Steve Ray-Amalekites 1-26-15

[clem456]

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

so specifically, the material? Verbum Domini? Fr Barron?

 

[PRmerger]

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.

 

[Peter_Plato]

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.”

This is precisely what is not being invoked. No one is claiming that it is a “human right” to decide when or how justice ought to be carried out against innocent beings merely because they are a possible threat. Just the opposite actually.

Humans do not have the kind of foresight or insight to make such determinations on our own such that we confer onto ourselves that right. The point being argued is that such drastic repeals of moral principles ought not ever be the prerogative of human beings regarding other human beings.

That, however, does not mean God – given omniscience and omnibenevolence – cannot make such determinations. The OT accounts are always preceded by clear and unmitigated signs that God has indeed authorized the command. The stories in Exodus and Joshua contain a litany of events which make it absolutely clear that the moral law was suspended by acts of God, not merely by human deliberation. That entails humans are never permitted to act unilaterally to make similar determinations of our own accord.

 

[clem456]

This is precisely what is not being invoked. No one is claiming that it is a “human right” to decide when or how justice ought to be carried out against innocent beings merely because they are a possible threat. Just the opposite actually.

Fundamentalism subjects humanity to other lesser goods: to ideologies, to narrowly rigid scripture interpretations, to personal whim (abortion is a very fundamentalist thing, the making of one’s own needs, beliefs, happiness, into a god, to justify life and death, presuming the guilt of the innocent who we see as violating our narrow view of life).
The presumed innocence of children is given over to

“subjective and arbitrary interpretations…
fundamentalism…makes itself incapable of accepting the full truth of the incarnation itself. (the Incarnation gives us our full meaning and dignity as human beings) As regards relationships with God, fundamentalism seeks to escape any closeness of the divine and the human”.

In this view human life is presumed to be lesser than the image of God which Christ proclaims it to be.

The Catholic Church, as it looks to Christ as God’s full revelation and the

ultimate hermeneutical key

makes no such presumption, ever. We do not constrain the Inspiration of Scripture to rigid interpretations like this as if

“the biblical text… had been dictated word for word by the Spirit.”

 

[Gorgias]

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?

Yes, any analogy is inadequate – if it weren’t, it wouldn’t be an analogy, it’d be an explanation.

Good analogies hold at the center and fray at the edges – they help illustrate something of the fundamental issue in a situation, and help us gain insight into the problem. Poor analogies fail to address the central issue and only illustrate aspects that are tangential to the issue at hand.

Your analogy missed the central points that we keep rehashing in this thread: can God, by definition, act unjustly? Might anyone be considered ‘innocent’ in God’s eyes? Your analogy fails to illuminate these fundamental questions, and instead illuminates the notion only of ‘authority.’ So, i would say ‘no’, there’s not explicative value in your analogy.

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.

Please don’t misunderstand: I’m not attempting to pick you apart. I have nothing against you. But, if you’re putting forth arguments in a discussion forum, then yeah… I’ll address those arguments.

We’d rather dispute the logic of the poster than simply address the elephant in the room, which is the Church teaching.

No… the elephant in the room is that there’s a literal interpretation of this passage. We both agree that there is a spiritual sense, and it is in this sense that we find a link to Christ. But, there’s a certain squeamishness here – we recoil at these ‘dark’ passages, and for some, there’s the unwillingness that there’s a literal meaning to be found here. Rather, since the literal sense offends us, we wish to sweep it under the rug and claim it doesn’t exist. That’s not what the Church bids us do.

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

Let’s look at that more closely, rather than just proof-texting Verbum Domini, shall we?

“The basic problem with fundamentalist interpretation is that, refusing to take into account the historical character of biblical revelation, it … fails to recognize that the word of God has been formulated in language and expression conditioned by various periods.”

The problem with fundamentalism – that is, an insistence that all Scripture is literal – is that it is blind to the historical nature of Scripture. The problem isn’t that it seeks literal understandings of Scripture – it’s that it seeks to claim that all of Scripture is literal (and context-free). Seeking for the literal sense of Scripture isn’t fundamentalism or even literalism; making the claim that all of Scripture is historical, is. I’m not making a claim about all of Scripture – I’m simply saying that, looking at one of the historical books (1 Samuel) and claiming it’s ahistorical is the polar opposite of fundamentalism (and is just as bad, IMHO).

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)

It would be better if you didn’t cite your own thoughts as if they were in Verbum Domini.

