Struggling with The Tyrannical warrior God of the Old Testement

[tonyrey]

Young man, I’ve been a Christian since 1954.

You’re calling me a young man and I’m probably older than you are. I’ve been a Catholic since before WW2!

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 share your concern but the best way to defend our faith against the onslaught on the Christian faith is to counter-attack and expose the absurdity of materialism and NeoDarwinism.

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.

Life is far from simple. If you believe philosophers complicate it unnecessarily then you should request that this forum be closed or not participate in the discussions.

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.

Jesus did not mince words when confronted with hypocrisy and injustice.

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.

We don’t love our enemies by ignoring their false claims and accusations…

 

[donsnow]

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?

Hi, jonfawkes,

Now, we’re getting somewhere, focused on one verse and asking questions about its explicit wording and the implications thereof.

First, about the children. Just because they’re children won’t exempt them, if their parents corrupted their childhood innocence. The death of the children are on the parents’ heads, not God’s. The verse refers to God having seen people made in His image turning from Him when they turn from that image in themselves and don’t love. And, starting at the breast of the mother, teach their children to hate. The whole slew of them were turned against their Creator and He didn’t have to put up with that.

Maybe, jonfawkes, there is no “no faith” explanation.
But, I’ll try.
We have to see this in the light of the perfect parent’s love for His children and for all His Creation. God does have favorites. It’s Ok to have favorites. It’s also good to love all the same.
Look at my wording. It’s love and hate; not reason. There was little reasoning in that tribe. It’s hard for us to perceive conditions then and to perceive the perfection of our Creator. Now, those of us who love God, see Him and His actions in the light of that love.
This indicates to me, that reason without love is as harmful as truth without love.
God is love. That tribe was without love and would not change to love other people. That tribe taught their children to not love.

The Israelites didn’t adopt them because people don’t adopt monsters. That tribe was a tribe of monsters and had made their children the same. People don’t have to adopt monsters.

Yessir, abortion is wrong. But your statement that killing the post natal children begs the other question, “Is there no difference between pre-natal abortion and post-natal abortion?”
Our laws and culture says there is. But, you’re looking at it as if the two types of abortion are the same.
And, that’s a reasonable way to look at it. And, it returns us to the life and death consideration of God the source of life and who is the resurrection can take life because He can give it back at the resurrection. How many of us can resurrect a life? None, that I know of. So, we should not take that which we cannot return. God can resurrect from the dead, so He may take and return life since that’s His nature: supernatural.

Now, back to post-natal abortion. The law and mores of our culture state we should see a difference between post and pre natal. When, in truth, it’s all the same life, pre or post natal. We are so used to viewing things through the lens of our education…do you see?

We have reason, law, rationality when in truth life is about love, faith and hope. Faith gives vistas of unseeable things. Love changes the way we look at God, people, animals and other such things. Hope follows faith and gives us strength and joy. Faith, hope and charity have changed the world from the Bronze Age to the Space Age. And, will continue to do so.

When we leave out love, it raises hard questions. There’s all kinds of love: Divine, parental, child’s love, brotherly and sisterly love, friendship love, sexual love, love of knowledge, etc. When we overlook love, we lie to ourselves.
Love is a big part of the truth.
And there are different kinds of it.
And, reason must follow faith, hope and love, and not subdue them.

It is in loving God, that many of us see Him as the perfect parent and not a monster.

 

[donsnow]

You’re calling me a young man and I’m probably older than you are. I’ve been a Catholic since before WW2!

I share your concern but the best way to defend our faith against the onslaught on the Christian faith is to counter-attack and expose the absurdity of materialism and NeoDarwinism.

Life is far from simple. If you believe philosophers complicate it unnecessarily then you should request that this forum be closed or not participate in the discussions.
Jesus did not mince words when confronted with hypocrisy and injustice.

We don’t love our enemies by ignoring their false claims and accusations…

Hi, tonyrey,

Thank you for your response.

Their is nothing in your public profile that indicates your seniority in Christ. So, go easy on blaming me for presuming my seniority to you.

I agree with the counter-attack and exposure.

