Why was God so cruel in the old Testament?

[clem456]

From 1Kings 15:3 "Now therefore go, and smite Amalec, and utterly destroy all that he hath: spare him not, nor covet anything that is his: but slay both man and woman, child and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and *." Footnote in Haydock Bible says: The great master of life and death (who cuts off one half of mankind whilst they are children) has been pleased sometimes to ordain that children should be put to the sword, in detestation of the crimes of their parents, and that they might not live to follow the same wicked ways. But without such ordinance of God, it is not allowable in any wars, how just soever, to kill children.

See link bible.org/seriespage/12-saul-and-amalekites-1-samuel-151-35 to see that Genisis, Numbers, Judges, Joshua, Exodus, Deuteronomy, Leviticus, etc… in OT that this command of God was not an isolated incident. God at other times gave a similar command.

To interpret Scriptures in a way other than has always been taught by the Church has been condemned by Pope St Pius X w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis.html
The heresy of Modernism and those infected by it has been attempting to make Scripture evolve and conform to a modern understanding. I find nothing in Pope Benedict XVI writings that contradict what the Church has always taught.

Hold your horse there partner.
What I proposed is not modernism in the least. And definiteley not heretical. Mainstream catholic thought is that these passages do not necessarily reflect literal revelation of God’s will to kill innocents.

I would suggest you read what Pope Benedict says on this issue in the post above. He is hardly modernist or heretical. He can be hard to read, but it’s worth the time and effort.

To interpret Scriptures in a way other than has always been taught by the Church has been condemned

As we are both Catholics, we can definitely agree on that.

 

[HelenRose]

The same “Old Testament God” who is “The Lord…gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and abounding in mercy”?

That’s from Psalm 148, and Old Testament book.

I think every 3rd grader who has been told the story of the Passover has asked this question. As a Religious Ed teacher, I have yet to come up with a simple answer to this very complex question.

I don’t know the mind of God so it is impossible for me to answer the question, “Why does God do anything?”

There are so many “whys”

Why did God choose Israel as His chosen people?
Why did God create human beings in the first place?
Why did God come to Earth to suffer and die for us?
Why is life so harsh?
Why is life so beautiful?
What is the meaning of tears?
What is the meaning of laughter?

Do we expect God, who is the creator light, of forces unknown, of black holes, nebulae, quasars, tides, earthquakes, hurricanes, plate tectonics, the sun, the moon, the stars and the Earth to be a warm soft fuzzy?

I can not begin to answer any of these questions. I can only wonder at His power and be grateful for the brief tiny moment of time that I am able to wander under the stars and see the beauty He has created.

 

[kyrie03]

Hold your horse there partner.
What I proposed is not modernism in the least. And definiteley not heretical. Mainstream catholic thought is that these passages do not necessarily reflect literal revelation of God’s will to kill innocents.

I would suggest you read what Pope Benedict says on this issue in the post above. He is hardly modernist or heretical. He can be hard to read, but it’s worth the time and effort.

As we are both Catholics, we can definitely agree on that.

Oh I do dislike how posting can sometimes be misunderstood!

I saw nothing in your post heretical or modernistic. So sorry for the implication!

I was simply attempting to make it understood by those who read this thread that there has been an effort in past 100 plus years to interpret Scriptures in innovative ways. And as such, it is important to research what the Church has always taught about interpretation of Scripture. Which is why I reference Church Fathers and use the Haydock edition of the Bible.

It isn’t Church doctrine that God ordered the Israelites to kill the Canaanites. It’s historical fact as recorded in numerous books of the Bible and authenticated (child sacrifice of Canaanites) by archeology.

I think where we disagree is that I say God did literally command Saul to physically slay the Amakelite men, women, children, and animals. You find it difficult to understand how God could order the killing of children and infants and propose a possible figurative explanation for this passage. Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[clem456]

Oh I do dislike how posting can sometimes be misunderstood!

I saw nothing in your post heretical or modernistic. So sorry for the implication!

I was simply attempting to make it understood by those who read this thread that there has been an effort in past 100 plus years to interpret Scriptures in innovative ways. And as such, it is important to research what the Church has always taught about interpretation of Scripture. Which is why I reference Church Fathers and use the Haydock edition of the Bible.

