Steve Ray-Amalekites 1-26-15

[Birdpreacher]

I am glad my phone call is getting so much traction even here.

This is the video that always made me question the violent nature of the christian god. Its from a film done by the BBC called “God on Trial”. Its a group of jews in a concentration camp putting the god on trial for violating the convenent with abraham. This shortt speech perfecly captures my problems with the violent depiction of god
youtube.com/watch?v=zK9cT_IW6Jw

Oh and I hit Mr. Ray up with a follow up question here
catholic-convert.com/blog/2015/01/28/questions-i-answered-for-2-hours-on-catholic-answers-live-with-non-catholics/#comments

 

[PRmerger]

I am glad my phone call is getting so much traction even here.

This is the video that always made me question the violent nature of the christian god. Its from a film done by the BBC called “God on Trial”. Its a group of jews in a concentration camp putting the god on trial for violating the convenent with abraham. This shortt speech perfecly captures my problems with the violent depiction of god
youtube.com/watch?v=zK9cT_IW6Jw

Oh and I hit Mr. Ray up with a follow up question here
catholic-convert.com/blog/2015/01/28/questions-i-answered-for-2-hours-on-catholic-answers-live-with-non-catholics/#comments

Does a God who putatively commands genocide necessarily mean God doesn’t exist, Birdpreacher?

 

[Birdpreacher]

Does a God who putatively commands genocide necessarily mean God doesn’t exist, Birdpreacher?

For our sakes lets hope so. Well, at least that the god that was written of in the bible does not exist. If anything it shows me the bible is not divinely inspired, for the god character is deeply flawed.

If anything it shows me that the bible depicts a god who is violent against innocent children. Who would want to worship that? This god character is an immoral monster.

If your religion’s “salvation history” includes episodes were god had to commit genocide, then maybe your religion is not run by the all loving god you thought it was but rather a mere reflection of the violent people who created the holy book in the first place.

If you subscribe to a literal interpretation of god commanding genocide. Then ask yourself this: What is stopping the christian god from asking for this again. What if the christian god asked you to strap explosives to yourself and walk into a children’s hospital? Would you do it? I would hope not.

 

[PRmerger]

For our sakes lets hope so. Well, at least that the god that was written of in the bible does not exist.

Perhaps you mean the god of the OT, read without the lens of the NT, doesn’t exist?

If that’s what you mean, then I agree with you.

 

[PRmerger]

If you subscribe to a literal interpretation of god commanding genocide. Then ask yourself this: What is stopping the christian god from asking for this again. What if the christian god asked you to strap explosives to yourself and walk into a children’s hospital? Would you do it? I would hope not.

Yep. I do not subscribe to a literal interpretation of god commanding genocide.

That’s for others here to defend.

 

[Birdpreacher]

Perhaps you mean the god of the OT, read without the lens of the NT, doesn’t exist?

If that’s what you mean, then I agree with you.

I love the Jesus guy in the NT but as a catholic arn’t you forced to accept the OT as a divinely inspired text.

I mean, what kind of lens could the NT provide that rectifies the god character ordering the destruction of children.

Edit: I see you are interpreting the entire passage as mtaphor. WHich is, in my opinion, the only humane route in all of this. So there is something we can agree on

 

[PRmerger]

I love the Jesus guy in the NT but as a catholic arn’t you forced to accept the OT as a divinely inspired text.

Yes I am, and I do.

Although I am only “forced” in the sense that you are “forced” to accept that 2+2 = 4.

I mean, what kind of lens could the NT provide that rectifies the god character ordering the destruction of children.

Edit: I see you are interpreting the entire passage as mtaphor. WHich is, in my opinion, the only humane route in all of this. So there is something we can agree on

You answered your own question.

 

[Gorgias]

sigh!

Already answered several posts ago.

Precisely. That’s why, I’m guessing, we keep reminding you of it.

You said, “God can give and take life as He chooses”, and then followed that up with “God would never command us to take the life of an innocent.” The two cannot stand together. Either God takes life as He chooses, or He has limits to what He will command – but both cannot be true simultaneously. We’re just pointing out the logic fail in your case.