I respectfully disagree; philosophers, educators and legislators all complicate the simplicity of life.
I say we should allow this forum to continue because we have to put up with education and legislators.

We love our enemies by correcting them with and in the truth. Those who do not accept correction are generally repelled by the firm stand on the faith and go away; thus we have protected the faith by driving away the attackers.

 

[jonfawkes]

Hi, jonfawkes,

Now, we’re getting somewhere, focused on one verse and asking questions about its explicit wording and the implications thereof.

First, about the children. Just because they’re children won’t exempt them, if their parents corrupted their childhood innocence. The death of the children are on the parents’ heads, not God’s. The verse refers to God having seen people made in His image turning from Him when they turn from that image in themselves and don’t love. And, starting at the breast of the mother, teach their children to hate. The whole slew of them were turned against their Creator and He didn’t have to put up with that.

Maybe, jonfawkes, there is no “no faith” explanation.
But, I’ll try.
We have to see this in the light of the perfect parent’s love for His children and for all His Creation. God does have favorites. It’s Ok to have favorites. It’s also good to love all the same.
Look at my wording. It’s love and hate; not reason. There was little reasoning in that tribe. It’s hard for us to perceive conditions then and to perceive the perfection of our Creator. Now, those of us who love God, see Him and His actions in the light of that love.
This indicates to me, that reason without love is as harmful as truth without love.
God is love. That tribe was without love and would not change to love other people. That tribe taught their children to not love.

The Israelites didn’t adopt them because people don’t adopt monsters. That tribe was a tribe of monsters and had made their children the same. People don’t have to adopt monsters.

Yessir, abortion is wrong. But your statement that killing the post natal children begs the other question, “Is there no difference between pre-natal abortion and post-natal abortion?”
Our laws and culture says there is. But, you’re looking at it as if the two types of abortion are the same.
And, that’s a reasonable way to look at it. And, it returns us to the life and death consideration of God the source of life and who is the resurrection can take life because He can give it back at the resurrection. How many of us can resurrect a life? None, that I know of. So, we should not take that which we cannot return. God can resurrect from the dead, so He may take and return life since that’s His nature: supernatural.

Now, back to post-natal abortion. The law and mores of our culture state we should see a difference between post and pre natal. When, in truth, it’s all the same life, pre or post natal. We are so used to viewing things through the lens of our education…do you see?

We have reason, law, rationality when in truth life is about love, faith and hope. Faith gives vistas of unseeable things. Love changes the way we look at God, people, animals and other such things. Hope follows faith and gives us strength and joy. Faith, hope and charity have changed the world from the Bronze Age to the Space Age. And, will continue to do so.

When we leave out love, it raises hard questions. There’s all kinds of love: Divine, parental, child’s love, brotherly and sisterly love, friendship love, sexual love, love of knowledge, etc. When we overlook love, we lie to ourselves.
Love is a big part of the truth.
And there are different kinds of it.
And, reason must follow faith, hope and love, and not subdue them.

It is in loving God, that many of us see Him as the perfect parent and not a monster.

It seems to quite a jump to condemn these children as monsters without any evidence of their corruption.

Matthew 19:14

but Jesus said, 'Let the little children alone, and do not stop them from coming to me; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of Heaven belongs.

Even if they were bad - You seem to be saying that it’s OK to kill bad children. We don’t as Catholic’s believe in the death penalty. Why here? It was by the Israelite’s hand just as the criminals die by the State’s hand.

John 8:7

7 As they persisted with their question, he straightened up and said, ‘Let the one among you who is guiltless be the first to throw a stone at her.’

The evidence for contradictions is there. I can get by the contradictions through faith but can’t explain them. I haven’t seen a satisfactory example and it does try my faith.

 

[tonyrey]

I agree with the counter-attack and exposure.

I respectfully disagree; philosophers, educators and legislators all complicate the simplicity of life.
I say we should allow this forum to continue because we have to put up with education and legislators.

“to put up with education” is hardly a compliment to Catholic priests, teachers and lecturers…

We love our enemies by correcting them with and in the truth. Those who do not accept correction are generally repelled by the firm stand on the faith and go away; thus we have protected the faith by driving away the attackers.

