Struggling with The Tyrannical warrior God of the Old Testement

[donsnow]

That would be all the more reason to “remove” him. (By the way, the tactics to declare something a “strawman” when there is no adequate answer available does not lend you credence, or elicits respect.)

Well, Spock,

The tactic to parry an appropriate answer and disclaim it is not credible nor respectable, either.

See my post to Mind Over Matter2, and you may recognize the disparity between your and my viewpoints.

What I see is a communications gap between atheists and Christians, which I tried to bridge in a charitable manner. Yet, all I get is the usual, run into the ground, used over and over type of reply that smacks of arrogance and total rejection of an honest effort to communicate.

Nevertheless,
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
Don

 

[Spock]

The tactic to parry an appropriate answer and disclaim it is not credible nor respectable, either.

Maybe you could explain how your answer was appropriate. Let’s go back to square one.

I said that curtailing the power of the devil is akin to remove the power of a drug-pusher to corrupt the kids (say, teenagers), who are easy to mislead. You said that the power of the devil is much higher than the power of a pusher. To which I respond, this makes the removal of power of the devil all the more proper and desirable. And you called this argument a strawman.

See my post to Mind Over Matter2, and you may recognize the disparity between your and my viewpoints.

I did. You said: “I keep my reason as a handmaiden to faith, not my faith as a friend to reason. That difference gives me a different perspective, than yours.” Luther said the same. He also said that “reason must be trampled underfoot”. No wonder there is a communication gap here. As a matter of fact, the gap in an abyss, which cannot be bridged. Which is too bad.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you, too.

 

[Sonny69]

It seems that many Christians tend to blindly accept the apparent tyrannical warrior aspects of God in the old testament as literal and try to defend it as acceptable, or they simply ignore the passages of the bible that present a problem. I have grown tiered of defending certain aspects of the bible that appear to me impossible to defend morally. This is a subject I have been struggling with. The last thing I want to do is end up being a heretic, but, as a response to my growing difficulties with the old testament, I have taken up a developmental understanding of scripture rather than a literal one, while trying to preserve the understanding that scripture is the word of God. For those Christians and sympathetic atheists who have been struggling with this issue, I have found a very interesting catholic link that blends well with my developmental understanding of scripture.

magisreasonfaith.org/ask%20fr%20spitzer/ask-fr-spitzer-how-do-i-reconcile-an-all-powerful-creator-with-the-god-of-the-judeo-christian-bible/.

I would not say that this is a complete answer to the problem, as I think it is more complex than Father spritzer makes out, but I would say that this is going in the right direction to an honest understanding of scripture that doesn’t attempt to insult ones intelligence.

You will create even more questions than answers by making up you own way to interpret Scripture. The answer to you problem is quite obvious to the discriminating “Christian”. First, you do not understand the infinite value of God compared to the “creatures”; hint it is infinite. Finally you do not understand the problem with sin and just how bad it is, but the fact that one sin comdemns one to eternal hell should give you a clue as to the value of Jesus Christ and the offense that sin really is as most will find out, especially among those professing themselves to be Christian while living like the devil.

May God bless you in your search for the truth, the way and the life. S69

 

[tonyrey]

Finally you do not understand the problem with sin and just how bad it is, but the fact that one sin comdemns one to eternal hell should give you a clue as to the value of Jesus Christ and the offense that sin really is as most will find out, especially among those professing themselves to be Christian while living like the devil.

What is the one sin that condemns one to eternal hell? What is the evidence for this belief?

 

[donsnow]

Maybe you could explain how your answer was appropriate. Let’s go back to square one.

I said that curtailing the power of the devil is akin to remove the power of a drug-pusher to corrupt the kids (say, teenagers), who are easy to mislead. You said that the power of the devil is much higher than the power of a pusher. To which I respond, this makes the removal of power of the devil all the more proper and desirable. And you called this argument a strawman.

I think that my answer was appropriate because it was not accusative, nor in a spirit of accusation. Satan’s office is that of the accuser of God’s people to God, as well as Prince of this Earth. Desiring to avoid a likeness to Satan, I try to avoid accusing people.

Well, comparing Satan to as drug dealer does have the one consistency of comparing one creature to another. God will remove Satan’s power in His own good time and that is prophesied…

I did. You said: “I keep my reason as a handmaiden to faith, not my faith as a friend to reason. That difference gives me a different perspective, than yours.” Luther said the same. He also said that “reason must be trampled underfoot”. No wonder there is a communication gap here. As a matter of fact, the gap in an abyss, which cannot be bridged. Which is too bad.