Here’s the thing, though: you might make the argument that it is not in God’s nature to be unjust, and therefore, He would not unjustly take the life of an innocent – and that would be a good argument! However, that argument fails, too, on the fact that none of us is innocent before God. There’s this little thing called ‘original sin’, and even in the absence of personal sin, it’s sufficient to condemn us to hell. (Augustine got caught up in this one, and asserted – unreasonably – that this is kinda what happens to unbaptized babies. These days, we hold that God is more merciful than that, and therefore, we don’t see it as ‘unjust’ that a baby might die before being able to be baptized and therefore be condemned.) Perhaps that’s the answer to the dilemma that you perceive, here.

In any case, you can’t use the assertion “it’s unjust to take the life of an innocent” as the reason that you reject this passage as having any literal meaning whatsoever…

 

[PRmerger]

Precisely. That’s why, I’m guessing, we keep reminding you of it.

You said, “God can give and take life as He chooses”, and then followed that up with “God would never command us to take the life of an innocent.” The two cannot stand together.

Of course they can.

Take this example:

The principal can call off school as she so chooses.
The principal would never command a student to call off school.

See?

 

[PRmerger]

However, that argument fails, too, on the fact that none of us is innocent before God. There’s this little thing called ‘original sin’, and even in the absence of personal sin, it’s sufficient to condemn us to hell.

The universe of discourse here, regarding “innocent”, is not “a soul which is entirely pure”.

Here, “innocent” means: not doing anything which is injurious to me.

Now, if you want to continue to assert that no one is innocent, including babies because “they have original sin”, then you ought to be willing to assert that it’s perfectly moral to kill a baby because, after all, “she’s not innocent at all!”

 

[Gorgias]

Of course they can.

Take this example:

The principle can call off school as she so chooses.
The principle would never command a student to call off school.

See?

Not a good example.

When a principal “commands a student to call off school”, it’s called “suspension” or “expulsion”. Therefore, the statement “the principal would never suspend a student” is false.

Perhaps there’s a better example you might wish us to consider?

 

[PRmerger]

Not a good example.

When a principal “commands a student to call off school”, it’s called “suspension” or “expulsion”. Therefore, the statement “the principal would never suspend a student” is false.

Perhaps there’s a better example you might wish us to consider?

We’re talking logic here.

There is nothing illogical about the logic consistency of a principal being able to call off school but not permitting a student to call off school.

Incidentally, a suspension is NOT a command for the student to call off school. As if.

Imagine if your son, after being expelled, came home presenting it to you as, “Yep, the principal gave me the command to call off school, just as she has the authority to do so. Now I have that authority. Isn’t that grand?”

 

[Gorgias]

Imagine if your son, after being expelled, came home presenting it to you as, “Yep, the principal gave me the command to call off school, just as she has the authority to do so. Now I have that authority. Isn’t that grand?”

LOL! I misunderstood you, then. So, let’s see if I understand it more accurately, then. You’re saying…

The principal will cancel a day of school as she pleases.
The principal will never give a student the authority to cancel a day of school as he pleases.

If so, then your example holds up, logically (that is, there’s no inherent illogic in the two statements, although that doesn’t mean that it’s true)…

… but it fails to address the situation at hand, except in a superficial way. Most importantly, it fails to address the notion of “an innocent,” which is the principle objection we’re dealing with here. Further, the assertion is one of injustice, and I think you would agree that the statement “it would be unjust for a principal to give another person the authority to cancel a day of school” is patently absurd.

 

[PRmerger]

LOL! I misunderstood you, then. So, let’s see if I understand it more accurately, then. You’re saying…

The principal will cancel a day of school as she pleases.
The principal will never give a student the authority to cancel a day of school as he pleases.

If so, then your example holds up, logically (that is, there’s no inherent illogic in the two statements, although that doesn’t mean that it’s true)…

So the 2 premises do not contradict each other.

Someone can give/take.
But the Someone would also NEVER command that an inferior give/take.

The 2 can co-exist quite nicely.

QED.

.

 

[Gorgias]

So the 2 premises do not contradict each other.