Surely counterattack, exposure and correction with the truth are the methods used by philosophers. Do you think St Augustine, St Thomas Aquinas, St Thomas More and more recent Catholic philosophers like Cardinal Newman, Jacques Maritain, Thomas Merton and Pope Benedict complicate the simplicity of life?

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

It seems to quite a jump to condemn these children as monsters without any evidence of their corruption.

Matthew 19:14

Even if they were bad - You seem to be saying that it’s OK to kill bad children. We don’t as Catholic’s believe in the death penalty. Why here? It was by the Israelite’s hand just as the criminals die by the State’s hand.

John 8:7

The evidence for contradictions is there. I can get by the contradictions through faith but can’t explain them. I haven’t seen a satisfactory example and it does try my faith.

Is it OK if I interject here for a second?
Catholic Teaching and Philosophy is for the most part Staunchly Anti-Death Penalty; but it is NOT a “non-negotiable issue” and subject to “immediate excommunication” like Abortion and Gay Marriage.

I know many Catholics who are personally for the Death Penalty under certain circumstances (Capital Treason and Child Murder, for example) and they are still allowed to be part of the Church; of course one wishes they would accept fully the Church’s Stand----but it is NOT (again) a “non-negotiable” issue and accepted by EVERYBODY like you seem imply.

As far as I KNOW, of course. If I have misspoken about Church Doctrine then someobody by ALL means correct me.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Hi, jonfawkes,

Now, we’re getting somewhere, focused on one verse and asking questions about its explicit wording and the implications thereof.

First, about the children. Just because they’re children won’t exempt them, if their parents corrupted their childhood innocence. The death of the children are on the parents’ heads, not God’s. The verse refers to God having seen people made in His image turning from Him when they turn from that image in themselves and don’t love. And, starting at the breast of the mother, teach their children to hate. The whole slew of them were turned against their Creator and He didn’t have to put up with that.

Maybe, jonfawkes, there is no “no faith” explanation.
But, I’ll try.
We have to see this in the light of the perfect parent’s love for His children and for all His Creation. God does have favorites. It’s Ok to have favorites. It’s also good to love all the same.
Look at my wording. It’s love and hate; not reason. There was little reasoning in that tribe. It’s hard for us to perceive conditions then and to perceive the perfection of our Creator. Now, those of us who love God, see Him and His actions in the light of that love.
This indicates to me, that reason without love is as harmful as truth without love.
God is love. That tribe was without love and would not change to love other people. That tribe taught their children to not love.

The Israelites didn’t adopt them because people don’t adopt monsters. That tribe was a tribe of monsters and had made their children the same. People don’t have to adopt monsters.

Yessir, abortion is wrong. But your statement that killing the post natal children begs the other question, “Is there no difference between pre-natal abortion and post-natal abortion?”
Our laws and culture says there is. But, you’re looking at it as if the two types of abortion are the same.
And, that’s a reasonable way to look at it. And, it returns us to the life and death consideration of God the source of life and who is the resurrection can take life because He can give it back at the resurrection. How many of us can resurrect a life? None, that I know of. So, we should not take that which we cannot return. God can resurrect from the dead, so He may take and return life since that’s His nature: supernatural.

Now, back to post-natal abortion. The law and mores of our culture state we should see a difference between post and pre natal. When, in truth, it’s all the same life, pre or post natal. We are so used to viewing things through the lens of our education…do you see?

We have reason, law, rationality when in truth life is about love, faith and hope. Faith gives vistas of unseeable things. Love changes the way we look at God, people, animals and other such things. Hope follows faith and gives us strength and joy. Faith, hope and charity have changed the world from the Bronze Age to the Space Age. And, will continue to do so.

When we leave out love, it raises hard questions. There’s all kinds of love: Divine, parental, child’s love, brotherly and sisterly love, friendship love, sexual love, love of knowledge, etc. When we overlook love, we lie to ourselves.
Love is a big part of the truth.
And there are different kinds of it.
And, reason must follow faith, hope and love, and not subdue them.