Here’s what the passage really says: “it must be remembered first and foremost that biblical revelation is deeply rooted in history. God’s plan is manifested progressively and it is accomplished slowly, in successive stages and despite human resistance. … Revelation is suited to the cultural and moral level of distant times and thus describes facts and customs, such as cheating and trickery, and acts of violence and massacre, without explicitly denouncing the immorality of such things. This can be explained by the historical context, yet it can cause the modern reader to be taken aback… so it would be a mistake to neglect those passages of Scripture that strike us as problematic. Rather, we should be aware that the correct interpretation of these passages requires a degree of expertise, acquired through a training that interprets the texts in their historical-literary context and within the Christian perspective which has as its ultimate hermeneutical key “the Gospel and the new commandment of Jesus Christ brought about in the paschal mystery.”

Although the meaning of this passage is found in its spiritual sense, there is nevertheless a literal sense. “It would be a mistake to neglect” the literal sense of this passage.

 

[Gorgias]

continuing…

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.

This seems to be a new tack for you. Earlier, you argued only that this was a metaphor – that is, that it is not historical. Now, you seem willing to concede that it’s historical, but just that it’s not God’s will, as it appears on the surface of the text. Which is it?

-One person literally commanded to slaughter others who are innocent-.

And now, we’re back to that. Why do you continue to assert that anyone is innocent? Worse yet, why do you continue to assert that this ‘innocence’ holds in the face of God?

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

No – original sin is terrifying. Arius likewise was terrified that we would assert the stain of original sin, and that led him to his heresy. Children are not innocent, although they are without personal sin.

Do you realize that your argument unwittingly advocates for the termination of young children in the womb?

:doh2: sigh. Really? Really? That’s the best you’ve got – a shrill accusation that I share the same moral ground as abortionists?

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.”

“Most oft used justification”? Now you’ve descended into hyperbole. At best, this is one of the justifications used by the most extreme of anti-life activists. And, it’s not what you say it is – it’s an argument that attempts to impute guilt by virtue of inconveniencing the life of the mother. That’s a completely different argument.

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

With your assertion that there’s no literal sense of this passage because it’d be incompatible with Christ.

 

[clem456]

:doh2: sigh. Really? Really? That’s the best you’ve got – a shrill accusation that I share the same moral ground as abortionists?

I’ll limit myself to this since it is upsetting to you, and none of the rest addresses what the Church says, and since we are chasing our tails some more…

This is what I said, verbatim:

clem456:
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.”

This is not a shrill accusation, but the thinking leads to the same place, in different circumstances. See my reply to Peter Plato.
It is indeed the main justification for taking the life of innocents in today’s society.

“Most oft used justification”? Now you’ve descended into hyperbole. At best, this is one of the justifications used by the most extreme of anti-life activists.

No not hyperbole, it’s just an observation that people subordinate the innocent to ideologies -all the time-. “My God says so”, perverting the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to literalist fundamentalism.

And, it’s not what you say it is – it’s an argument that attempts to impute guilt by virtue of inconveniencing the life of the mother. That’s a completely different argument.

Ehhh, not so much.

And once again, what about what the Church actually says in this area?
I am sorry I observed the parallels above, since it distracted from the thread evidently. But it does illustrate the consequences of fundamental misunderstandings. There are many other illustrations of fundamentalist interpretations of God’s will run amuck that anyone can observe.

Thank God the Church proclaims

“the Gospel and the new commandment of Jesus Christ brought about in the paschal mystery”.(VD42)

 

[clem456]

bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/cjrelations/resources/documents/catholic/pbcinterpretation.htm#Sec3
Some choice nuggets

F. Fundamentalist Interpretation

Fundamentalist interpretation starts from the principle that the Bible, being the word of God, inspired and free from error, should be read and interpreted literally in all its details. But by “literal interpretation” it understands a naively literalist interpretation, one, that is to say, which excludes every effort at understanding the Bible that takes account of its historical origins and development.
…
Fundamentalism is right to insist on the divine inspiration of the Bible, the inerrancy of the word of God and other biblical truths included in its five fundamental points. But its way of presenting these truths is rooted in an ideology which is not biblical, whatever the proponents of this approach might say. For it demands an unshakable adherence to rigid doctrinal points of view and imposes, as the only source of teaching for Christian life and salvation, a reading of the Bible which rejects all questioning and any kind of critical research.
…
Fundamentalism likewise tends to adopt very narrow points of view. It accepts the literal reality of an ancient, out-of-date cosmology simply because it is found expressed in the Bible; this blocks any dialogue with a broader way of seeing the relationship between culture and faith. Its relying upon a non-critical reading of certain texts of the Bible serves to reinforce political ideas and social attitudes that are marked by prejudices–racism, for example(hello)–quite contrary to the Christian Gospel.

1. The Literal Sense

It is not only legitimate, it is also absolutely necessary to seek to define the precise meaning of texts as produced by their authors–what is called the “literal” meaning. St. Thomas Aquinas had already affirmed the fundamental importance of this sense (S. Th. I, q. 1,a. 10, ad 1).