Well, I didn’t know that Luther had said that, or the other, either. However, I do not trample reason underfoot. I try to keep it under faith, hope and charity. Because, I think the old saying “There can be too much of a good thing” applies to reason as well as to any tangible thing.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you, too.

Thank you.

 

[Spock]

I think that my answer was appropriate because it was not accusative, nor in a spirit of accusation. Satan’s office is that of the accuser of God’s people to God, as well as Prince of this Earth. Desiring to avoid a likeness to Satan, I try to avoid accusing people.

There was nothing accusatory in what I said.

Well, comparing Satan to as drug dealer does have the one consistency of comparing one creature to another. God will remove Satan’s power in His own good time and that is prophesied…

One evil being to another, even if there is a difference in degree, but not in kind. If it is proper to remove the pusher from the streets as soon as possible, what can justify the delay in Satan’s case? That is my question. You say that “eventually” it will happen. Why not now? Even better, why did God even create Satan if he knew that Satan will turn evil?

 

[donsnow]

There was nothing accusatory in what I said.

Didn’t mean to say you did, I was referring to myself.

I also forgot to mention, Satan accuses God to everybody, including God’s people.
Spock;7400637:

One evil being to another, even if there is a difference in degree, but not in kind. If it is proper to remove the pusher from the streets as soon as possible

, what can justify the delay in Satan’s case?

With Satan’s rebellion, came evil into Heaven; and with the casting of Satan and his rebel angels down to Earth, came evil to Earth. That gave the people on Earth the genuine choice between good and evil. So, not until all those through the ages to be saved have been saved as the ages roll by, will Satan and his followers be cast into the pit. That’s my understanding.

That is my question. You say that “eventually” it will happen. Why not now?

To repeat my answer to your repeated question, so that all may brought into the Kingdom of God, having chosen good over evil, through the ages.

Even better, why did God even create Satan if he knew that Satan will turn evil?

This is a crucial question. I wish I knew more of Church teaching on this. I can only say, so that people will have genuine freedom of choice between good and evil.

I’m sorry if my answers fail you, but, that’s all that there is, imho.

 

[Sonny69]

What is the one sin that condemns one to eternal hell? What is the evidence for this belief?

Hi TonyRey

Any spec of rebellion against God is a sin and we are all guilty of numerous. Have any kids? Do you need to teach them to do good or does it just come naturally? Why do we need government and laws? Why do we need prisions? There is enough evidence right there. But the Father, Son and Holy Spirit have all revealed to us His revelation through His word and His creation. HIs word says we are all sinners and His word explains to us the problem and the solution.

God bless you. S69

 

[Spock]

With Satan’s rebellion, came evil into Heaven; and with the casting of Satan and his rebel angels down to Earth, came evil to Earth. That gave the people on Earth the genuine choice between good and evil. So, not until all those through the ages to be saved have been saved as the ages roll by, will Satan and his followers be cast into the pit. That’s my understanding.

To repeat my answer to your repeated question, so that all may brought into the Kingdom of God, having chosen good over evil, through the ages.

I see your point. My question is about the “genuine” choice. As far as I am concerned the genuine choice boils down to one thing: “does someone love and worship God or not?”. The negative answer does not have to manifest itself in “actively evil actions”, a simple indifference is sufficient.

Once I read that God’s stance is: “if you are not with me, you are against me”. I don’t recall where I read it, but I do recall that the Communists had the very same attitude, and only decades later did they change it to: “If you are not against us, you are with us”.

This is a crucial question. I wish I knew more of Church teaching on this. I can only say, so that people will have genuine freedom of choice between good and evil.

I’m sorry if my answers fail you, but, that’s all that there is, imho.

Your answer has one shining quality: it is honest, without beating around the bush. The honest “I don’t know” is always acceptable. In my opinion the Church does not address many important issues. Of course, the Church’s opinion is irrelevant for the non-Catholics, but it still would be nice to see some “official opinion”.

 

[davidv]

I see your point. My question is about the “genuine” choice. As far as I am concerned the genuine choice boils down to one thing: “does someone love and worship God or not?”. The negative answer does not have to manifest itself in “actively evil actions”, a simple indifference is sufficient.

And many a Catholic Saint has proclaimed this, uncaring not hate, the true opposite of love.

