Steve Ray-Amalekites 1-26-15

[PRmerger]

It seems to me that the Church forbids genocide on the same grounds that it ordinarily forbids other kinds of killing: because humans do not have authority over life and death.

Yes.

And because it is abhorrent to take the life of someone based on how he looks or who he hangs around with.

Does that seem like a reasonable interpretation? Because I think that would make a kind of loophole for God: He does have authority over life and death, and therefore He can order people to be killed, even in large numbers, if He has a good reason for it.

I think it is incompatible with the nature of God to command us to do evil.

And it is ALWAYS evil to kill someone based on his race.

 

[PRmerger]

If you reject premise #2, then I think that would mean the same conclusion you apply to the Amelekites would apply to all other cases where innocent children seem to be killed in the Bible.

Yes. We must never target killing innocents. Ever.

How could you maintain that the Great Flood, for example, was caused by God, if premise #2 is false?

God can give and take life as He so chooses, dmar.

 

[dmar198]

A nonsensical proposition.

Okay, let me defend it by means of a second syllogism:

(1) It would not be unjust for God to command the death of anyone.
(2) Jesus is God.
(3) Therefore, it would not be unjust for Jesus to command the death of anyone.

I think #3 is identical in meaning to the proposition you identified as nonsensical. What am I missing?

[Premise #2] Could never be correct. Incompatible with Christianity. (And truly terrifying)

Then how do you answer the questions I posed to PRMerger? Which are the following:

If you reject premise #2, then I think that would mean the same conclusion you apply to the Amelekites would apply to all other cases where innocent children seem to be killed in the Bible. Am I extrapolating too much? How could you maintain that the Great Flood, for example, was caused by God, if premise #2 is false?

 

[dmar198]

God can give and take life as He so chooses, dmar.

I agree. Do you think the Great Flood had a good effect? Because I do, and I think that makes it identical with Premise #2. How would you answer this syllogism?

(1) The Great Flood killed innocent children.
(2) This had a great positive effect.
(3) Therefore, killing innocent children can have a great positive effect.

 

[PRmerger]

Okay, let me defend it by means of a second syllogism:

(1) It would not be unjust for God to command the death of anyone.

I reject this premise.

It is always unjust to kill an innocent.

Therefore God would never command us to kill an innocent.

I think a perfect example of this is the story of Abraham and Isaac, where God tests Abraham, and STOPS him from doing such a horrifying act…because it is NOT in God’s nature to command the killing of innocents.

 

[PRmerger]

I agree. Do you think the Great Flood had a good effect?

No. I think it had a neutral effect. Neither good nor evil.

 

[dmar198]

I reject this premise.

I appreciate your clarity. I accept the premise and I think it can be defended from the Church’s magisterial documents, but I’d rather not do so right now, so I think you and I are at an impasse about that premise, at least for now. Thank you. I’ll continue to respond to your other points, if you wish to continue.

 

[dmar198]

No. I think it had a neutral effect. Neither good nor evil.

I think that the Great Flood did have positive effects, and one was, I think it provided St. Peter with material for discussing Baptism in 1 Peter 3:20-21. I think that is a great positive effect. Do you agree?

 

[SyroMalankara]

is the destruction of the Amelekites genocide if taken literally? Weren’t the Amelekites descendants of Esau? The common ancestor to the Jews would have been Isaac. Distant cousins.

 

[Robyn_p]

Jimmy Akin is not endorsing that line of thinking…He is proposing it as one way of justifying a God who might command the slaughter of innocents. His discussion is very nuanced. I do not get the impression that he accepts that line, but I dunno. When you combine all the pieces from Church authority, it does seem a preposterous suggestion.

And the passage on divorce fleshes this out.
When Jesus talked about divorce, he says
because of the way you were…“Moses commanded you”… -not- “God commanded you”.

Jesus does not ascribe to his Father something that cannot be attributed to his nature, from the beginning. Despite how the Israelites behaved and didn’t understand, God was never the God of divorce or homosexuality. You can see that getting these things right has huge implications for us today.

I just think it’s really important that we represent who God really is to people, and I believe the various pieces of Catholic hermeneutics overwhelmingly support this.
From the beginning…
this is how God is
and this is how I made you…

Yeah that’s a good point. God didn’t command divorce, only permitted it. If we take the Amalekite story in a literalist way, God didn’t just permit it, he endorsed it. Which is hard to reconcile with what we know of God from the rest of Scripture. I see where you’re coming from now.

 

[Robyn_p]

I reject this premise.

It is always unjust to kill an innocent.

Therefore God would never command us to kill an innocent.

I think a perfect example of this is the story of Abraham and Isaac, where God tests Abraham, and STOPS him from doing such a horrifying act…because it is NOT in God’s nature to command the killing of innocents.

