Steve Ray-Amalekites 1-26-15

[clem456]

cont’d:

2312 The Church and human reason both assert the **permanent validity **of the moral law (as knowable and fully revealed in Christ) during armed conflict. "The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties."109

2313 Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely.

Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out. Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide.

because

Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul.
(and)
not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature

 

[Gorgias]

Transcript of Pope Benedict’s Regensburg spoken address, which differs slightly from the prepared text:
zenit.org/en/articles/pap…-of-regensburg

You realize, of course, that in this quote, he’s talking about *violent conversion * and not about violence… right?

Therefore, this quote isn’t relevant to our discussion here…

 

[clem456]

You realize, of course, that in this quote, he’s talking about *violent conversion * and not about violence… right?

Therefore, this quote isn’t relevant to our discussion here…

The words speak for themselves, and I notice you have never directly addressed them or any other church document, so who falls into irrelevance here?

Benedict’s address concerns the reasonability of God. His Logos. The exact context of violence is not the focus of his talk. In fact I believe he makes that point. Your statement above demonstrates one of the following:

1.You never really read the address (then you shouldn’t comment on it til you do)
2.You did actually read it but your comprehension and/or reading skills are lacking.
or
3. You do understand and simply post with bad will.

I hope it is case 1 or 2, and not 3.
In any case, the material isn’t posted to elicit your response.
I posted these passages from the Cattholic Catechism, Benedict’s Verbum Domini, Fr Barron, Benedict’s Regensburg address, word for word, with links, without opinion, for the benefit of those who come here to read a Catholic perspective.

Your assertion they are irrelevant is laughable and demonstrates a pathetic lack of understanding for a Catholic who would like his opinion to be taken seriously.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The words speak for themselves, and I notice you have never directly addressed them or any other church document, so who falls into irrelevance here?

Benedict’s address concerns the reasonability of God. His Logos. The exact context of violence is not the focus of his talk. In fact I believe he makes that point. Your statement above demonstrates one of the following:

1.You never really read the address (then you shouldn’t comment on it til you do)
2.You did actually read it but your comprehension and/or reading skills are lacking.
or
3. You do understand and simply post with bad will.

I hope it is case 1 or 2, and not 3.
In any case, the material isn’t posted to elicit your response.
I posted these passages from the Cattholic Catechism, Benedict’s Verbum Domini, Fr Barron, Benedict’s Regensburg address, word for word, with links, without opinion, for the benefit of those who come here to read a Catholic perspective.

Your assertion they are irrelevant is laughable and demonstrates a pathetic lack of understanding for a Catholic who would like his opinion to be taken seriously.

Your link (Post 271) to the Regensburg address ends in 404 Page Not Found error.

Try zenit.org/en/articles/papal-address-at-university-of-regensburg

 

[Robyn_p]

What makes an act “intrinsically evil” is that there exists no end, situation or motive which could possibly permit it.

An act could be intrinsically evil as far as human beings are concerned because no human motive, end or circumstance could permit it. However, there may exist for God ends/motives/circumstances which would permit God to carry out the act, even if it were not permitted to human beings. The two cases are NOT ceteris parabus.

I agree. God can do things humans cannot.

All goods are relative to the final end Good, Goodness Itself. For human beings, lesser goods are ordered towards higher goods. The evil of losing one good for the sake of a greater good makes the loss not evil, in itself. Only losing the final or greatest good would make something intrinsically evil. Only loss of God would be an intrinsically evil outcome. If the final Good (God) commands an outcome, then it seems odd to claim such a command itself is intrinsically evil. If God (Intrinsic Goodness Itself) commanded an outcome, that outcome could not have been intrinsically evil, but only relatively so from a human perspective.

I am in agreement here.

For killing an innocent being to be absolutely and intrinsically evil, the loss of life would have to entail depriving that innocent of what was absolutely and intrinsically the highest good. That would mean existence as a human being on earth would have to be the highest good for human beings above all other goods.

