Struggling with The Tyrannical warrior God of the Old Testement

[Windfish]

So, MindOverMatter2, have you read all of the stuff I have posted and linked to? Thoughts?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

So, MindOverMatter2, have you read all of the stuff I have posted and linked to? Thoughts?

No sorry. But I will certainly read it and get back to you.

 

[Windfish]

Well, let me come Della’s defense, here. There really is no basis for us to judge God - He simply has different moral rights than we do. He has the right to end life because He is the author of life. We also have to be humble because we do not have His knowledge. In this case, though, we have some background. The Canaanites were being judged, just like Sodom and Gomorrah, for their extreme depravity. EDIT: This is not to say that whatever God does is good simply by virtue of the fact that he does it. That is not what I am implying. For example, it would be wrong to damn someone for no sufficient reason. But as far as this case is concerned, He does have moral rights that we don’t. And if you think about it, He is responsible for every death that was and will be.

But, MoM2, who is expecting you to take the Old Testament “literally?” Who is expecting you to take the morality of the OT as sufficient today? I think you are arguing against a Phantasm and ignoring everything what others, including myself, have contributed to this thread.

What are you thoughts on Joe’s and Feser’s analysis? Did you get around to reading the link I posted to the Christian Think Tank?

 

[jonfawkes]

How about just one part of 1 Samuel 15: 3 - can we discuss a defense of this one verse.

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.

What is the justification of killing children? (babe and suckling) - simply saying God is just to a non-believer goes nowhere. “Your God is a monster - No he’s just, No he’s a monster etc” To believe He is just requires faith something they lack.

So what is a non faith based explanation - one explanation is that they would have been defenseless orphans, left to starve. (post 108)

Why is that the only option, couldn’t the Israelites have adopted them?

The declaration that quick death is more desirable is the same justification for abortion. Who’s going to take care of this child if the mother doesn’t want to.

So, we know abortion is wrong, it is infanticide but here we have a case of God ordered infanticide. How is this squared without faith?

 

[Windfish]

How about just one part of 1 Samuel 15: 3 - can we discuss a defense of this one verse.

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.

What is the justification of killing children? (babe and suckling) - simply saying God is just to a non-believer goes nowhere. “Your God is a monster - No he’s just, No he’s a monster etc” To believe He is just requires faith something they lack.

So what is a non faith based explanation - one explanation is that they would have been defenseless orphans, left to starve. (post 108)

Why is that the only option, couldn’t the Israelites have adopted them?

The declaration that quick death is more desirable is the same justification for abortion. Who’s going to take care of this child if the mother doesn’t want to.

So, we know abortion is wrong, it is infanticide but here we have a case of God ordered infanticide. How is this squared without faith?

There are all kinds of ways to read that, and some of them I have approached in my previous post. In one of the links I posted, it describes how that verse is using Jewish idioms and other idiosyncratic language so that the verse typifies the usual hyperbolic language of the Jews. Another example would be when Jesus says, “If you do not hate your family, even your own life, you cannot be disciple.” He is using hyperbolic language.

But, since I have not researched this topic more closely, it could very well be literal, and this is where a more nuanced lens is required. As I and others have said, God is working with the people of Israel, who are culturally no different than other barbaric nomads at the time. Read Joe’s comments on this (I posted his thoughts earlier).

There are all kinds of ways to interpret this absent a more authoritative Catholic rendering.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Well, let me come Della’s defense, here. There really is no basis for us to judge God - He simply has different moral rights than we do. He has the right to end life because He is the author of life. We also have to be humble because we do not have His knowledge. In this case, though, we have some background. The Canaanites were being judged, just like Sodom and Gomorrah, for their extreme depravity. EDIT: This is not to say that whatever God does is good simply by virtue of the fact that he does it. That is not what I am implying. For example, it would be wrong to damn someone for no sufficient reason. But as far as this case is concerned, He does have moral rights that we don’t. And if you think about it, He is responsible for every death that was and will be.

Firstly; there is no basis to judge God assuming that It is God that we are literally talking and not somebodies idea of what God would do or say. It is said that God created the world in seven days, but I cannot take that as literally true, and although I believe in Adam and Eve, the fall, original sin, and Eden, I do not take the story or depiction of Adam and Eve literally. For example, I don’t believe that there was really a physical tree of knowledge which represented good and evil and that the fall happened because eve ate something from the tree! That to me is ridiculous, and completely misses the point of the story. Therefore, in my eyes, God is unlikely to have said any of the things that God is depicted to have said in that story. Does that mean the bible is false? No, that is not what I am arguing. Is there error in the bible? Well that depends on what you mean by error and the context in which you make the charge. Does this challenge the infallibility of the bible? That again depends on the context, the nature of scripture, what scripture is trying to achieve in the first place. Do I believe that Della’s interpretation of the old testament is morally wrong? Yes I do.