Right. I think these difficult passages need to be viewed in light of this verse:

*Before a man are life and death,
and whichever he chooses will be given to him. 18 For great is the wisdom of the Lord;
he is mighty in power and sees everything; 19 his eyes are on those who fear him,
and he knows every deed of man.**20 He has not commanded any one to be ungodly,
and he has not given any one permission to sin. ***(Sirach 15:17-20)

God never commands evil. He can’t. If we come across something in the Bible that sounds like God did command evil, then we need to consider that a reflection of Israel’s incomplete view of God at the time, and not as the whole truth.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Some just can’t handle that God in his divine anger can be destructive. On CA, we still have those who don’t believe that God can send anyone to hell. God is too loving, too kind, too merciful etc. Unfortunately, they keep on missing one crucial point. God is Just. There will be gnashing of teeth. There will be punishment. Some get it early, some get it late. Some will get it worse than Sodom/Gomorrah .Mat 10:15. When we are backed into the reality that the literal explanation is the only explanation, we better review our own prejudices in interpreting the Bible rather than staying in a mode of denial. I admit it most of the time if there is a gentler interpretation, I tend to lean towards that rather than opt for the angry God version. But when cross references about the same event all over the Bible does not support the gentler version, we must be honest enough to say that God was indeed angry. However we must not assume that God didn’t have a fair solution for innocents caught in the cross-fire.

I still don’t understand the focus on the Amalakite/Canaanites when the Flood’s destruction was on a much greater scale. We don’t hear too many complaints about the Flood do we? Or was the Flood a fable? Gee, I have been hoodwinked in my Catechism classes.

I totally agree.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

It is always unjust to kill an innocent. Therefore God would never command us to kill an innocent.

Whoa! Wait a minute. How do you know the Amelekites were innocent?

 

[ericc]

I’m trying to figure out exactly how that relates to the issue…
Because Sodom happened, that proves that God would command the Israelites to kill babies and children?

What do you think about the quotes from Verbum Domini?
Dark passages?
Fundamentalist reading of scripture?
Do you think the ancient authors of scripture had any different view of God’s will whatsoever, compared to what we know of God in the present? Any difference whatsoever?

How about the catechism?
How about Jimmy Akin?
How about Fr Robert Barron?
Origen?
Comments? Anything you care to dispute? Which of these that you have taken the time to read is the most relevant to you?

My apologies to Mr Ray for venting uncharitably. I still don’t think he speaks with the mind of the Church, concerning God’s command to commit genocide, based on the specific guidance of the Church in scripture exegesis. But that’s his option to read that in a strictly literal fashion. So be it.

God can do the destruction himself as in Sodom/Gomorrah, Flood, Egypt. Why do you think God can not command someone else to do the destroying? There are full of examples in the OT. Is your issue the destruction itself or God commanding others to do the destruction. Let’s nail this down first.

 

[Birdpreacher]

Imagine being the poor Israelite soldier being told to hack a baby to pieces because the leaders say thats what the god wanted.

 

[Gorgias]

dmar198:

It would not be unjust for God to command the death of anyone.

I reject this premise.

Fair enough. Let’s see if your rejection holds up to scrutiny.

It is always unjust to kill an innocent.

It is always unjust for a human to kill an innocent. That goes without saying.

Does it hold for God? I don’t think so… and maybe, for a reason you don’t anticipate.

Let me ask you: is any human person “an innocent” in the presence of God? Unless you’re pointing to Jesus or Mary, I think that you cannot make this claim.

Therefore, there is no logical or moral problem in the way that you suggest.

Yet, even if you think that I haven’t proven my point, let me ask you – was Jesus “an innocent”? Did God will that Jesus die for the salvation of all? If so, didn’t God participate in the killing of an innocent?

I think a perfect example of this is the story of Abraham and Isaac, where God tests Abraham, and STOPS him from doing such a horrifying act…because it is NOT in God’s nature to command the killing of innocents.

You misunderstand the narrative, I would assert. God stops Abraham because Abraham’s already proven (to himself!) that he would listen to God’s word no matter what, and God will make His promises come true to him.

 

[ericc]

I reject this premise.

It is always unjust to kill an innocent.

For us, yes. For God? Aquinas doesn’t think so.

"All men alike, both guilty and innocent, die the death of nature: which death of nature is inflicted by the power of God on account of original sin, according to 1 Kings 2:6: “The Lord killeth and maketh alive. Consequently, by the command of God, death can be inflicted on any man, guilty or innocent, without any injustice whatever.”

in his Summa Theologica-Whether the natural law can be changed?. I believe Augustine has similar views but I haven’t located that resource yet so I won’t quote him.

Therefore God would never command us to kill an innocent.

He did command Saul to kill. And when Saul kept King Agag alive instead of killing him, God strip him of his kingship. 1Sam 15:8-23. Either this is factual or it is not? I haven’t read anything from the Church suggesting this is fiction.

I think a perfect example of this is the story of Abraham and Isaac, where God tests Abraham, and STOPS him from doing such a horrifying act…because it is NOT in God’s nature to command the killing of innocents.

There was no necessity for God to do unnecessary work. He could have Issac killed but he would have to raised him up from the dead again. Because he promised Abraham descendants as many as the stars. Killing Issac would have broke that promise. Not a good example.

 

[PRmerger]

For us, yes. For God? Aquinas doesn’t think so.

Egg-zactly.

God can give and take as He sees fit.*

Us? It’s always immoral for us to kill and innocent, and, as such, God would never command this.

*BTW: This was already affirmed by me several posts ago. Perhaps you missed it?

God can give and take life as He so chooses, dmar.

 

[PRmerger]

Whoa! Wait a minute. How do you know the Amelekites were innocent?

Ummm…do you think infants are capable of sinning?

‘Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’

 

[PRmerger]

Does it hold for God?

sigh!

Already answered several posts ago.

God can give and take life as He so chooses, dmar.