Smashing Children on Rocks

[thinkandmull]

It may have been implicitly understood that on the little ones who had the age of reason were killed. And children may have gained the age of reason earlier in those days. But if you would rather believe in an abortionist God, that’s fine

 

[PeaceInChrist]

That’s really awful

Yes, without looking at the mercy of God, it does seem quite awful.

It may have been implicitly understood that on the little ones who had the age of reason were killed. And children may have gained the age of reason earlier in those days. But if you would rather believe in an abortionist God, that’s fine

So far I see nothing that you present that is actual exegesis. You choose to believe that it could possibly maybe perhaps be implicitly understood that '…therefore, kill EVERY male among the little ones could somehow be understood as excluding some of the aforementioned every male among the little ones.

There is a reason that passages such as these aren’t easily dismissed. It shows God’s right over our lives and the lives of every created thing in gruesome detail. People point to the New Testament, saying ‘God is love’, but they choose to exclude almost entirely his justice.

If you feel bad that God had infants killed, how do you feel about God casting into hell those that opposed him? Read the New Testament. Jesus says that he will send people to hell. He will say, ‘depart from me, you accursed.’ He says, ‘bring my enemies here and slay them before me.’ He is merciful, but he is also JUST. His justice is not ours, either. God can do as he pleases, and no one can blame him. He’s God. That’s how it works. People like to replace ‘fear of God’ with ‘awe of God’. Fine, that’s reasonable. But what is ‘awe?’ Acknowledging God’s power, including the power to destroy us and send us to eternal perdition, is absolutely part of that.

But we must also remember his mercy. Perfect love casts out fear. If we trust in God, and strive to love him, he’s not going to cut us off. Trust is required of us, and perseverance in this trust. His justice is terrifying, but his mercy is boundless. Our lives could be miserable wrecks, but just like Lazarus (who was covered in sores and had essentially the most miserable existence one could fathom), we will be in His glory someday. The same is likely true for the children he ordered destroyed.

We can’t shape and mold God into our image. He’s not just a fluffy teddy bear. He’s also just. The problem comes when we get fixated on his justice over his mercy, and can’t comprehend it because we don’t realize his mercy is greater. These passages will always be difficult, but we have to remember it all in light of the cross and eternal life.

 

[thinkandmull]

If you had the knife in your hand with the command to kill a baby you wouldn’t be righting nonesense about fluffyness. Your interpretation is no more based on the text than mine. Perhaps if you stood in the Jewish army and the leader said “we are going to kill them all” and you ask “even the babies”, he would have said “well of course not”.

 

[porthos11]

If you had the knife in your hand with the command to kill a baby you wouldn’t be righting nonesense about fluffyness. Your interpretation is no more based on the text than mine. Perhaps if you stood in the Jewish army and the leader said “we are going to kill them all” and you ask “even the babies”, he would have said “well of course not”.

Thus says the Lord of hosts…Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child (Heb. olel=child, little one) and infant (Heb. yowneq=suckling, i.e. a baby sucking milk of a mother; ref. Strongs #3243 yanaq=to suck), ox and sheep, camel and donkey (1st Samuel 15:2a,3)

 

[thinkandmull]

People were different back than. Incest was not immoral, the Jewish laws allowed you to beat a slave until he is almost dead. It was a different time, and really a different biology (but still human). So its not hard to imagine 3 year olds who still nurse having committed sins. Where is the proof that an innocent was every slain by God’s command?

 

[Usagi]

People were different back than. Incest was not immoral, the Jewish laws allowed you to beat a slave until he is almost dead. It was a different time, and really a different biology (but still human). So its not hard to imagine 3 year olds who still nurse having committed sins. Where is the proof that an innocent was every slain by God’s command?

Dude, I know you’re trying to defend the Lord’s goodness, but this seems like a real stretch. Does it actually comfort you to think that God’s people may only have killed the bad toddlers?

Usagi

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Dude, I know you’re trying to defend the Lord’s goodness, but this seems like a real stretch. Does it actually comfort you to think that God’s people may only have killed the bad toddlers?

Usagi

Just let it be. It’s not helping his faith. There’s no point in arguing whether a specific passage in the bible actually happened exactly as it is recorded if there’s no dogma or doctrine associated with it. If someone wants to believe that the dark passages are hyperbole or metaphor, I believe they are free to do so (at least, to the best of my knowledge).

 

[thinkandmull]

I didn’t say it was hyperbole. My interpretation is perfectly valid. Sinner young kids are still sinners, not innocent, so there is a huge difference. Its called interpretation, just like you guys do with plenty of verses

 

[PeaceInChrist]

I didn’t say it was hyperbole. My interpretation is perfectly valid. Sinner young kids are still sinners, not innocent, so there is a huge difference. Its called interpretation, just like you guys do with plenty of verses

Except that nowhere does it mention your interpretation in the actual text. It doesn’t ever claim that all the sinners must be killed. Just all the males. All of them.

But, look, I’m not here to cause trouble for your faith. Let’s just drop it.

 

[thinkandmull]

Most Catholics assume that everyone over the age of reason have committed at least some sins

 

[thinkandmull]

I just wanted to briefly add that the phrase “Outside the Church there is no salvation” has been interpreted as not to exclude baptism by desire, although that interpretation is not in the text. That is why it is called interpretation. I don’t think Catholics are bound by the Bible to believe that God once commanded the mass execution of innocent babies as a righteous act.