I have not questioned Gods right to take life; not once. I don’t think this has ever been the question and it certainly isn’t a moral problem to me. Although Jesus speaks of Sodom and Gomorrah I cannot be certain that the destruction of the two cities was literal historical fact; although I must point out that the destruction of the cities were in a manner that is different from what is said to have happened to the Canaanites. Also, if I am not mistaken, I remember reading somewhere that not all the Canaanite’s were destroyed, and thus the story cannot possibly be taken as historical fact.

What are you thoughts on Joe’s and Feser’s analysis? Did you get around to reading the link I posted to the Christian Think Tank?

I have not; but for the sake of being humble and honest I will try not to make another post on the matter until I do.

 

[jonfawkes]

It’s not hyperbolic - God get’s angry at Saul when he doesn’t kill the King and saves some livestock.

8 He took Agag king of the Amalekites alive and, executing the curse of destruction, put all the people to the sword.

9 But Saul and the army spared Agag with the best of the sheep and cattle, the fatlings and lambs and all that was good. They did not want to consign these to the curse of destruction; they consigned only what was poor and worthless.

10 The word of Yahweh came to Samuel,

11 ‘I regret having made Saul king, since he has broken his allegiance to me and not carried out my orders.’ Samuel was appalled and cried to Yahweh all night long.

Samuel chastises Saul -

18 When Yahweh sent you on a mission he said to you, “Go and put those sinners, the Amalekites, under the curse of destruction and make war on them until they are exterminated.”

19 Why then did you not obey Yahweh’s voice? Why did you fall on the booty and do what is wrong in Yahweh’s eyes?’

Again YHWH’s displeasure is expressed

35 Samuel did not see Saul again till his dying day. Samuel indeed mourned over Saul, but Yahweh regretted having made Saul king of Israel.

 

[Windfish]

Firstly; there is no basis to judge God assuming that It is God that we are literally talking and not somebodies idea of what God would do or say. It is said that God created the world in seven days, but I cannot take that as literally true, and although I believe in Adam and Eve, the fall, original sin, and Eden, I do not take the story or depiction of Adam and Eve literally. For example, I don’t believe that there was really a physical tree of knowledge which represented good and evil and that the fall happened because eve ate something from the tree! That to me is ridiculous, and completely misses the point of the story. Therefore, in my eyes, God is unlikely to have said any of the things that God is depicted to have said in that story. Does that mean the bible is false? No, that is not what I am arguing. Is there error in the bible? Well that depends on what you mean by error and the context in which you make the charge. Does this challenge the infallibility of the bible? That again depends on the context, the nature of scripture, what scripture is trying to achieve in the first place. Do I believe that Della’s interpretation of the old testament is morally wrong? Yes I do.

So far, so good. I think this is, in fact, Catholic teaching to a “T.”

I have not questioned Gods right to take life; not once. I don’t think this has ever been the question and it certainly isn’t a moral problem to me. Although Jesus speaks of Sodom and Gomorrah I cannot be certain that the destruction of the two cities was literal historical fact; although I must point out that the destruction of the cities were in a manner that is different from what is said to have happened to the Canaanites. Also, if I am not mistaken, I remember reading somewhere that not all the Canaanite’s were destroyed, and thus the story cannot possibly be taken as historical fact.

I remember reading that Sodom and Gomorrah were discovered recently, and they uncovered evidence [of what they think] is a high temperatures from a meteorite impact that destroyed the cities. I will withhold judgement until I read more.

You are also right that not all Canaanites were destroyed, and this definitely factors into our interpretation. I recommend reading some of the links I posted for further info.

Perhaps I am just reading into your post, but I don’t see the cause of your distress. If anything, what is distressing is the prospect of how HUGE this topic is - how many considerations are involved: 1) the cultural/historical context of the time 2) the intents of the author 3) the grammatical-historical aspect 4) the moral and theological arc from the Old to the New Testament (i.e., the people of God being prepared for the new Moses, and the new Law from Jesus and the maturing understanding of God) 4) the anthropomorphisms in the OT 5) Sacred Tradition 6) the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. So you are will within Catholic orthodoxy, my friend.

 

[tonyrey]

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 God’s mouth according to their limited understanding, which is not sufficient for correct moral living today. **They are stories designed to express their culture’s 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.

Precisely! (my emphasis)

 

[tonyrey]

It’s not hyperbolic - God get’s angry at Saul when he doesn’t kill the King and saves some livestock.