It isn’t Church doctrine that God ordered the Israelites to kill the Canaanites. It’s historical fact as recorded in numerous books of the Bible and authenticated (child sacrifice of Canaanites) by archeology.

I think where we disagree is that I say God did literally command Saul to physically slay the Amakelite men, women, children, and animals. You find it difficult to understand how God could order the killing of children and infants and propose a possible figurative explanation for this passage. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Yes I should read twice and post once. It’s what happens when i post from work. My bad.

I do not hold with that line of interpretation of the passage.
I agree with what P Benedict says at Regensburg and in Verbum Domini as I had referenced earlier. It’s good to note that he does not disallow that particular take, but, given his general thrust, the implication is that he is of a radically different mind.
What do you think of what he says?
The Regensburg address is very nuanced and deep, but draws a sharp distinction between the arbitrary and unreasonable God and the God who is Logos. This is all in the context of violence.

I think the literalist take is incompatible with God’s revealed nature in Jesus Christ.
I believe the passage can be taken literally, in that this is literally how the Israelites saw God’s nature and will in action, according to their understanding of God, in that time, in that culture.

This kind of interpretation bothers a lot of people, believing it detracts from inspiration.
Inspiration is God breathing forth himself through the word. What does he want us to know? Those passages are still sharper than any sword for us, even if they are not taken in literalist fashion.

 

[HelenRose]

Yes I should read twice and post once. It’s what happens when i post from work. My bad.

I do not hold with that line of interpretation of the passage.
I agree with what P Benedict says at Regensburg and in Verbum Domini as I had referenced earlier. It’s good to note that he does not disallow that particular take, but, given his general thrust, the implication is that he is of a radically different mind.
What do you think of what he says?
The Regensburg address is very nuanced and deep, but draws a sharp distinction between the arbitrary and unreasonable God and the God who is Logos. This is all in the context of violence.

I think the literalist take is incompatible with God’s revealed nature in Jesus Christ.
I believe the passage can be taken literally, in that this is literally how the Israelites saw God’s nature and will in action, according to their understanding of God, in that time, in that culture.

This kind of interpretation bothers a lot of people, believing it detracts from inspiration.
Inspiration is God breathing forth himself through the word. What does he want us to know? Those passages are still sharper than any sword for us, even if they are not taken in literalist fashion.

 

[Della]

Yes I should read twice and post once. It’s what happens when i post from work. My bad.

I do not hold with that line of interpretation of the passage.
I agree with what P Benedict says at Regensburg and in Verbum Domini as I had referenced earlier. It’s good to note that he does not disallow that particular take, but, given his general thrust, the implication is that he is of a radically different mind.
What do you think of what he says?
The Regensburg address is very nuanced and deep, but draws a sharp distinction between the arbitrary and unreasonable God and the God who is Logos. This is all in the context of violence.

I think the literalist take is incompatible with God’s revealed nature in Jesus Christ.
I believe the passage can be taken literally, in that this is literally how the Israelites saw God’s nature and will in action, according to their understanding of God, in that time, in that culture.

This kind of interpretation bothers a lot of people, believing it detracts from inspiration.
Inspiration is God breathing forth himself through the word. What does he want us to know? Those passages are still sharper than any sword for us, even if they are not taken in literalist fashion.

As I understand it, we read Scripture literarily–that is considering the kind of literature it is, if it’s poetry, or history, or prophesy, etc. I believe the wars Israel fought weren’t quite as total as described, but rather that the Israelites were being admonished to avoid pagan gods and the practices of those who worshiped them. Our commitment to God is either all in or not. Still, whatever actually happened, we know that God is love as well as justice. Since the Incarnation we have access to God’s graces, as did the OT faithful whom Jesus led into heaven with him. God is good, he always has been and always will be.

 

[clem456]

As I understand it, we read Scripture literarily–that is considering the kind of literature it is, if it’s poetry, or history, or prophesy, etc. I believe the wars Israel fought weren’t quite as total as described, but rather that the Israelites were being admonished to avoid pagan gods and the practices of those who worshiped them. Our commitment to God is either all in or not. Still, whatever actually happened, we know that God is love as well as justice. Since the Incarnation we have access to God’s graces, as did the OT faithful whom Jesus led into heaven with him. God is good, he always has been and always will be.