It is in loving God, that many of us see Him as the perfect parent and not a monster.

I personally don’t think that your explanation about the Children Being Killed By Saul at God’s Command is quite acceptable to me—but that is ME, nobody else.
This hearkens back to my earlier post in the thread regarding Elias and the Mocking Children.

Personally, I console myself in understanding that I do not have to accept evrything in the OT literally and unconditionally. I leave that to Fundamentalist Protestants like John Hagee and Perry Stone.

Good thread so far, though.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

“to put up with education” is hardly a compliment to Catholic priests, teachers and lecturers…
Surely counterattack, exposure and correction with the truth are the methods used by philosophers. Do you think St Augustine, St Thomas Aquinas, St Thomas More and more recent Catholic philosophers like Cardinal Newman, Jacques Maritain, Thomas Merton and Pope Benedict complicate the simplicity of life?

Good Point, TonyRey.

If anything, Church Doctors like Augustine, Aquinas and other Saints and Blessed People enrich this life with their individual truths.

Particularly since (as in the case of Augustine and Aquinas) they were the ones that helped formulate many Basic Doctrines and Opinions for the Church.

 

[donsnow]

It seems to quite a jump to condemn these children as monsters without any evidence of their corruption.

Let me give you some history which has occurred during my life.

Even if they were bad - You seem to be saying that it’s OK to kill bad children. We don’t as Catholic’s believe in the death penalty. Why here? It was by the Israelite’s hand just as the criminals die by the State’s hand.

No, I’m not saying that. I’m saying that sometimes, as I have shown in recent history and in our time, people need protection from viciously aggressive children.

John 8:7

The evidence for contradictions is there. I can get by the contradictions through faith but can’t explain them. I haven’t seen a satisfactory example and it does try my faith.

When we consider Jesus’ words, “Cast not your pearls before swine, lest they turn and rend you.”, in my mind, that explains a lot of contradiction.

It’s to have alleviated the raising of such children, that our Jesus came and died on the cross, trusting in the resurrection and in His Heavenly Father to resurrect Him. It’s not God’s fault, that parents send their tots, adolescents and teenagers into combat. It’s not God’s fault, if our troops have to kill them in self-defense.
We civilian Christians can stand and quietly accept death and become martyrs. Our troops have a different duty. To accomplish that duty, they do not die quietly, but die fighting.

[/QUOTE]

 

[donsnow]

“to put up with education” is hardly a compliment to Catholic priests, teachers and lecturers…

Well, the progressive, atheist and socialist teachings in college and in public schools all the way down to grade school, which mocks and/or forbids the mention of, God is certainly no compliment to education.
And, since that shoe doesn’t fit our Catholic priests, teachers and lecturers, for the most part, then they are exempted from my comment. Unless, of course, that shoe does fit different individual Catholics, too.

Surely counterattack, exposure and correction with the truth are the methods used by philosophers. Do you think St Augustine, St Thomas Aquinas, St Thomas More and more recent Catholic philosophers like Cardinal Newman, Jacques Maritain, Thomas Merton and Pope Benedict complicate the simplicity of life?

No. I have yet to complete reading the English translation to St. Augustine’s The City of God. Nor do I have the English translation tomes of the other scholars you mentioned. The thing is, those tomes were written for the other people who could read in those days; which often did not include the common people.
I’m a common person. I socialize with other common people. There are levels of life where the living of it becomes quite simple. What I like about Jesus, He spoke to common people. That may be why highly educated people miss what He’s says. He wasn’t speaking to them, but to us commoners in His sermons on the mount and on the plain. It’s the progressive interpreters of those scriptures who sometimes complicate the simplicity of His words.

 

[donsnow]

I personally don’t think that your explanation about the Children Being Killed By Saul at God’s Command is quite acceptable to me—but that is ME, nobody else.
This hearkens back to my earlier post in the thread regarding Elias and the Mocking Children.

Personally, I console myself in understanding that I do not have to accept evrything in the OT literally and unconditionally. I leave that to Fundamentalist Protestants like John Hagee and Perry Stone.