8 He took Agag king of the Amalekites alive and, executing the curse of destruction, put all the people to the sword.

9 But Saul and the army spared Agag with the best of the sheep and cattle, the fatlings and lambs and all that was good. They did not want to consign these to the curse of destruction; they consigned only what was poor and worthless.

10 The word of Yahweh came to Samuel,

11 ‘I regret having made Saul king, since he has broken his allegiance to me and not carried out my orders.’ Samuel was appalled and cried to Yahweh all night long.

Samuel chastises Saul -

18 When Yahweh sent you on a mission he said to you, “Go and put those sinners, the Amalekites, under the curse of destruction and make war on them until they are exterminated.”

19 Why then did you not obey Yahweh’s voice? Why did you fall on the booty and do what is wrong in Yahweh’s eyes?’

Again YHWH’s displeasure is expressed

35 Samuel did not see Saul again till his dying day. Samuel indeed mourned over Saul, but Yahweh regretted having made Saul king of Israel.

To interpret the Old Testament literally is to reject Christianity…

 

[jonfawkes]

To interpret the Old Testament literally is to reject Christianity…

How you come to that conclusion? The CCC states

123 Christians venerate the Old Testament as true Word of God. The Church has always vigorously opposed the idea of rejecting the Old Testament under the pretext that the New has rendered it void (Marcionism).

 

[tonyrey]

  			[

](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7369643#post7369643)

 

[jonfawkes]

jonfawkes;7369879:

You are equating “interpret literally” with “reject” - which is clearly a mistake, disproved by the fact that Christianity was heralded in the Old Testament. Jesus came to fulfil the Law not destroy it.

It also states

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71

122 Indeed, "the economy of the Old Testament was deliberately so oriented that it should prepare for and declare in prophecy the coming of Christ, redeemer of all men."93 "Even though they contain matters imperfect and provisional,"94 the books of the Old Testament bear witness to the whole divine pedagogy of God’s saving love: these writings "are a storehouse of sublime teaching on God and of sound wisdom on human life, as well as a wonderful treasury of prayers; in them, too, the mystery of our salvation is present in a hidden way."95

So we are to keep in mind Christ but I don’t see anything about literal being a rejection.

How do you come to that conclusion?

 

[tonyrey]

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71

122 Indeed, "the economy of the Old Testament was deliberately so oriented that it should prepare for and declare in prophecy the coming of Christ, redeemer of all men."93 "Even though they contain matters imperfect and provisional,"94 the books of the Old Testament bear witness to the whole divine pedagogy of God’s saving love: these writings "are a storehouse of sublime teaching on God and of sound wisdom on human life, as well as a wonderful treasury of prayers; in them, too, the mystery of our salvation is present in a hidden way."95

So we are to keep in mind Christ but I don’t see anything about literal being a rejection.

How do you come to that conclusion?

“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)

This is a clear rejection by the Pope of the** literal **interpretation of God in some parts of the Old Testament as a Tyrannical Warrior.

 

[jonfawkes]

“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)

This is a clear rejection by the Pope of the** literal **interpretation of God in some parts of the Old Testament as a Tyrannical Warrior.

No, it’s a incorrect statement by the Pope - I thought we already covered this. YHWH followed by ELOHIM are the names most given for God.

 

[tonyrey]

No, it’s a incorrect statement by the Pope - I thought we already covered this. YHWH followed by ELOHIM are the names most given for God.

The Church has also accepted evolution - which means that Genesis should not be interpreted literally. Do you think that is incorrect as well?

 

[donsnow]

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.

Look, I know the difference of an atheist asking why I believe something and of one looking for a fight. I met a man, once, and he wanted to know why I believed the way I did. From time to time, he would ask me a question or a few questions. I would explain my faith the best I could. Each time, after I in person answered this atheist, we would move the conversation on to other topics. This man has become a close and beloved friend of mine and I his good friend. We respect each other’s freedom of choice in our private lives. He knows where I stand and I know where he stands. We don’t condemn each other.
Very few of the atheists which come to this board evidence a sincere desire to learn why we believe the way we do, but rather nit pick at our faith. which is looking for a fight.

Our faith is not defenseless. However, when sound answers to difficult answers are provided, and an atheist, or somebody influenced by atheists, keeps asking the same question, then that person is putting his fingers in his ears and going, “Why? Why? Why?” Which response serves as an hostile act in a debate, whether the atheist knows he’s doing an hostile act, or not.

 

[donsnow]

a rational discussion

.
How do you judge whether two egos are contesting to see who dominates whom or seeking to establish the truth?

Hi, tonyrey,

Thank you for your response.

Young man, I’ve been a Christian since 1954. I have heard most of the atheists’ questions and experienced their tactics. It was like our colleges were producing an unending stream of clones asking the same questions and ignoring the reasoned answers, over and over. Now, the atheists are influencing our children all the way through the public school system down to elementary schools. What I see is an attack on the Christian faith at all levels and in all places of our society. So, in truth, what you see as a philosophical debate between different individuals looks to me like a process which has been shredding our society since the 1960’s.

