T
tonyrey
Guest
Indeed! This forum is not for the faint-hearted…
Struggling with The Tyrannical warrior God of the Old Testement
- Status
V
violet81
Guest
Della-
I don’t think I said that the Truth about God was not revealed in both the NT and OT. What I mean is that the OT is indirect and the NT is direct.
In the OT divorce was permitted and then Jesus forbids it. It is one instance where what was said in the OT was not a reflection of the mind of God but rather a reflection of humanities understanding of God.
All I am saying is that the OT must be interpreted with careful exegesis and the NT can be taken more literally.
I don’t think I said that the Truth about God was not revealed in both the NT and OT. What I mean is that the OT is indirect and the NT is direct.
In the OT divorce was permitted and then Jesus forbids it. It is one instance where what was said in the OT was not a reflection of the mind of God but rather a reflection of humanities understanding of God.
All I am saying is that the OT must be interpreted with careful exegesis and the NT can be taken more literally.
D
Della
Guest
Ah, I see. I agree, except I’d rather say that the NT is a little less obscure than the OT. As St. Peter told us, some of the writing of the NT (St. Paul’s in particular) are difficult for some to understand and some twist them to their own devices. So, we always need the Church to interpret Scripture whether it be the OT or the NT, yes?
D
Della
Guest
All true. Of course, this assumes the one asking the valid question actually wants a valid answer and not one that simply validates what he already wants to think/believe. When someone demonstrates that he is not willing to accept any answer except that which he already thinks/believes, then it is pointless to go on.
People don’t hold beliefs based solely on good argumentation or logic or proofs. They often hold them because believing what they believe makes it possible for them to remain in their comfort zone. So, sometimes a person has to be shaken out of that zone or at least be shown that that is what he is doing.
We’ve also seen many instances of people setting up strawmen or here just to destroy the faith of others (once again, not saying anyone in this thread is doing either of those things). Not everyone who asks a question has pure intentions or is willing to listen to even the most well-reasoned reply. We should assume goodwill of inquirers, of course, but when it is clear none is intended, then we are no longer obligated to play such games but can feel free to “shake the dust from our feet” and move on.
E
Ender
Guest
I suspect that many of our concerns about the Old Testament come from misconceptions - like the one in the OP.
The Books of the Old and New Testament provide us with the first and fundamental fact concerning the Lord’s mercy and forgiveness. In the Psalms and in the preaching of the Prophets, the name merciful is perhaps the one most often given to the Lord, in contrast to the persistent cliché whereby the God of the Old Testament is presented above all as severe and vengeful. (JPII, Reconciliatio et Paenitentia #29)
Ender
The Books of the Old and New Testament provide us with the first and fundamental fact concerning the Lord’s mercy and forgiveness. In the Psalms and in the preaching of the Prophets, the name merciful is perhaps the one most often given to the Lord, in contrast to the persistent cliché whereby the God of the Old Testament is presented above all as severe and vengeful. (JPII, Reconciliatio et Paenitentia #29)
Ender
T
tonyrey
Guest
Thank you for that quotation. Those words of saintly Pope John Paul should put an end for once and for all to the notion of a tyrannical warrior God…
J
jonfawkes
Guest
How does it end it? Because he said it?
T
tonyrey
Guest
Because it is the truth! Can you refute it?The onus is on you to explain why it is not true…
J
jonfawkes
Guest
YHWH is the one most used, over 6000 times, followed by Elohim which denotes might.
blueletterbible.org/study/misc/name_god.cfm
ldolphin.org/Names.html
bible.ca/trinity/trinity-definition-god-titles.htm
blueletterbible.org/study/misc/name_god.cfm
ldolphin.org/Names.html
bible.ca/trinity/trinity-definition-god-titles.htm
D
donsnow
Guest
“Why would God give us an intellect, if we were not to use it?”
In context, this means, ‘why not question God?’
Della has already answered that, and so have I, from a godly standpoint. There is no reason to give in to being tempted to question God beyond limits.
Yes, this is a Philosophy Forum to clarify our beliefs and to refute the arguments of
atheists. Reciting the Apostle’s Creed clarifies our beliefs, that doesn’t take pages of conceited arguments. Also, the first step to refuting an atheist’s arguments is to vigorously question them each time our faith is questioned, imho. And, at all times, proclaim the existence, love and salvation of our God in the face of the fiercest arguments, not give in to the scenario of two human egos contesting to see who dominates whom.