I can’t agree with this. By this reasoning I could see someone saying that killing a baby immediately after baptism is a positively good thing, since they are assured entrance into heaven. This is wrong and exactly why I am struggling with a literalistic reading. Unless I am completely misunderstanding you, it leads to some conclusions I am just not comfortable with.

It’s true that all goods are relative to the ultimate Good, (God) and something is intrinsically evil when it deprives us of the ultimate Good. But we can’t judge an act based on whether it deprives the victim of the ultimate Good. That doesn’t make sense because strictly speaking, nothing I do can make someone lose that. Rather, we have to ask if an action causes the perpetrator to lose the ultimate Good. I believe that killing an innocent does just that, but obviously this is where we differ.

That is not, however, what Christian theology or morality would claim, since it is permissible to sacrifice one’s life for the sake of another person or higher good.

Sacrificing our own life is qualitatively different than taking another’s by force though.

Human temporal existence is not the highest good, although for one human to take a human life might make it intrinsically evil as far as human beings are concerned.

Exactly my point. For one human being to take the life of another is intrinsically evil. This is why I say God can’t have commanded it.

If, however, God has in mind a higher good for those innocents who died, and can ensure that good, then their death (deprivation of a lesser good) would not be intrinsically evil. And if the death of some was just and warranted, then, they could not have been innocent and the outcome was merited.

Either way, we, sitting where we are, thousands of years removed from the story and without access to God’s omniscience nor omnibenevolent judgement would have to know with certainty that those who were killed or supposed to have been did not merit being killed or suffered intrinsic evil by losing their final and highest good unjustly in order for the command of God to have been intrinsically evil. Not to forget that for the act to have been intrinsically evil in any final sense, that would mean their absolute good must equate to their human temporal existence and no higher good even possible.

Again though, the eternal fate of the victim is not relevant when considering whether something is intrinsically immoral for us to do or not. Maybe by stealing someone’s only possession, I cause them to learn to completely rely on God and thus lead them to Heaven. But that doesn’t change the fact that stealing is still immoral.

This is good for arguing whether God is just to take a life or not, but I’m not disputing that. I’m talking about whether the act of killing an innocent is intrinsically immoral for us humans. If it is, then God can’t have commanded it.

We might be at an impasse though I suppose. Both of us agree that God can’t command intrinsic evil. Seems where we differ is for me this means that God didn’t literally command this, where you seem to believe this means killing innocents is not intrinsically evil. Which I just can’t bring myself to say.

 

[clem456]

Your link (Post 271) to the Regensburg address ends in 404 Page Not Found error.

Try zenit.org/en/articles/papal-address-at-university-of-regensburg

Post 240 has the live link.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=12726085&highlight=zenit#post12726085
This is why I pasted extracts from the speech in every post that references it, for the convenience of readers


From what you read, maybe you can comment on Benedict’s observations on the relationship between God’s revealed Logos and his nature.
I have not seen anyone quote and disagree with specific thoughts, so I assume his thoughts are respected here. That’s cause for an “AMEN”.

 

[clem456]

We might be at an impasse though I suppose. Both of us agree that God can’t command intrinsic evil. Seems where we differ is for me this means that God didn’t literally command this, where you seem to believe this means killing innocents is not intrinsically evil. Which I just can’t bring myself to say.