Pointing out what “literal” means it it’s full sense.
It is not the same thing as literalist.

 

[kyrie03]

Yes I should read twice and post once. It’s what happens when i post from work. My bad.

I do not hold with that line of interpretation of the passage.
I agree with what P Benedict says at Regensburg and in Verbum Domini as I had referenced earlier. It’s good to note that he does not disallow that particular take, but, given his general thrust, the implication is that he is of a radically different mind.
What do you think of what he says?
The Regensburg address is very nuanced and deep, but draws a sharp distinction between the arbitrary and unreasonable God and the God who is Logos. This is all in the context of violence.

I think the literalist take is incompatible with God’s revealed nature in Jesus Christ.
I believe the passage can be taken literally, in that this is literally how the Israelites saw God’s nature and will in action, according to their understanding of God, in that time, in that culture.

This kind of interpretation bothers a lot of people, believing it detracts from inspiration.
Inspiration is God breathing forth himself through the word. What does he want us to know? Those passages are still sharper than any sword for us, even if they are not taken in literalist fashion.

I did read both of Pope Benedict’s works. I didn’t see him contradicting the literal interpretation of the killing of the Canaanites. In DV he says, The “literalism” championed by the fundamentalist approach actually represents a betrayal of both the literal and the spiritual sense, and opens the way to various forms of manipulation, as, for example, by disseminating anti-ecclesial interpretations of the Scriptures. “The basic problem with fundamentalist interpretation is that, refusing to take into account the historical character of biblical revelation, it makes itself incapable of accepting the full truth of the incarnation itself. As regards relationships with God, fundamentalism seeks to escape any closeness of the divine and the human … for this reason, it tends to treat the biblical text as if it had been dictated word for word by the Spirit. It fails to recognize that the word of God has been formulated in language and expression conditioned by various periods”.[146] Christianity, on the other hand, perceives in the words the Word himself, the Logos who displays his mystery through this complexity and the reality of human history.[147] The true response to a fundamentalist approach is “the faith-filled interpretation of sacred Scripture”. This manner of interpretation, “practised from antiquity within the Church’s Tradition, seeks saving truth for the life of the individual Christian and for the Church. It recognizes the historical value of the biblical tradition. Precisely because of the tradition’s value as an historical witness, this reading seeks to discover the living meaning of the sacred Scriptures for the lives of believers today”,[148] while not ignoring the human mediation of the inspired text and its literary genres.

I am not separating the literal and spiritual interpretation of Scripture. You seem to be saying it wasn’t literal and is incompatible with your understanding of God. I don’t see a precedent that the Church has ever taught that these stories didn’t literally happen as is narrated in the OT. Read the story of the fall of Jericho - every man, woman, child, and animal (except Rahab the harlot) were destroyed. Same happened in the Sodom and Gomorrah and during the Flood. Children and animals were completely destroyed. Do you believe these stories are also figurative?

I am also uncomfortable with the killing. Christ didn’t conquer by killing others but by laying down His life for us….that is the example that inspires love! The Jews were looking for the Messiah who would destroy their enemies, not turn the other cheek. Christ established a New Covenant with mankind and certain things that were allowable before, are no longer allowable precisely because we now have the Logos as an example.

The question of divorce is another such instance of something allowed before the New Covenant - Christ says Moses allowed divorce because of the “hardness of your hearts, but it was not so from the beginning.”

So what is the purpose of these stories? I agree, it’s not to give us a history lesson but to admonish us not to follow the inconsistency and disobedience of the Israelites. God had just wrought miracles to bring them out of Egypt into the Promised Land. He divided the Red Sea in two and they crossed as if on dry land. He led them by a Pillar of Cloud by day and a Pillar of Fire at night. Yet these people kept turning to false idols. If the Hebrews were so weak, how could they possibly influence the Canaanites to live more righteously? And the idols of the Canaanites were so abominable (fertility orgies & child sacrifice) that God wished these people to be utterly destroyed.