J
jonfawkes
Guest
Just declaring “God Loves Us” in the face of a difficult question seems to be the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and saying “na na na na I’m not listening” It doesn’t do anything to address the difficult question. If the questions aren’t addressed the faith seems hollow. A clay footed idol. It appears the faith is defenseless.
We started to discuss 1 Samuel 15:2-3 - see posts #108 and 109.
I don’t that the discussion is Atheist vsCatholic - but how are we to reconcile this version of God with a universal loving God.
T
tonyrey
Guest
I think that is a misinterpretation but he will no doubt clarify it. I think he means “We should examine the claims of those who criticise our beliefs and explain why their objections are baseless”.donsnow;7366529 [QUOTE said:
It is presumptuous to claim one’s own standpoint is godlier than that of another person.
What do you consider to be a “conceited argument”? To recite the Apostle’s Creed is to profess our beliefs, not clarify them.
Precisely. That entails a rational discussion.
How do you judge whether two egos are contesting to see who dominates whom or seeking to establish the truth?
J
jonfawkes
Guest
1 Thessalonians - Chapter 5
19 Do not stifle the Spirit 20 or despise the gift of prophecy with contempt; 21 test everything and hold on to what is good 22 and shun every form of evil.
You have the shunning part but not the testing part.
19 Do not stifle the Spirit 20 or despise the gift of prophecy with contempt; 21 test everything and hold on to what is good 22 and shun every form of evil.
You have the shunning part but not the testing part.
D
Della
Guest
It’s not that we cannot defend the Faith, several of us have in this thread, it is that answering such questions doesn’t mean it will satisfy the inquirer for reasons I have already stated in my most recent posts. Please go back and read them. I really don’t want to repeat myself.
This has been addressed in the thread, and quite well too.
The reason some of us are citing atheists’ claims is because the objections raised are straight out of the atheists’ “playbook” as seen on atheists’ websites dedicated to objections to the Faith.
As to “reconciling this version of God with a universal loving God”, we’ve already done this, too. I don’t think some of us here actually read the posts, I really don’t. Please go back over my posts and you’ll find I addressed this according to Church teaching.
J
jonfawkes
Guest
I have read the posts and your points as I understand them can be summarized thusly -It’s not that we cannot defend the Faith, several of us have in this thread, it is that answering such questions doesn’t mean it will satisfy the inquirer for reasons I have already stated in my most recent posts. Please go back and read them. I really don’t want to repeat myself.
This has been addressed in the thread, and quite well too.
The reason some of us are citing atheists’ claims is because the objections raised are straight out of the atheists’ “playbook” as seen on atheists’ websites dedicated to objections to the Faith.
As to “reconciling this version of God with a universal loving God”, we’ve already done this, too. I don’t think some of us here actually read the posts, I really don’t. Please go back over my posts and you’ll find I addressed this according to Church teaching.
God is just, Because he is Just everything God does is Just.
A circular argument, why it may be a valid statement of faith is not logical.
We are to believe that God is Just because the Bible says that He is Just. We are to believe the Bible because it is the inspired word of God.
Again self referential and circular.
We cannot judge the actions of God because we are not God. - which is the equivalent of saying “don’t question God”
If you don’t question you can’t bring understanding to the non-believer. It comes down to you must have faith to believe. Believing is faith. There can be no outside proof.
So what we have is the Bible as our reference. If faith is a prerequisite for understanding than it cannot be defended against Atheist attacks.
So I don’t see any of the points of posts 108 and 109 addressed. Why what seems to be a horrible tyrannical act is coherent with “turn the other cheek” of the N.T.
I can read 1 Samuel 15:2-3 - 2 This is what Yahweh Sabaoth says, "I intend to punish what Amalek did to Israel – laying a trap for him on the way as he was coming up from Egypt.
3 Now, go and crush Amalek; put him under the curse of destruction with all that he possesses. Do not spare him, but kill man and woman, babe and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." ’
If I take the view of the faithful “well God must know what he’s doing He’s God, right” from an outsider view the “facts” of the story don’t support the view of God in the NT. The sentiment of “he without sin cast the first stone.” One is retribution one is forgiveness and mercy.
So how do you defend this from the faithless, other than saying you have to have faith.