Praise be to God for your witness to His reason.
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a1.htm

I. THE NATURAL MORAL LAW
…
The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin . . . But this command of human reason would not have the force of law if it were not the voice and interpreter of a higher reason (See Benedict’s Regensburg Address) to which our spirit and our freedom must be submitted.5
…
1955 The “divine and natural” law6 shows man the way to follow so as to practice the good and attain his end. The natural law states the first and essential precepts which govern the moral life. It hinges upon the desire for God and submission to him, who is the **source and judge **of all that is good, as well as upon the sense that the other is one’s equal. Its principal precepts are expressed in the Decalogue. This law is called “natural,” not in reference to the nature of irrational beings, but because reason which decrees it properly belongs to human nature:

Where then are these rules written, if not in the book of that light we call the truth? In it is written every just law; from it the law passes into the heart of the man who does justice, not that it migrates into it, but that it places its imprint on it, like a seal on a ring that passes onto wax, without leaving the ring.7 The natural law is nothing other than the light of understanding placed in us by God; through it we know what we must do and what we must avoid. God has given this light or law at the creation.8
1956 The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties:

For there is a true law: right reason. It is in conformity with nature, is diffused among all men, and is immutable and eternal; its orders summon to duty; its prohibitions turn away from offense . . . . To replace it with a contrary law is a sacrilege; failure to apply even one of its provisions is forbidden; no one can abrogate it entirely.9

1957 Application of the natural law varies greatly; it can demand reflection that takes account of various conditions of life according to places, times, and circumstances. Nevertheless, **in the diversity of cultures, the natural law remains as a rule that binds men **among themselves and imposes on them, beyond the inevitable differences, common principles.

1958 The natural law is immutable and permanent throughout the variations of history;10 it subsists under the flux of ideas and customs and supports their progress. The rules that express it remain substantially valid. Even when it is rejected in its very principles, it cannot be destroyed or removed from the heart of man. It always rises again in the life of individuals and societies:

1959 The natural law, the Creator’s very good work, provides the solid foundation on which man can build the structure of moral rules to guide his choices. It also provides the indispensable moral foundation for building the human community.
…

1960 The precepts of natural law are not perceived by everyone clearly and immediately. In the present situation sinful man needs grace and revelation so moral and religious truths may be known "by everyone with facility, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error."12 The natural law provides revealed law and grace with a foundation **prepared by God **and in accordance with the work of the Spirit.

 

[Gorgias]

The words speak for themselves

That’s my point.

Benedict’s address concerns the reasonability of God. His Logos. The exact context of violence is not the focus of his talk.

Yet, the context of the violence is the focus of the quotation you provided here. That’s why I addressed it; at best, it’s only tangential to our discussion, and not in any way that helps move the conversation forward.

1.You never really read the address (then you shouldn’t comment on it til you do)…

Your assertion they are irrelevant is laughable and demonstrates a pathetic lack of understanding for a Catholic who would like his opinion to be taken seriously.

Let me make sure I understand what you’re saying: you post a quote from the Regensburg address, in which Benedict is discussing violent, forcible conversion to Islam. I respond that this is off-topic… and then you castigate me for me lack of reading skills. Riiiight…

I posted these passages from the Cattholic Catechism, Benedict’s Verbum Domini, Fr Barron, Benedict’s Regensburg address, word for word, with links, without opinion, for the benefit of those who come here to read a Catholic perspective.

True enough. You post them, however, in the defense of your assertions; and they don’t work terribly well in defending them, unless you read them very narrowly and in the absence of context.

 

[Peter_Plato]

For one human being to take the life of another is intrinsically evil. This is why I say God can’t have commanded it.

This is the point on which the entire thread hangs.

True, it is intrinsically evil for one human being to take the life of another without just cause.

It is NOT, however, intrinsically evil for God to take the life of a human being for a just reason – a reason warranted by omniscience and omnibenevolence to which humans may or may not be privy.

If God DID actually command one human being to take the life of another, then the presumption is that God would, necessarily, have had just reasons for commanding such an act.

Therefore, it is not intrinsically evil for one human being to take the life of another when and if God commanded such an act, since that would implicitly mean God did have just or warranted reasons for having issued such a command.

The difficult question is whether God, morally speaking, could have issued such a command without also divulging his reasons for having issued such a command and whether the humans beings involved would be morally culpable in some way if they did not have access to those justifying reasons but carried out the act anyway.