Good thread so far, though.

Before I converted to Cathoicism, I was a primitive Southern Baptist. Now, I consider myself a conservative Catholic.

All that I can add, would be that total war includes the children. And, God’s kingdom is under a total war attack by Satanic forces.
I would like to reinforce what I mentioned in an earlier post of today. Unless a professor or student has been in combat, they are not in a position to judge what happens in combat, imho.

 

[jonfawkes]

jonfawkes;7370964:

It seems to quite a jump to condemn these children as monsters without any evidence of their corruption.

Let me give you some history which has occurred during my life.

All well and good but it says kill infants, How can an Infant be a combatant?

 

[davidv]

donsnow;7374418:

All well and good but it says kill infants, How can an Infant be a combatant?

What is your solution? Kill the parents and leave the infant to die of starvation or exposure?

 

[jonfawkes]

Adopt them.

 

[tonyrey]

I personally don’t think that your explanation about the Children Being Killed By Saul at God’s Command is quite acceptable to me—but that is ME, nobody else.
This hearkens back to my earlier post in the thread regarding Elias and the Mocking Children.

Personally, I console myself in understanding that I do not have to accept everything in the OT literally and unconditionally. I leave that to Fundamentalist Protestants like John Hagee and Perry Stone.

Good thread so far, though.

You can also console yourself with the thought that not all explanations of events in the Old Testament are doctrines of the Church. The acid test is whether they are consistent with the teaching of Jesus that God is a loving Father.

 

[tonyrey]

Well, the progressive, atheist and socialist teachings in college and in public schools all the way down to grade school, which mocks and/or forbids the mention of, God is certainly no compliment to education.
And, since that shoe doesn’t fit our Catholic priests, teachers and lecturers, for the most part, then they are exempted from my comment. Unless, of course, that shoe does fit different individual Catholics, too.

 

[donsnow]

donsnow;7374418:

All well and good but it says kill infants, How can an Infant be a combatant?

Thank you, for understanding my point.

And, your question is plain and sensible.

In those days, there were not alternative recovery programs not places of education. What a parent made of a child, starting in the womb where babies hear and feel what’s going on around them, the parent shaped the infant to it’s social environment. With no escape from that social, bronze age, godless environment until the monotheistic Hebrews came along.
So, infants predictably grew up like their parents.
You won’t like what I’m going to say. But, imho, God was stamping out future generations of that tribe. And, He has the right to do that.

 

[donsnow]

Adopt them.

To have adopted them would have been disobeying the God who had proved Himself able to handle that brutal bronze age world.

 

[jonfawkes]

So it’s ok to kill non Christians?!? That’s what you are saying.

 

[donsnow]

donsnow;7374472:

If you had specified secular education your statement wouldn’t have raised eyebrows!
Jesus was speaking to everyone. It is a mistake to think that all - or even most - highly educated people miss what He says. By pondering on His words we reach a deeper understanding of them. The doctrines of the Church have developed precisely because lay men and women as well as the clergy have dedicated their lives to exegesis - which is the initial objective of Biblical study - and the investigation of the philosophical, ethical and social implications of the teaching of our Lord.

You are underestimating the complexity of life in modern society with all the issues raised by scientific and technological progress. Simple answers are few and far between for people faced with moral problems which didn’t exist in the past - as the recent instruction by the Pope regarding contraception indicates. There are levels of life where the living of it has become far from simple and we are failing in our duty as Catholics if we ignore the difficulties of others. One of the main goals of this forum is to discuss subjects which are not discussed in a Christian context elsewhere…

tonyrey,

All that you state here is true. But, it does not change the situation that life for some of the people in my neighborhood is fairly simple.

I’d like to point out, that, to my understanding of the Gospel, Jesus was plain and spoke simply when He rebuked the scribes and Pharisees, who were, along with the rabbis, the educated people in that Jewish society.

I think that the early Church fathers’ attempt to reach educated pagans of their respective times, and there were some, met the complications of those pagans’ doubt. And, we lost some of Jesus’ simplicity, imho.