D
Della
Guest
I’m sorry but you haven’t read my posts if this what you are going to state as my answers. I clearly talked about the difference between the OT time of strict justice and the NT time of mercy poured out on all mankind. You have completely ignored anything that would answer the questions, including the post that outlined this passage of Scripture in detail (not one of mine).
Be honest here, no explanation will satisfy you, so you will have none unless it blends in with your personal ideas about how God ought to be and how he ought to act. This is not studying the Bible, it’s picking it apart to find fault. And we weren’t supposed to be answering the “faithless” here, but fellow Catholics. We have given ample explanation, but you are ignoring it. If that’s your choice, we can say nothing more nor need we do so. It’s up to you to accept the truth we’ve provided or not. It is apparent to me you don’t want to, so I am finished here.
J
jonfawkes
Guest
How am I to defend against atheists if my fellow Catholics can’t? Is the only answer “I believe in the inherent goodness of God and no evidence of the contrary will sway me.”
It’s not a defense of the faith -imo, just an ostrich sticking his head in the sand.
I come for answers not to be berated. Please read My post 109 and tell me where I’m off base.
T
tonyrey
Guest
You are already presuming that your fellow Catholics cannot!
If you are not prepared to accept** any **reasons you are given you are the one who is sticking his head in the sand. You seem to regard yourself as an authority on God when even the greatest theologians who have devoted their lives to the subject acknowledge that our finite minds can never fully comprehend the Supreme Source of all that exists…
T
TimothyH
Guest
Jesus was asked about this point-blank by the pharisees when they querried him on divorce under the mosaic law. Jesus’ response is not to debate the mosaic law nor to oppose it but to draw their attention to something different.
***He said in reply, "Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ (Matthew 19:4)
He said to them, "Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. (Matthew 19:8)***
In both statements Jesus draws our attention to the way it was “In the beginning”, before sin entered the world. Jesus calls us back to the purity and sinlessness of the way it was “In the beginning.”
John the Baptist testified to this when he said, “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.” If sins are truly taken away (gone, no more, nada, finito, zip, zilch) then all we have left is pure grace, all we have left is life the way Adam and Eve experienced it - in perfect communion with each other and with God “In the beginning.”
This call to that place of grace is a revelation which was not given to those under the mosaic law of the Old Testament. Jesus’ call back to the way it was “In the beginning” is his whole purpose. Enabling us to get there is his entire mission. If we get there, we will have fulfilled the entire Old Testament Mosaic law perfectly.
This is the beautiful teaching of John Paul II in his catechesis called “Theology of the Body”.
-Tim-
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
I’m sorry but this is precisely what you are saying. You are saying that one cannot rationally question the bible, and that philosophy has no place in understanding the ethical moral context of the old testament. You are demanding that we must read the old testament your way, and that no other way is acceptable.
But any reasonable person who doesn’t want to be apart of a cult that attempts to justify evil with the fear of God, will disagree with you, and they would be honest and cautious to do so; since there are things in the old testament that are evidently morally questionable, whether you like it or not. It is unlikely that any reasonable moral person would accept these things if it were not for the carrot stick of heaven waving in front of ones face and the fret of hell under their feet. This makes it appear that Catholics are willing to make moral concessions for the sake of heaven and the avoidance of hell; and certainly enough people will do and say unreasonable things if the fret or the prize is great enough. This is a psychological fact, and I can’t discount it when it comes to interpreting scripture… Just like the YEC’s push honest believers of science away from the faith, you are pushing people away from the faith by presenting everything said in the old testament as literal universal moral law sent by God alone.
If this is the truth, if I am expected to take everything in the old testament as literally true; then I must say that perhaps I am not Catholic. I accept the theory of evolution and I don’t accept the idea that all the morality of the old testament is universal divine moral law; and I honestly suspect that much of what is said of God is really what the human authors have put in Gods mouth according to their limited understanding, which is not sufficient for correct moral living today. They are stories designed to express their cultures understanding and relationship with God. When the new testament comes along we see the true faith as it really is in Jesus Christ, and this is the faith that the Pharisees didn’t like since they were expecting a different saviour. They wanted a General Warrior God, that was going to kill and slaughter their enemies. They were not expecting and neither did they want a gentle person of love healing people, telling people to share, and being pinned on to a cross. They cursed and spat at the true face of God. Shame on them.
Perhaps I am wrong but I don’t think I am being dishonest. I think you are being dishonest by pretending that there isn’t a problem that needs to be fixed. Stop insulting my intelligence.
- Status