It wouldn’t be moral, for example, to kill another human and then justify the killing, after the fact, by discovering the victim was about to murder another. Human intention/motive would be key to determining culpability.

Would God have to divulge those reasons in order for the human beings carrying the command to be justified in doing so, or would the fact that it was God who issued the command – and the humans knew that for certain – be sufficient to exonerate them? How would they have that degree of certainty? How would God have made them certain in a manner that would make them innocent of any moral culpability?

There are instances in the OT where God orders an angelic being to kill humans or destroy cities. Is it simply wrong and morally so for angels to do God’s bidding, especially where innocents were involved? Were those angelic beings morally culpable? Why would they be?

Does the moral law take precedence over a determination of God? Why would it?

The problem for us, more so than for God, is that we weren’t there. We do not know what exactly transpired – all the morally relevant details – that would have allowed God to issue the command and, at the same time, make it a justifiable act as far as the moral law is concerned.

This is not to say anyone who has a vague inclination or dream in the night to kill another is justified in doing so. That is clearly ridiculous. Neither would purported commands in a religious creed make killing others morally licit. We are talking about direct, indisputable and certain intervention by God that could simply not be misconstrued nor subject to erroneous interpretation.

Yes, I get that some claim God would never do such a thing nor issue such a command. The problem is these OT passages seem precisely cases of God having done so. It would be begging the question to say God couldn’t have done so BECAUSE God just wouldn’t have.

IFF God did do so, then I can see no way that human beings – lacking omniscience, omnipotent and omnibenevolence – could possibly say it was wrong for the omniscient,
omnibenelovent and omnipotent God to have done so. We would have no moral leg to stand on.

The problem is that this isn’t fabricated by individuals looking at the OT passages to justify similar behaviour today, it is in the text itself. This is what God apparently commanded, as written in the very books which claim to be divinely inspired.

Sure we could question whether God did actually issue the commands – that is a different question, altogether. We may even impugn the motives of any person who would deign to suggest that God would do so. The question still to be faced, though, is whether God could do so for justifiable reasons.

We cannot say that God, if he issued the commands, was clearly wrong in having done done so, if it turned out that he, in fact, did.

If he issued them, the commands would have to be morally just ones, by definition, since God is the author and creator of all that exists – including the moral law, which derives from the nature of moral beings as created by God.

 

[Robyn_p]

This is the point on which the entire thread hangs.

True, it is intrinsically evil for one human being to take the life of another without just cause.

It is NOT, however, intrinsically evil for God to take the life of a human being for a just reason – a reason warranted by omniscience and omnibenevolence to which humans may or may not be privy.

If God DID actually command one human being to take the life of another, then the presumption is that God would, necessarily, have had just reasons for commanding such an act.

Therefore, it is not intrinsically evil for one human being to take the life of another when and if God commanded such an act, since that would implicitly mean God did have just or warranted reasons for having issued such a command.

The difficult question is whether God, morally speaking, could have issued such a command without also divulging his reasons for having issued such a command and whether the humans beings involved would be morally culpable in some way if they did not have access to those justifying reasons but carried out the act anyway.

It wouldn’t be moral, for example, to kill another human and then justify the killing, after the fact, by discovering the victim was about to murder another. Human intention/motive would be key to determining culpability.

Would God have to divulge those reasons in order for the human beings carrying the command to be justified in doing so, or would the fact that it was God who issued the command – and the humans knew that for certain – be sufficient to exonerate them? How would they have that degree of certainty? How would God have made them certain in a manner that would make them innocent of any moral culpability?

There are instances in the OT where God orders an angelic being to kill humans or destroy cities. Is it simply wrong and morally so for angels to do God’s bidding, especially where innocents were involved? Were those angelic beings morally culpable? Why would they be?

Does the moral law take precedence over a determination of God? Why would it?