I didn’t and don’t claim that my position is more godlier than another’s. Nor do I presume, your opinion to the contrary notwithstanding, when I observe that there are godly and ungodly people (with no degree of godliness mentioned) in this world. Virginity, faith and godliness all have in common that there are no degrees of those conditions. You are not a little bit virgin nor mostly virgin. You’re either a virgin or you’re not. Likewise, faith cannot compromise or it’s not faithful. As well, you’re either plainly godly or ungodly.
You see, the light of Christ goes into a gray area and casts plain shadows or plain light, plain dark and light, all the gray reduced in the light; you see, there are absolutes in life; and those absolutes are to do with God and His kingdom and His people.
Unfortunately, many Christians are misled away from that plain and simple truth.
Life is simple. Philosophers complicate it.

A conceited argument lacks the word of God.
When you recite the Apostles’ Creed each day, it begins to clarify our faith, after awhile.

I am suspicious of rational discussions as containing rationalizations rather than reason.

When one or both persons in that argument resort to belittling the other’s statements, would be a good clue.

tonyrey, I’ve been in the battle of good vs evil, which is life on this planet, and out of it. I tried staying out of it and consequently at that time caught it from both sides. I had to choose sides. I chose and choose Jesus Christ in the Holy Roman Catholic Church as the side I’m on. I have a military mind. I am still learning to love our enemies, even when that enemy is unconscious that he’s enemical to Jesus Christ.
That’s where I am at, in all these discussions.

 

[donsnow]

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.

I’m still working on “…love your enemy…”. It’s difficult to focus on all the scripture at the same time.
I have tested God. And found Him faithful, true and loving.

As I age, the shunning becomes more and more natural.

Thank you, jonfawkes, for sharing that scripture.

 

[jonfawkes]

Look, I know the difference of an atheist asking why I believe something and of one looking for a fight. I met a man, once, and he wanted to know why I believed the way I did. From time to time, he would ask me a question or a few questions. I would explain my faith the best I could. Each time, after I in person answered this atheist, we would move the conversation on to other topics. This man has become a close and beloved friend of mine and I his good friend. We respect each other’s freedom of choice in our private lives. He knows where I stand and I know where he stands. We don’t condemn each other.
Very few of the atheists which come to this board evidence a sincere desire to learn why we believe the way we do, but rather nit pick at our faith. which is looking for a fight.

Our faith is not defenseless. However, when sound answers to difficult answers are provided, and an atheist, or somebody influenced by atheists, keeps asking the same question, then that person is putting his fingers in his ears and going, “Why? Why? Why?” Which response serves as an hostile act in a debate, whether the atheist knows he’s doing an hostile act, or not.

So what about this -

How about just one part of 1 Samuel 15: 3 - can we discuss a defense of this one verse.

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.

What is the justification of killing children? (babe and suckling) - simply saying God is just to a non-believer goes nowhere. “Your God is a monster - No he’s just, No he’s a monster etc” To believe He is just requires faith something they lack.

So what is a non faith based explanation - one explanation is that they would have been defenseless orphans, left to starve. (post 108)

Why is that the only option, couldn’t the Israelites have adopted them?

The declaration that quick death is more desirable is the same justification for abortion. Who’s going to take care of this child if the mother doesn’t want to.

So, we know abortion is wrong, it is infanticide but here we have a case of God ordered infanticide. How is this squared without faith?

I can simply say that though my faith I believe God is infinitely good so any action by God is good. I understand the faith based answer. That is fine for someone willing to accept my faith. But someone who isn’t who wants a rationalization. “why should I believe you”

164 Now, however, “we walk by faith, not by sight”;49 we perceive God as “in a mirror, dimly” and only “in part”.50 Even though enlightened by him in whom it believes, faith is often lived in darkness and can be put to the test. The world we live in often seems very far from the one promised us by faith. Our experiences of evil and suffering, injustice and death, seem to contradict the Good News; they can shake our faith and become a temptation against it.

166 Faith is a personal act - the free response of the human person to the initiative of God who reveals himself. But faith is not an isolated act. No one can believe alone, just as no one can live alone. You have not given yourself faith as you have not given yourself life. The believer has received faith from others and should hand it on to others. Our love for Jesus and for our neighbor impels us to speak to others about our faith. Each believer is thus a link in the great chain of believers. I cannot believe without being carried by the faith of others, and by my faith I help support others in the faith.

So by saying you have to believe God is good to see God is good, doesn’t get me anywhere, with those that don’t believe.