripture.

 

[AlbMagno]

I know this response sound cliche, but pray about it.

Ask God to increase your Faith and commend yourself to His Will. Ask for it and then try to forget the problem until tour next prayer time, trusting in God. This is a method that works for me.

Also, if you like, you can read (with moderation) catholic apologetics, it’s a very trendy branch of cathecism now.

 

[11101]

I think you are getting lost in the weeds.

In Judaism there is a debate between (what we will here call) modernists, who read these passages as minimalist and obligatory, and traditionalists, who read these passages as maximalist. The traditionalists tend to be of the mind that passages in the Torah that are severe toward minor criminals and opposing nations, represent the maximal level of severity which can be meted out.
For example, the maxim, “An eye for an eye,” exists (not because the ancient people would have let it go if you plucked out someone’s eye, but) because in the absence of such a command, escalation would have followed. The maximum penalty for an optectomy is an optectomy.

As evidence, they point to the fact that the Torah tolerates divorce, but God is on record in Malachy 2 as hating divorce. They point to the fact that the entire plot of Hosea, is his reconciling with a cheating wife, at the command of God. A Messianic friend who came out of this school, pointed to the fact that Matthew (most Jewish of all evangelists) claimed Joseph was a tzadik, precisely because he sent Mary away quietly, as opposed to divorcing her before two witnesses (or stoning her). One might also point to the fact that the Talmud claims that if a Jewish court is condemning more than one person to death every decade, that court is tyrannical.

With the (name removed by moderator)ut of Christ on divorce, the traditional view of Judaism seems to be the recommended view. It would seem that the Old Testament and New Testament Scriptures, read holistically, indicate that God did reveal himself in “partial and various ways to our ancestors, but in the fullness of time, revealed himself in Christ Jesus.”

 

[MPat]

I’ve forgotten the rules of affirming the antecedent/consequent, modus ponens etc. so I can’t comment on your second question. I do recall agreeing with classical deductive logic though.

In such case it is a good idea to study Logic a little more. For example, play a little with Natural deduction (Natural deduction - Wikipedia, https://www.danielclemente.com/logica/dn.en.pdf, Natural Deduction).

We would need to prove it because it is the only thing I can think of (and Pope Benedict XVI) that makes sense of violence in the Old Testament (i.e. the examples aforementioned from Deuteronomy, Samuel and Numbers). If it isn’t proven to be true, it might still make for a valid argument but not a sound one.

In other words, for the sake of argument, if I grant that Christianity is true, the only defensible proposition I can think of to reconcile Christianity with violence in the Old Testament is that God’s plan is manifested progressively in successive stages with the Israelites.

If you feel tempted to reason as if you have to prove Catholicism (and find it hard), try checking if you can disprove Catholicism.

Well, do those parts of the Bible that worry you conclusively disprove Catholicism? No. Or, at the very least, “not yet”, as you do see one way in which things could be harmonised. And if you see one way, perhaps there are more ways which you do not see.

Thus if you cannot gather enough courage to decide that this argument against Catholicism does not work, you can at least decide that it is inconclusive.

Just like, if you see a sophism, you can decide not to accept the conclusion even if you fail to see the logical error. For example:

1. One has what one has not lost.
2. Mr. X has not lost horns.
3. Therefore, Mr. X has horns!

You are not going to just accept this conclusion if you fail to see where the argument went wrong, right?

And then, as it has been noted, prayer is also helpful in such cases. By the way, because of that “Prayer Intentions” subforum can also be of use.