Question about violence in the OT

[Magnanimity]

There is no one single definitive reading of the Bible.

Absolutely! To reiterate, the method of biblical reading for 1500 years went thus:

(1) to look for a true reading of the text,
(2) in harmony with the mind of the whole church,
(3) illumined by the grace of the Holy Spirit and
(4) testifying to Christ (who is himself the Revelation of God).

The first principle above, looking for a true reading implies multivalence within the sacred writings, which entails that most often there is no one-and-only reading of any particular passage. Take an example where this is obviously true—what is the one-and-only message we should get from the prodigal son story? Is it an analogy for how the Father loves, forgive and honors all people no matter what they do? Or is it a model for how earthly fathers should love their own children? Is it a parable describing how life is fundamentally unfair…?
Not all stories within the sacred scriptures are so multi-layered as this one, perhaps, but hopefully my point is not lost on you. When engaging with the sacred writings, a person is looking for a true reading (any true reading) as long as that reading meets the other qualifications above.
Moreover, reading these sacred writings is meant to assist an individual in encountering God. That is the purpose of anything sacred—it is to open the heart and mind of the reader to God’s presence and His continual drawing of you to Himself. So, it is a spiritual activity. Presumably, your approach to these writings is not spiritual. It’s what then? Attempting to be academic? The most basic beliefs of the church is that God is ever reaching out to all people and the hearts of folks are “restless until they find their rest in God,” the source and terminus of yourself. There is then a functional element to these sacred writings—they’re designed to get you to encounter (or deepen your encounter with) God. The reading of scripture is meant to be a religious experience.

it’s possible to strain credulity in accepting those answers.

You seem to agree with JH Newman that conscience is absolutely primary then. Excellent!

It must be noted though that we are very late in the game, 2,000 years removed from the life of Christ. The church has had centuries to further its understanding of God. And in the 13th century, the church got possibly its highest expression of theology-proper through the pen of St Thomas Aquinas. I live it the wake of his writings, so have the luxury of understanding that God is, necessarily, completely good (or rather, that He is Goodness itself). But, as history would have it, one doesn’t have to read Aquinas to realize this. The Jewish thinker Philo of Alexandria realized this about God around the time of Christ. Origen realized this about God when he was writing voluminously in the 3rd century and guiding the church (as the Bishop Barron video notes) in reading the entire sacred scriptures in the light of the end—to read the beginning with the luxury of the knowledge of the end (this is the “testifying to Christ” principle).

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I think the problem is you’re fixating on forcing the discussion into one of Modernism versus your hermeneutical approach, when the real issue is whether the violence in the OT is excusable. This distinction is important because Modernist readings of the Bible don’t excuse the violence in the OT and neither does your reading.

I’ve already gone over the four points that you mentioned, but I have no problems going over them again:

1. You claim “Apparently, you believe that when you read the OT, you are simply reading history.” Even a casual reading of my posts show that is utterly untrue. As I’ve explained multiple times that the passage may be partially or wholly figurative, but the believer still has to show the violence in the passage (whether figurative or literal) is excusable.
2. Would the Catechism of the Catholic Church suffice? It gives the four senses of Scripture, but makes it clear that even the three possible non-literal readings of any passage are true. Just saying that a passage is not literal does not automatically excuse the violence within said passage. By the way, while I’ve never read a commentary from cover to cover I always check various commentaries and references when encountering these passages. These can include the Geneva Study Bible, writings citing the Talmud, the writings of John Calvin, and many more. But again none of them ever can explain away the violence found in the passages.
3. This idea of putting on rose-colored glasses and only allowing those explanations of troublesome passages that put the character of God in a positive light is not seeing truth but comfort. Only acknowledging absolutely positive understandings of passages despite strong evidence to the contrary is what cults do, and Christianity is not a cult. It’s what beaten people do when a friend, loved one, or spouse is so terrible that they instinctively wipe away any blame from the person doing damage to them. It’s not healthy and it’s not honest. If Christianity is good, then it will be able to withstand scrutiny – not run and hide from it and require negative thoughts and interpretations to be buried.
4. There are some pieces of morality that we tend to agree on, like the populace now and the Church in the past century regarding slavery. There are some pieces of morality that we don’t agree on, like the populace now and the Church in its first 19 centuries regarding slavery. There are some things we all seem to agree on, so long as they’re not put in a Biblical context. We would agree (hopefully) that it is very wrong to offer one’s daughters into slavery. But when it’s put into the context of the story of Lot, some believers will not hesitate to defend such an act and (more importantly) agree with God that such an act was righteous.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