The literal sense is not to be confused with the “literalist” sense to which fundamentalists are attached. It is not sufficient to translate a text word for word in order to obtain its literal sense. One must understand the text according to the literary conventions of the time. When a text is metaphorical, its literal sense is not that which flows immediately from a word-to-word translation (e.g. “Let your loins be girt”: Lk. 12:35), but that which corresponds to the metaphorical use of these terms (“Be ready for action”). **When it is a question of a story, the literal sense does not necessarily imply belief that the facts recounted actually took place, **for a story need not belong to the genre of history but be instead a work of imaginative fiction.

Any specific comment, observations?

 

[Peter_Plato]

bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/cjrelations/resources/documents/catholic/pbcinterpretation.htm#Sec3
Some choice nuggets

Any specific comment, observations?

The difficulty, Clem, is that the problematic passages are integrally tied to historical consequences. The failure of Israel to establish the rule of the Law in the promised land led to its gradual corruption and the abject failure of first the judges and then of the kings to maintain moral order. That failure resulted in both the exile of the Northern kingdom by Assyria and Judah by the Babylonians. In other words, the historical narrative with the failure of Israel to live out God’s plan is what brought about the exile, the coming of the Messiah and, eventually, the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. The real historical narrative is integral to why we have the Gospel message and the Church today.

One (the failure of Israel) has led in sequence to the others (exile → Messiah → Incarnation → Crucifixion → Redemption –>Gospel → Church) because of what actually occurred in history, which is why the Incarnation was a real historical event, not an allegory or myth.

 

[Gorgias]

none of the rest addresses what the Church says

Right. All those quotes from the same document you proof texted from, and I’m not addressing what the Church says?

 

[clem456]

Right. All those quotes from the same document you proof texted from, and I’m not addressing what the Church says?

Ummmm, excuse me. Assertion reality does not make (thanks Yoda).

I post the links to this material (not you) and post several in depth quotes (not you) from several documents, and then you assert that I am proof texting.

You and others barely bother to address them (I think you did once, and your quote was a proof text), and yet somehow you say I’m proof texting.

Not a very agile deflection. ,

 

[clem456]

The difficulty, Clem, is that the problematic passages are integrally tied to historical consequences. The failure of Israel to establish the rule of the Law in the promised land led to its gradual corruption and the abject failure of first the judges and then of the kings to maintain moral order. That failure resulted in both the exile of the Northern kingdom by Assyria and Judah by the Babylonians. In other words, the historical narrative with the failure of Israel to live out God’s plan is what brought about the exile, the coming of the Messiah and, eventually, the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. The real historical narrative is integral to why we have the Gospel message and the Church today.

One (the failure of Israel) has led in sequence to the others (exile → Messiah → Incarnation → Crucifixion → Redemption –>Gospel → Church) because of what actually occurred in history, which is why the Incarnation was a real historical event, not an allegory or myth.

Ooooo K. And that sounds good to me. The Israelites wandered for many many years. They killed people, people killed them. Worshipped golden idols, sex, drugs, rock n roll. They were immoral. Yes. Need a Messiah.

Not really sure where you get that I am debating the history of the Israelites.

Anyway, it’s the 5th time around for this particular point (not all with you Peter), that’s enough for me.

 

[ericc]

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?

That is your belief. If he wants it done, he has to do it himself. But he wouldn’t command his people to do that for him. He couldn’t, he shouldn’t , impossible. He would be a monster.

But what do the facts say? He is the Master, we are the servants. They have been commanded and the penalty for disobedience is death. The Israelites have all the authority to wipe out the enemy. Obeying a direct command from God to kill, is it a sin or not? It cannot be a sin because God held a trigger to your head to push that kill button. So did he or did he not ordered the Israelites to kill the enemy households? If you discover a pit of vipers in your backyard, do you kill all or do you kill the adults and spare the young? God has his reasons, is our job to second guess him?

And it is not only the Canaanites or the Amalakites.

Num 21:35 So they slew him, and all his sons, and all his people, until there was not one survivor left…
Num 31:17-18 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones…
Deu 2:33-34 …utterly destroyed every city, men, women and children, we left none remaining
Deu 3:6 utterly destroyed them, as we did to Sihon…destroying every city, men, women,and children
Deu 20:16 … you shall save alive nothing that breathes
Joshua 6:21-27 utterly destroyed all in the city, both men and women, young and old
Joshua 8:22-25 when Israel had finished slaughtering all the inhabitants of Ai…
Joshua 10:28 …destroyed every person in it, he left none remaining
Joshua 10;30 every person in it, he left none remaining in it
Joshua 10:32-33 every person in it

And there are more.

