Violent passages in the Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pete_1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Pete_1

Guest
I have trouble understanding violent passages like these.
Josue 6:17
*16 *And let this city be an anathema, and all things that are in it, to the Lord. Let only Rahab the harlot live, with all that are with her in the house: for she hid the messengers whom we sent.

21 And killed all that were in it, man and woman, young and old.
How is this explained?
 
It’s just a historical account of what happened I suppose. God is not a pacifist?
 
Yes, God kills people, either directly or indirectly. The OT is full of such incidences. He is the Author and Giver of Life, and when it is your turn to die, it will be up to Him to decide whether it be directly or indirectly.
 
It’s just a historical account of what happened I suppose. God is not a pacifist?
God loves all of his children, and as such is not the direct cause of death. Human sin did that.

God, also IS a pacifist, for he wishes no evil to any of his children.

What you read in the OT is a complex interpenetration of religious thought and historical accounts. It is a very intricate reading, and one must have in mind all of the aspects of the book of the Bible when reading it. You should try to find some OT Biblical hermeneutics by theologians to get a fuller grasp at the OT cruelty phenomena.

God is NOT a warmonger.

And I don’t want to debate this topic again.

But I will, should the need arise.

Anyway,
Pax Christi.
 
God loves all of his children, and as such is not the direct cause of death.
If you’re saying that God does not end a life but rather allows a life to end, then I have to disagree. The flood is a prime example; Sodom and Gomorrah is another. Even in the NT we see in Acts 5:1-10 that God, the Author of life, has directly caused death.
Human sin did that.
Yes, utimately sin started the whole process leading to death.
God, also IS a pacifist, for he wishes no evil to any of his children.
A pacifist? I don’t know that this label is accurate. I think rather the label of “Just” better fits. Today, many think of a pacifist as refusing to harm regardless of any given situation. The word “Just” seems more appropriate to me as I know that God does not harm or punish unjustly. As far as the word “evil” as it relates to this subject. You appear to be of the belief that physical death is evil. However, with rare exception (thus far through history) one must experience physical death in order to experience everlasting life with God (our ultimate hope).
God is NOT a warmonger.
Agreed
And I don’t want to debate this topic again.
LOL, agreed again.
But I will, should the need arise.
God bless you. 👍
 
I
A pacifist? I don’t know that this label is accurate. I think rather the label of “Just” better fits. Today, many think of a pacifist as refusing to harm regardless of any given situation. The word “Just” seems more appropriate to me as I know that God does not harm or punish unjustly. As far as the word “evil” as it relates to this subject. You appear to be of the belief that physical death is evil. However, with rare exception (thus far through history) one must experience physical death in order to experience everlasting life with God (our ultimate hope).
:
Yes, I was afraid someone might take the anthropomorphisms to a wrong conclusion.
In simple terms - yes, just is a better word.

A syllogism:
-God is not the positive source of evil
-War is an objective evil
–thus, God is not the positive source of war and doesn’t positively will it.

God bless.
 
Yes, I was afraid someone might take the anthropomorphisms to a wrong conclusion.
In simple terms - yes, just is a better word.
“Yes.” Yes what?
A syllogism:
-God is not the positive source of evil
-War is an objective evil
–thus, God is not the positive source of war and doesn’t positively will it.

God bless.
In your syllogism you state “war is an objective evil.” I believe your painting with too broad a brush as not all war is evil (either objectively or subjectively).

Exodus 15:3 - “The Lord is a man of war” (Douay-Rheims)
Numbers 31 - We see God actively sending Israel to war against Midian. (There are other instances as well)

I’m not trying to “debate” this issue to death. And if you took offense to my last post, I apologize. However, the fact remains that violence did in fact occur many times in the Old Testament. Some of the time, God actually called for war. On occasion God has struck down (killed) an individual(s). The Bible plainly says as much. Was God somehow taking part in an evil act… No. You and I both agree on the conclusion (God does no evil); but we differ only on the path leading to that conclusion. God bless.
 
I almost forgot. This was your syllogism:
40.png
Hrvoje:
-God is not the positive source of evil
-War is an objective evil
–thus, God is not the positive source of war and doesn’t positively will it.
Mine looks like this:

–God is just and good
–Not all violent events are evil
–Thus, God can use violent events to bring about good

Again, God bless you.
 
There is a old thead somewhere on that subject too.
Do not read a “Flat Bible”. That passage should be read in the light of the NT. The Jews were thinking their God would approve of that, the Bible is a progressive revelation.
 
The wages of sin is death and I really have to wonder if the human age of the person dying matters to God since souls are outside of time and ageless. Yes, Christ said that children will inherit the kingdom of Heaven, but that’s because of the faith that comes along with their age, not because of their age.
 
I found this sermon excellent, if you have 15 minutes to listen

An awful lot of people probably find our first reading for this week offensive. We hear that Israel mowed the Amalekites down with the sword. How can this terrible story of conquest be a revelation of God’s intentions? Listen as I offer the surprising interpretation that Origen of Alexandria offers.

wordonfire.org/fullnews/354.shtml
 
I haven’t listened to that particular Word on Fire, but I absolutely love Fr Barron’s sermons. I’ll check out this one when I have a chance.

Pete, I fully understand your difficulty with this sort of passage. The Old Testament has plenty of stuff that has caused me trouble. Speaking for myself, the real tough stuff is when God Himself takes a direct hand. Sodom and Gomorrah (especially Lot’s wife), for example. The flood. The she-bear mauling.

Tough stuff. On one hand, we are told that God is love. On the other hand, we see God acting seriously rough. How do we reconcile the two?

First thing is, we have to understand that God doesn’t play by the same rules we do. We are forbidden from murdering, and rightly so. Similarly, we are morally obligated to take action to save lives, to the greatest extent possible.

But the same things can’t very well apply to God. We are mortal. If He was also obligated to save lives, we would never die! That’s not what life on this fallen world is supposed to be like. More to it, as epostle pointed out, God is the giver of life, and as such, He has the right to take life. Whenever He wants, for whatever reason He wants. Every minute of life is a gift. We might think that somebody should have gotten more, but it’s just not up to us.

Also, I think we need to consider progressive revelation. God is merciful, and He shows that mercy throughout the Bible, not just in the New Testament. But, mercy is not the only aspect of His character – there is also justice. You can’t very well have justice without punishment. I’m not very familiar with the story of Jericho, so I won’t comment on that in particular, but when you look at the other stories I mentioned, the people that God smote really earned their smiting.
 
First thing is, we have to understand that God doesn’t play by the same rules we do. We are forbidden from murdering, and rightly so. Similarly, we are morally obligated to take action to save lives, to the greatest extent possible.
If we are forbidden from murdering why does he ask us to bring upon war?
 
I knew this topic would come up again because of this weeks readings.

For those of you who haven’t read it, here is Catholic Answers apologist Jimmy Akins’ response to this common objection. It has helped a lot of people think more clearly about this subject and it may help you as well:

Hard Sayings of the Old Testament
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top