Once I read that God’s stance is: “if you are not with me, you are against me”. I don’t recall where I read it, but I do recall that the Communists had the very same attitude, and only decades later did they change it to: “If you are not against us, you are with us”.

Your answer has one shining quality: it is honest, without beating around the bush. The honest “I don’t know” is always acceptable. In my opinion the Church does not address many important issues. Of course, the Church’s opinion is irrelevant for the non-Catholics, but it still would be nice to see some “official opinion”.

 

[donsnow]

I see your point. My question is about the “genuine” choice. As far as I am concerned the genuine choice boils down to one thing: “does someone love and worship God or not?”. The negative answer does not have to manifest itself in “actively evil actions”, a simple indifference is sufficient.

Well, indifference can cover a lot of things. Indifference to God’s personal love for you; indifferent to God’s love for people; indifferent to God’s love for all His creatures; indifferent to a person’s love for you; indifferent to a hungry soul asking you for a handout; indifferent to abuses of different kinds (abuse to our USofA Constitution…abuse of children…abuse of elders…sexual abuse…abuse of the system…etc.)
When you think about it, indifference offers a great big door for sin to enter a soul.
I presume, that’s why a simple indifference is sufficient.

Once I read that God’s stance is: “if you are not with me, you are against me”. I don’t recall where I read it, but I do recall that the Communists had the very same attitude, and only decades later did they change it to: “If you are not against us, you are with us”.

I can’t remember that from scriptures. I think that the tacit message of the Holy Bible from God to people is, “either you love me or you don’t”, and, that from the well of pure love which is God.

Your answer has one shining quality: it is honest, without beating around the bush. The honest “I don’t know” is always acceptable. In my opinion the Church does not address many important issues. Of course, the Church’s opinion is irrelevant for the non-Catholics, but it still would be nice to see some “official opinion”.

Thank you. I am trying to learn the Church’s teachings. I agree, that the documents appear to take a whole bunch of words to explain things.

Spock, I have tried to give you the answers which satisfy me in my faith pilgrimage in the Holy Roman Catholic Church. I’m sorry if they don’t satisfy you. Thank you, for your thoughtful consideration of my position.

 

[tonyrey]

What is the one sin that condemns one to eternal hell? What is the evidence for this belief?

When people sin very few deliberately rebel against God. Even believers are not always aware that they are sinning. In this secular society there is less to remind us that we are always in His Presence. We tend to be so absorbed in our own affairs that it is only later we realise we have been ungrateful and unworthy of His love. We are all sinners but to make a premeditated decision to reject our Creator must be a very rare occurrence. No one chooses hell without full knowledge of its implications. Yet there is such diabolical evil in this world that we cannot rule out the possibility that some individuals do prefer to be like gods and enjoy absolute independence.

 

[Spock]

Well, indifference can cover a lot of things. Indifference to God’s personal love for you; indifferent to God’s love for people; indifferent to God’s love for all His creatures; indifferent to a person’s love for you; indifferent to a hungry soul asking you for a handout;

I agree, so far.

indifferent to abuses of different kinds (abuse to our USofA Constitution…abuse of children…abuse of elders…sexual abuse…abuse of the system…etc.)

Here you say about something more than indifference, you talk about active malevolence.

When you think about it, indifference offers a great big door for sin to enter a soul.

If I considered “sin” and “soul” as valid categories, I would agree with you.

But let’s not forget about the starting point. According to Catholicism, the most important decision is to love and worship God or not. The “not” part could be indifference or active hostility. My point is that as long as there is freedom to made that decision freely, all is well, and the freedom is sufficient. There is no need to have “more freedom”, for example to be able to commit other evil acts.

Spock, I have tried to give you the answers which satisfy me in my faith pilgrimage in the Holy Roman Catholic Church. I’m sorry if they don’t satisfy you. Thank you, for your thoughtful consideration of my position.

I appreciate your thougts and efforts. It is not your fault that we cannot agree.

 

[donsnow]

I agree, so far.

Here you say about something more than indifference, you talk about active malevolence.

If I considered “sin” and “soul” as valid categories, I would agree with you.

But let’s not forget about the starting point. According to Catholicism, the most important decision is to love and worship God or not. The “not” part could be indifference or active hostility. My point is that as long as there is freedom to made that decision freely, all is well, and the freedom is sufficient. There is no need to have “more freedom”, for example to be able to commit other evil acts.