Someone can give/take.
But the Someone would also NEVER command that an inferior give/take.

The 2 can co-exist quite nicely.

Like I already said: in your example, there’s a superficial application of the topic at hand, but your example fails to address the two items that are at the crux of the discussion: injustice and innocence.

If you wish to declare victory on the basis of ignoring the salient issues, have at it!

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Ummm…do you think infants are capable of sinning?

According to you, I guess the Amelekites were born sinless with no need of a savior. And somehow merited temporal and everlasting life on their own.

 

[clem456]

LOL! I misunderstood you, then. So, let’s see if I understand it more accurately, then. You’re saying…

The principal will cancel a day of school as she pleases.
The principal will never give a student the authority to cancel a day of school as he pleases.

If so, then your example holds up, logically (that is, there’s no inherent illogic in the two statements, although that doesn’t mean that it’s true)…

… but it fails to address the situation at hand, except in a superficial way. Most importantly, it fails to address the notion of “an innocent,” which is the principle objection we’re dealing with here. Further, the assertion is one of injustice, and I think you would agree that the statement “it would be unjust for a principal to give another person the authority to cancel a day of school” is patently absurd.

 

[Peter_Plato]

We’re talking logic here.

There is nothing illogical about the logic consistency of a principal being able to call off school but not permitting a student to call off school.

Incidentally, a suspension is NOT a command for the student to call off school. As if.

Imagine if your son, after being expelled, came home presenting it to you as, “Yep, the principal gave me the command to call off school, just as she has the authority to do so. Now I have that authority. Isn’t that grand?”

I don’t think your analogy works here because the authority of the principal is neither absolute nor intrinsic to the person holding the position.

In other words, the person, let’s call him John Mark, who holds office as principal has limited authority with regard to how he will execute the powers that come with the office, including to whom he can bestow authority in his stead. He can in many jurisdictions, for example, appoint an acting principal to act in his absence. Now whether that individual, as acting principal, has all the powers of principal endowed to them does not depend upon the decision of John Mark, it depends fully on policy not determined by John Mark. The school board and/or department of education will likely have stipulated which powers come with the role of acting principal just as these bodies have determined which powers come with the role of principal.

God, however, is not a “position” that just happens to be filled by a person or trinity of persons. The Persons of God are identical to the Being of God which, in turn, is identical to the “position” of God. The position/duties/responsibility/etc. of God are not separate from the persons occupying the position. They are one and the same. God’s power is unlimited in that respect. There can be no policy put together by some overseeing body that determines the role or office of God as there is with the office of principal. In that sense, morality and moral determinations come from God and are created by God in the very act of creating the nature of the agents which are to abide by that nature and the morality that goes with it.

It is not clear to me, at least, that God is in the same position vis a vis determinations of morality that we, as human moral agents, are. God does not “OWE” human agents anything with respect to endowments such as life, pleasure, health, possessions, etc. Justice, and morality in general, however, appears to be defined by what is owed – a debt of sorts owed to other like beings. It is not clear that God “owes” us justice in that sense, so justice cannot be the metric with regards to what God does since God is not in any relationship of debt or posssible debt where human beings are concerned.

The nature of God is Love which means what he gives to human beings is determined primarily by love, not by justice. Whether commanding the Israelites to end the lives of the Amalekites was good or not cannot be settled by principles of justice, but rather by the loving will of God.

That depends entirely upon the ultimate good for humanity as determined by the omniscient and omnibenevolent will of God. Whether ending a life on earth is just or not is NOT the principle determiner of what is “good” in that case. The principle determiner is the eternal well-being of all human beings through all times and places as determined by God’s omnibenevolent will for them, not considerations of justice with regard to what is owed to any or all human beings.

The metric that God uses regarding human good is not our metric and may even be baffling and vexing to our determinations of goodness since we rely on justice to make them rather than omnibenevolence. That one particular man suffering crucifixion in Jerusalem should be the one act that makes a universe of difference for all human beings is not easily reconciled with our notions of justice and goodness, but apparently it fits resoundingly well with God’s.