The problem for us, more so than for God, is that we weren’t there. We do not know what exactly transpired – all the morally relevant details – that would have allowed God to issue the command and, at the same time, make it a justifiable act as far as the moral law is concerned.

This is not to say anyone who has a vague inclination or dream in the night to kill another is justified in doing so. That is clearly ridiculous. Neither would purported commands in a religious creed make killing others morally licit. We are talking about direct, indisputable and certain intervention by God that could simply not be misconstrued nor subject to erroneous interpretation.

Yes, I get that some claim God would never do such a thing nor issue such a command. The problem is these OT passages seem precisely cases of God having done so. It would be begging the question to say God couldn’t have done so BECAUSE God just wouldn’t have.

IFF God did do so, then I can see no way that human beings – lacking omniscience, omnipotent and omnibenevolence – could possibly say it was wrong for the omniscient,
omnibenelovent and omnipotent God to have done so. We would have no moral leg to stand on.

The problem is that this isn’t fabricated by individuals looking at the OT passages to justify similar behaviour today, it is in the text itself. This is what God apparently commanded, as written in the very books which claim to be divinely inspired.

Sure we could question whether God did actually issue the commands – that is a different question, altogether. We may even impugn the motives of any person who would deign to suggest that God would do so. The question still to be faced, though, is whether God could do so for justifiable reasons.

We cannot say that God, if he issued the commands, was clearly wrong in having done done so, if it turned out that he, in fact, did.

If he issued them, the commands would have to be morally just ones, by definition, since God is the author and creator of all that exists – including the moral law, which derives from the nature of moral beings as created by God.

I understand what you are saying. And I do agree that if God DID in fact command this, I can’t really say He was in the wrong. He’s God, I’m not.

I’m still not convinced He actually did, it doesn’t fit with everything else we know, but like you said, that’s a different question. I think that the fact that it is morally wrong for us humans to kill would prevent God from commanding us to do it, if only not to cause us to think killing innocents can be a good thing. But I guess this is something we just won’t know the full answer to this side of Heaven.

 

[fred_conty]

Robyn P, you said,

I think that the fact that it is morally wrong for us humans to kill would prevent God from commanding us to do it, if only not to cause us to think killing innocents can be a good thing.

But even if it was only a metaphorical thought, it still would do this…“cause us to think killing innocents can be a good thing.”

May God bless and keep you. May God’s face shine on you. May God be kind to you and give you peace.

 

[Robyn_p]

Robyn P, you said,

But even if it was only a metaphorical thought, it still would do this…“cause us to think killing innocents can be a good thing.”

Not really. Not anymore than Jesus telling us to “hate our father and mother” would cause us to think that literally hating others is a good thing.

 

[Gorgias]

Not really. Not anymore than Jesus telling us to “hate our father and mother” would cause us to think that literally hating others is a good thing.

Apples and oranges, I think. You’re conflating archaic definitions of words with metaphorical uses of words.

The better example might be “call no man Father” – and this one does cause confusion among certain denominations of Christians.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Not really. Not anymore than Jesus telling us to “hate our father and mother” would cause us to think that literally hating others is a good thing.

There is nothing in the accounts that can lead us to believe killing innocents was a good thing – a necessary thing, a God-ordained thing, perhaps, but no where are we led to believe it was a “good” thing.

The crucifixion was NOT a “good” thing in this same respect. An innocent – the most innocent – was crucified and from that came the “Good News.” No where is there a claim that the suffering and death of the man Jesus was, in itself, a “good” thing, although it was the best thing in terms of what came about as a result.

 

[fred_conty]

Not really. Not anymore than Jesus telling us to “hate our father and mother” would cause us to think that literally hating others is a good thing.

To say God did it, or to say God did it metaphorically…doesn’t it come to the same thing?

It would seem to me that God is teaching us something either way, whether said in a methophor or done historically.

The problem for some people,is that God directed MAN to do genocide which is against man’s nature and is an intrinsic evil in itself.