So, it is a spiritual activity. Presumably, your approach to these writings is not spiritual. It’s what then? Attempting to be academic?

It’s a moral approach. I see immorality defended tooth and nail. Non-believers are told that their morality is flawed or anchored, and then when the passages are addressed we’re told to ignore what they saw and just go in believing they are good.

There are four lights, no matter how many times you want me to say there are five.

You seem to agree with JH Newman that conscience is absolutely primary then. Excellent!

If that is the case then why do so many apologists abandon their consciences so quickly? Believing that God is goodness itself does not jibe with the story of God being tempted by Satan and killing a man’s family to prove a point.

The proof is in analyzing the acts themselves. It doesn’t matter if you self-select a hundred writers who accepted these (figurative or literal) abominable acts and declare how amazing it is all these selected writers are willing to accept these (figurative or literal) abominable acts.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

In other words, If one believes the death of the body is a Finality,
their view on violence must differ from those who believe we’re a body&spirit
of which the spirit lives. and when we align with Love and Truth
shall join with Love and Truth with God. .

In other words - by necessity there must be radically different ‘reactions’ of believers and atheists
with regard to pain, suffering and even death (of the body)

I would agree with you that someone who believes in an afterlife would look upon these passages differently than someone who doesn’t. Still, God asks his people to be kind to each other – except in the case of slaves or unbelievers. God asks us to show mercy, but so many of the passage people complain about in the OT could have used a deity with some mercy. It’s very much a do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do-scenario.

 

[GiftofMercy]

In my classes studying the Old Testament we found that God continually held to His covenant even though the people periodically fell into sin. God did not abandon Israel (for example, see Ezekiel 11:14 – 11:25). Forgiveness is conditional however upon repentance.

God never breaks His Covenants, even now in the 21st Century.

 

[EndTimes]

Still, God asks his people to be kind to each other – except in the case of slaves or unbelievers.

Since Messiah Jesus has arrived, nothing in The GOSPEL - The New Way -
or in Catholic Church Teachings – supports that notion.

---

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’

But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?

And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others?
Do not even pagans do that?

Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

 

[EndTimes]

God never breaks His Covenants, even now in the 21st Century.

The New Covenant is a perfection of the Old Covenant.

Since the Baptism of Jesus on up to the Crucifixion

• Salvation sits upon Faith in Jesus via God’s Returning Spirit- from Pentecost

_

 

[Vico]

GiftofMercy:

God never breaks His Covenants, even now in the 21st Century.

The New Covenant is a perfection of the Old Covenant.

Since the Baptism of Jesus on up to the Crucifixion

• Salvation sits upon Faith in Jesus via God’s Returning Spirit- from Pentecost

_

Jer 31

33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Luk 22

20 And he did the same with the cup after supper, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

Heb 8

6 But Jesus has now obtained a more excellent ministry, and to that degree he is the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted through better promises.

 

[GiftofMercy]

The New Covenant is a perfection of the Old Covenant.

Since the Baptism of Jesus on up to the Crucifixion

• Salvation sits upon Faith in Jesus via God’s Returning Spirit- from Pentecost

God never breaks His Covenants with His people. This vatican CC discusses the Covenant between Noah (and us) and God.