I appreciate your thougts and efforts. It is not your fault that we cannot agree.

On the active malevolence, there are people indifferent to it. I could go into depth, but I think you can see that indifference to active malevolence is wrong.

Yes, and a lot follows from the decision to love God or not. I think if I loved God more, I could defend HIm better. Love changes our viewpoint about others.
I do agree, that that freedom of choice remains essential; personally, I think that freedom of choice has a lot to do with free will. And, surprising myself, yesterday at the store, I agreed with a Muslim that there can be too much freedom; where liberty becomes license or libertine. The old saw, there’s such a thing as too much of a good thing sure still applies in so many different instances.

Thank you, again, for not blaming me. I just care about people.

 

[Spock]

On the active malevolence, there are people indifferent to it. I could go into depth, but I think you can see that indifference to active malevolence is wrong.

Of course I agree with this. Indifference in this case can be described as tacit agreement.

Yes, and a lot follows from the decision to love God or not. I think if I loved God more, I could defend HIm better. Love changes our viewpoint about others.
I do agree, that that freedom of choice remains essential; personally, I think that freedom of choice has a lot to do with free will. And, surprising myself, yesterday at the store, I agreed with a Muslim that there can be too much freedom; where liberty becomes license or libertine. The old saw, there’s such a thing as too much of a good thing sure still applies in so many different instances.

Uh-oh! You are pre-empting the next topic I am about to start - soon. Not quite yet, since the amount of posts starts to be overwhelming. But it will come.

 

[donsnow]

Of course I agree with this. Indifference in this case can be described as tacit agreement.

Uh-oh! You are pre-empting the next topic I am about to start - soon. Not quite yet, since the amount of posts starts to be overwhelming. But it will come.

I’ve enjoyed our discussion. May we each have benefited from it.

God loves you,
Don

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

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.

True indeed, TonyRey. You always mostly make sense to me.

Happy New year, BTW.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

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.

This reponse is kind of late, but I’ve been busy.

My younger brother considers Himself a Baptist, mostly becuase of his marriage to One. He is planning to Remarry her, in fact, in a Baptist Ceremony. (The First One was Civil.) So I sort of know where you are coming from. I also watch Hal Lindsey an Jack Van Impe. Don’t necessarily agree with their Interpretation of Scripture or their Religion, but they do provide Thought-Provoking Programs.

As to the rest of the Post----
Does The Church accept the Coccept of “Total War” you espouse?

Even if it did, I would have to repecfully disagree with it. Even war against an evil, depraved enemy does not preclude going down to their level. One should (as much as possible0 try to maintian one’s Humanity, even in the most desperate of situations.

Just my two cents.
Happy New Year, BTW, Don!!!

 

[tonyrey]

  			[

](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7374730#post7374730)

Thank you for your kind words. Happy New Year - blessed by the God of love not war!

 

[donsnow]

This reponse is kind of late, but I’ve been busy.

My younger brother considers Himself a Baptist, mostly becuase of his marriage to One. He is planning to Remarry her, in fact, in a Baptist Ceremony. (The First One was Civil.) So I sort of know where you are coming from. I also watch Hal Lindsey an Jack Van Impe. Don’t necessarily agree with their Interpretation of Scripture or their Religion, but they do provide Thought-Provoking Programs.

As to the rest of the Post----
Does The Church accept the Coccept of “Total War” you espouse?

Even if it did, I would have to repecfully disagree with it. Even war against an evil, depraved enemy does not preclude going down to their level. One should (as much as possible0 try to maintian one’s Humanity, even in the most desperate of situations.

Just my two cents.
Happy New Year, BTW, Don!!!

Hi, Tony,

Yes, with what they have, the Baptists do quite well.

I think the Church would disparage the concept of ‘total war’.

I find no fault in the Creator, who gives, takes, and resurrects life, reaching down to the level of human understanding in those times to protect His people. If the children were innocent, then they wind up somewhere 'way better than there; if the children were infected with the evil of those times by their parents, then I will let Jesus Christ be the judge of their fates. In either event, it’s in God’s hands. That’s my personal view.
(While in the 'Corps during the early 1960’s, you would be aghast at some of the war stories that came out of the Korean War of atrocities committed by both sides)
So, total war is not so far removed from our history as people think.
I think that Hamas in Palestine wages total war with also their children, against the Israelis to this day.

God loves you,
And Happy New Year to you and yours,
Don