I don’t have an answer for this…yet. But to me it dosen’t ease the situation by saying it was some sort of metaphor.

I know there is an answer, but not the metaphor idea…because wrong is wrong whether in thought or act.

May God our Father bless you and give you grace and peace.

 

[Robyn_p]

Apples and oranges, I think. You’re conflating archaic definitions of words with metaphorical uses of words.

The better example might be “call no man Father” – and this one does cause confusion among certain denominations of Christians.

Yeah, you’re right, not really the same thing I guess. That was just the first example which popped in my head.

 

[Robyn_p]

To say God did it, or to say God did it metaphorically…doesn’t it come to the same thing?

It would seem to me that God is teaching us something either way, whether said in a methophor or done historically.

The problem for some people,is that God directed MAN to do genocide which is against man’s nature and is an intrinsic evil in itself.

I don’t have an answer for this…yet. But to me it dosen’t ease the situation by saying it was some sort of metaphor.

I know there is an answer, but not the metaphor idea…because wrong is wrong whether in thought or act.

May God our Father bless you and give you grace and peace.

I don’t see why using a metaphor would be just as wrong as actually killing though. If I say to someone “knock 'em dead out there” I’m not literally telling them to make their opponents die. It’s just a figure of speech. What I’m really saying is play your best and win.

I think you may be confusing metaphorical language with symbolic language. They are close to each other, but not exactly the same. A symbol stands for something else. A metaphor is just used to illustrate a point and isn’t meant to be taken literally.

So yes, to symbolically kill someone or to command someone to do that would be wrong, and really wouldn’t be much better than actually doing it. (except, well, nobody dies) But if the command is metaphorical (i.e. a figure of speech that actually means something else) I can’t see what would be wrong with it.

 

[fred_conty]

I don’t see why using a metaphor would be just as wrong as actually killing though. If I say to someone “knock 'em dead out there” I’m not literally telling them to make their opponents die. It’s just a figure of speech. What I’m really saying is play your best and win.

I think you may be confusing metaphorical language with symbolic language. They are close to each other, but not exactly the same. A symbol stands for something else. A metaphor is just used to illustrate a point and isn’t meant to be taken literally.

So yes, to symbolically kill someone or to command someone to do that would be wrong, and really wouldn’t be much better than actually doing it. (except, well, nobody dies) But if the command is metaphorical (i.e. a figure of speech that actually means something else) I can’t see what would be wrong with it.

Yes, I see what you are saying.

May our Good Shepherd fill you with his peace.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, there are numerous possibilities here, eric.

God may have given the command, but it was a command to remove all traces of sinful pagan life within the tribe. And Moses and Joshua understood it this way. And the inspired author interpreted it differently.

God may have given the command, but it was a command to remove all traces of pagan life within the tribe. And Moses and Joshua understood it this way. And the inspired author limned this metaphorical slaughter in the text.

God may have given the command, but it was a command to remove all traces of sinful pagan life within the tribe. And Moses and Joshua understood it incorrectly. And the inspired author wrote about their incorrect enactment of their understanding.

God may have given the command, but it was a command to remove all traces of sinful pagan life within the tribe. And Moses and Joshua understood it this way. And the inspired author interpreted it differently.

So, folks, I just happened to be listening to a debate between Catholic apologist extraordinaire, Trent Horn, and an atheist.

Listen here, around 1:11 into the debate:

youtube.com/watch?v=RQADiuyPV80

So this puts me in good company with Jimmy Akin, Fr. Barron, and also Trent Horn: “[the command to slaughter] may have been an exaggeration”. “The commands to kill are exaggerations”. “Epic narration”.

And, I add, Trent says that there are “many OT scholars” who also assert this.

So that’s Jimmy Akin, Fr. Barron, Trent Horn, numerous OT scholars who argue that there may be a metaphorical/figurative/exxagerative property to the story of the slaughter of the Amalekites.