58 The covenant with Noah remains in force during the times of the Gentiles, until the universal proclamation of the Gospel.13 The Bible venerates several great figures among the Gentiles: Abel the just, the king-priest Melchisedek - a figure of Christ - and the upright “Noah, Daniel, and Job”.14 Scripture thus expresses the heights of sanctity that can be reached by those who live according to the covenant of Noah, waiting for Christ to “gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad”.15

from
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a1.htm

There is more then one Covenant, they go right back to Adam .
God never breaks them but man does
God will never break them.

 

[TULIPed]

God being tempted by Satan and killing a man’s family to prove a point.

What’s the point?

 

[Magnanimity]

the believer still has to show the violence in the passage (whether figurative or literal) is excusable.

Now, I’m very curious. What precisely is “figurative” violence? I’m quite serious. What are you talking about? I’m altogether unfamiliar with the concept. If an OT story can be interposing some spiritual lesson through “figurative violence,” you want to maintain that God still needs a hall-pass? Why? If God is actually racist and genocidal, then I can see you holding everyone’s feet to the fire. But, if these stories are figurative…?

But again none of them ever can explain away the violence found in the passages.

Here again we inevitably run into (1) conscience and (2) universal moral norms. Mike from NJ somehow (inexplicably) is in touch with these moral norms in a special way. (The rest of us are blind to them?) So much so that he can stand as Judge over all, either excusing or not excusing what he reads in sacred writings.

Presumably, Mike hasn’t considered how it could be possible that consciences and moral-senses could be universalizable within an atheistic framework. They’re just “givens?” Emergent properties? And why would it be that Mike, apart from the untold billions of Christians who have read the same sacred writings that he has (some of whom were plainly geniuses–Thomas Aquinas, Isaac Newton) would be in a special position? All of these untold billions of Christians have read all the same texts that you have. But, mysteriously, Mike when he reads these same passages has what experience exactly? A more complete conscience? A better connection with moral norms in the world? How does Mike end up in the position of Judge, not only against this God presented in the sacred writings, but also of (by implication) the billions of followers who have aligned themselves with this Christian God? This is an extraordinarily privileged position not granted to the rest of us regular folks. I’d like to know how you entered into it.

This idea of putting on rose-colored glasses

Wow. This response #3 was so off-point that I had to go back and reread my original third question to you. My question was rather simple–can you accept the historical situation or can you not. You have not addressed the reality of 1500 years of continuity in biblical interpretation. I can only assume you are therefore “stuck” in a Reformation vs Counter-Reformation framework, which will lead you again to the apologists. Ok…it’s not my business to guarantee that you’ll start taking things seriously. This one’s on you.

 

[Magnanimity]

As for my 4th challenge to you, I can only reiterate,

if you cannot appeal to my conscience through a commonly-held morality, how can you argue that anything in the OT might cast God in a “bad” light?

You take for granted conscience, universal-morality and also consciousness without wondering what the universal existence of all these things might necessitate antecedentally?

It’s a moral approach. I see immorality defended tooth and nail. Non-believers are told that their morality

OK, slowing it down a bit, let’s state (again) the only possible way that you’re able to argue to believers. First, all of our consciences must more or less align. That is to say, there isn’t “Mike’s conscience” and “Magnanimity’s conscience” and “St Thomas Aquinas’ conscience…” No, there’s just human conscience, and it’s universal. Also required are moral norms, and they must be “out there,” in the world, for you to use them to attempt to persuade Christians of the counter-moral nature of their God of the OT. Are you with me? You’ll need to grant this or dispute it before we can get anywhere. You call things you read in the OT “abominable,” but what would have to be antecedentally true for you to be able to recognize what is “abominable?” You must address this question. If you don’t, then, like I’ve previously said, you’re just a guy named Mike having an emotional reaction to some sacred writings (and quite incapable of actual argument).

 

[mythbuster1]

Indeed, even among the condemned tribes, those who repented were spared.

 

[mythbuster1]

The Egyptians had plenty of warning. Anyone who wished to separate himself from the crimes of Egypt and live needed only to be circumcised and counted among the Israelites. Apparently, many did.