All the cities that God gave to the Israelites, met with the same fate.

How are you going to explain all these? Are they all fiction? The wiser approach is to admit these events happened under the direction of God and believe that God has a just solution for the innocents who were killed. Otherwise, heavy punishment awaits Moses and Joshua.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

I think that actually makes my analogy more trenchant, Peter.

The fact that the principal’s authority is neither absolute nor intrinsic…yet we can see how she can have authority to declare something, while also preventing an inferior from declaring this…proves my point.

We extrapolate this to God, who does indeed have absolute authority that is intrinsic to His Person, and we can see how there is no contradiction between God being able to take life, but never commanding the human person to do so.

 

[PRmerger]

That is your belief. If he wants it done, he has to do it himself. But he wouldn’t command his people to do that for him. He couldn’t, he shouldn’t , impossible. He would be a monster.

Indeed.

But what do the facts say? He is the Master, we are the servants. They have been commanded and the penalty for disobedience is death. The Israelites have all the authority to wipe out the enemy. Obeying a direct command from God to kill, is it a sin or not? It cannot be a sin because God held a trigger to your head to push that kill button. So did he or did he not ordered the Israelites to kill the enemy households? If you discover a pit of vipers in your backyard, do you kill all or do you kill the adults and spare the young? God has his reasons, is our job to second guess him?

This is the Muslim view of God, but not the Christian view.

And it is not only the Canaanites or the Amalakites.

Num 21:35 So they slew him, and all his sons, and all his people, until there was not one survivor left…
Num 31:17-18 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones…
Deu 2:33-34 …utterly destroyed every city, men, women and children, we left none remaining
Deu 3:6 utterly destroyed them, as we did to Sihon…destroying every city, men, women,and children
Deu 20:16 … you shall save alive nothing that breathes
Joshua 6:21-27 utterly destroyed all in the city, both men and women, young and old
Joshua 8:22-25 when Israel had finished slaughtering all the inhabitants of Ai…
Joshua 10:28 …destroyed every person in it, he left none remaining
Joshua 10;30 every person in it, he left none remaining in it
Joshua 10:32-33 every person in it

And there are more.

All the cities that God gave to the Israelites, met with the same fate.

How are you going to explain all these? Are they all fiction? The wiser approach is to admit these events happened under the direction of God and believe that God has a just solution for the innocents who were killed. Otherwise, heavy punishment awaits Moses and Joshua.

None of them are fiction. I am permitted to believe: all of them are metaphorical commands to slaughter.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

Yeah. And could you please affirm whether you are asserting that since the Amalekite babies have Original Sin (and are therefore not “innocent”) it’s perfectly moral to kill them?

Am I reading you correctly here:

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.

 

[petra22]

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!”

Now I get it… THAT’s why we have abortion!

 

[PRmerger]

Now I get it… THAT’s why we have abortion!

Egg-zactly.

It’s a horrifying door to open: “none of us is innocent and therefore we can kill and be killed”.

However, my (Catholic) assertion is: it’s NEVER moral to take the life of an innocent…(and here we do not consider Original Sin to be a stain on one’s innocence).

 

[petra22]

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.
QUOTE]

Yes and this. God’s ways are NOT our ways. And bringing up the crucifixion of his only son… powerful!!! We should not try to second guess God.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I think that actually makes my analogy more trenchant, Peter.

The fact that the principal’s authority is neither absolute nor intrinsic…yet we can see how she can have authority to declare something, while also preventing an inferior from declaring this…proves my point.

We extrapolate this to God, who does indeed have absolute authority that is intrinsic to His Person, and we can see how there is no contradiction between God being able to take life, but never commanding the human person to do so.

That depends entirely upon why God would choose to issue a command to a human person. what was the effect to be had by issuing the command to the human person or persons that would not otherwise occurred had the command not been issued.

Commanding Abraham to kill Isaac wasn’t merely a capricious “I wonder what Abraham would do if…” kind of conjecture on God’s part. Something important hung in the balance and Abraham’s actual (and not metaphorical) response was crucial.

What merely metaphorical lesson had to be learned by the Israelites that did not actually involve carrying out the command in order to learn the lesson or have the effect on them intended by God? This seems to be a kind of “You should do X, but not really do X. Just pretend to do it and we’ll call it lesson learned” pedagogy. Would God merely expect humans to refrain from evil, but tolerate its infectious spread into humanity if he has made the omniscient determination that the evil has reached a point of malignancy? It appears that what God is saying is that humans have a moral responsibility to stop evil, not merely refrain from doing it themselves. Just as with Abraham, this was a test of sorts.

The kind of evil present must have been systemic to the point that God’s command to the Israelites was warranted.