Ultimately, I think the problematic passages in the Old Testament run us smack up against the mystery and awesomeness of God’s existence – as God, not as we prefer him to be according to our limited notions of morality. Perhaps the best response is absolute silence and letting God explain what he did and why rather than taking up either the role of defense attorney or prosecutor – neither of which we have any competency to adequately fill. Better to allow God to explain in due time.

 

[clem456]

LOL! I misunderstood you, then. So, let’s see if I understand it more accurately, then. You’re saying…

The principal will cancel a day of school as she pleases.
The principal will never give a student the authority to cancel a day of school as he pleases.

If so, then your example holds up, logically (that is, there’s no inherent illogic in the two statements, although that doesn’t mean that it’s true)…

… but it fails to address the situation at hand, except in a superficial way. Most importantly, it fails to address the notion of “an innocent,” which is the principle objection we’re dealing with here. Further, the assertion is one of injustice, and I think you would agree that the statement “it would be unjust for a principal to give another person the authority to cancel a day of school” is patently absurd.

Picking apart the logic and pointing out the inadequacy of the analogy is missing the point. Any analogy is insufficient when held against God. But it does have it’s value, yes?

The point is…
What does the Catholic Church propose for us? What does the Catholic Church proclaim from these passages?
Documents and other talks relating to Catholic Scripture exegesis are posted. It’s interesting that these documents are -not- picked apart, the posters who post them are. We’d rather dispute the logic of the poster than simply address the elephant in the room, which is the Church teaching.
.
The documents propose some fairly simple things for us in interpreting scripture:

Jesus Christ is the Word personified.

Christ is God’s full and final revelation.

Christ is the hermeneutical key to interpreting scripture.

All Scripture interpretation must be consistent with the person of Christ.

All scripture interpretation must account for cultural, historical, and literary factors that were in place.

Inspiration allows for different senses of scripture.

Inspired is not the same thing as factual. (and this misunderstanding is the root of the problem here).

Fundamentalist readings of scripture are not Catholic. “…fundamentalism seeks to escape any closeness of the divine and the human … for this reason, it tends to treat the biblical text as if it had been dictated word for word by the Spirit.” (VD)

Again, the inspiration of the Holy Spirit does not equal literally factual. “Literalism betrays all the senses of scripture”, (VD)

Since Christ is the hermeneutical key, the reader of the scrolls, it is near impossible to make a case for God (of which Christ is the second person) commanding the slaughter of innocents. (VD)

No one debates that God is capable, no one debates that these things happened. What is incompatible is the literalist imputation to God’s will of something that is not compatible with God’s nature. -One person literally commanded to slaughter others who are innocent-.

It’s a given that God has the capability to do anything he wants. Continuing to bring that up as though someone is disputing it is the sign of an empty argument.

You can debate all you want about who is innocent, no problem. If the presumption innocence cannot be given to children, that is a problem, and is in fact terrifying that we prefer to cloak ourselves in comfortable fundamentalism rather than do the hard work of praying with the Scriptures -with the Church-.

Do you realize that your argument unwittingly advocates for the termination of young children in the womb? Do you realize that??? This line of thinking is one of the most oft used justifications of the murder of the unborn. “The child is not innocent, it is an invasion of my privacy, my pursuit of happiness, my just destiny. It is my human right to invoke justice against a “thing” that threatens it.”

It’s vitally important to look at these things through the eyes of Christ, -with the Church-.

Specifically what in the material posted do people have issues with? specifically…

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Specifically what in the material posted do people have issues with?

Your original post was in outrage against Steve Ray. You seem to have backed off from that.

Perhaps the issue now is that you are posting material to try and solve a problem that doesn’t really exist. Kind of like your problem with Steve Ray.

There is an insistence that a problem does exist as a proof against a plain reading of the passage on the Amalekites. Yet many people here feel the only failures here are man’s assumptions about God… or trying to fit God into your limited and finite moral equation.

“This thought of yours is perverse: as if the clay should think against the potter, and the work should say to the maker thereof: Thou madest me not: or the thing framed should say to him that fashioned it: Thou understandest not.”
Isa 29:16

“Or hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?”
Rom 9:21