The implications this has for us today are profound! We live in society where all kinds of perverse pleasure are not only allowed but celebrated and enshrined in law. We sacrifice our children to the gods of selfishness and convenience. We have made idols of ourselves.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

I have been reading the old testament account of the Israelites taking over the promised land. I was surprised to learn that God ordered the Israelites numerous times to kill every man women and child when they would do battle with the enemy. How can we square that God with Jesus who teaches us to love our enemies? After all Jesus is the same God.

The blood-lust of the god Yahweh is not absent from the New Testament. Remember, the overarching message is that Yahweh decides to offer the opportunity of forgiveness of sins and an afterlife, but humanity must brutally murder his son in exchange for this opportunity. A great irony since he booted Adam and Eve from Eden in the very beginning to prevent humankind from acquiring immortality/eternal life by eating fruit from the Tree of Life.

 

[ynotzap]

The blood-lust of the god Yahweh is not absent from the New Testament. Remember, the overarching message is that Yahweh decides to offer the opportunity of forgiveness of sins and an afterlife, but humanity must brutally murder his son in exchange for this opportunity. A great irony since he booted Adam and Eve from Eden in the very beginning to prevent humankind from acquiring immortality/eternal life by eating fruit from the Tree of Life.

So badly understood: Christ was not fighting humanity when the Father offered His Own Son for the salvation of the world. How would you know the truth without Divine Revelation. It was Satan’s rule over men that crucified Christ. Men where Satan’s instruments of murder, for Satan is a liar and a murderer. To arrest this legitimate power Satan had over men, because they are sinners, Jesus, the Just One, offered His Just Life, without sin, for the freedom of sinners. Satan overstepped his boundaries, for he had no jurisdiction over Jesus, and he took it, thus loosing his reign over all of those who turned to Jesus for salvation from Satan’s rule. The rest of humanity remains in ignorance, and human moral weakness, under Satan’s rule. Oh, the ignorance of the secular world!!! Indeed you are an Agnostic, can’t know, and you will never know until you receive the grace of enlightenment from Christ.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

So badly understood: Christ was not fighting humanity when the Father offered His Own Son for the salvation of the world. How would you know the truth without Divine Revelation. It was Satan’s rule over men that crucified Christ. Men where Satan’s instruments of murder, for Satan is a liar and a murderer. To arrest this legitimate power Satan had over men, because they are sinners, Jesus, the Just One, offered His Just Life, without sin, for the freedom of sinners. Satan overstepped his boundaries, for he had no jurisdiction over Jesus, and he took it, thus loosing his reign over all of those who turned to Jesus for salvation from Satan’s rule. The rest of humanity remains in ignorance, and human moral weakness, under Satan’s rule. Oh, the ignorance of the secular world!!! Indeed you are an Agnostic, can’t know, and you will never know until you receive the grace of enlightenment from Christ.

You’re compounding the problem by describing a god of deception.

 

[clem456]

The blood-lust of the god Yahweh is not absent from the New Testament. Remember, the overarching message is that Yahweh decides to offer the opportunity of forgiveness of sins and an afterlife, but humanity must brutally murder his son in exchange for this opportunity. A great irony since he booted Adam and Eve from Eden in the very beginning to prevent humankind from acquiring immortality/eternal life by eating fruit from the Tree of Life.

Well, you do not understand what happened there.

God is faithful to that which he creates. We as Christians do not believe we created ourselves. We believe a power outside ourselves creates us. We call that “God”.

If that power can create from nothing, He surely has the power to vaporize all that exists as well. Some mothers express this well by “I brought you into this world and I can take you out if you don’t straighten yourself up”. This might be God’s dialogue with us, but it is not.

The one who creates us is faithful despite our stupidity and cruelty. In fact, he desires to be united with us, and so he comes to live in flesh among us in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus comes proclaiming how good it is to be alive and to love one another. That’s it really.

We reject him and kill him. It is not God’s will that we perpetrate Jesus’ murder because God must have his blood. **We choose to reject and kill him. But we could have simply chosen to live his Way of love. **

God has the power to force himself upon his to follow his Way. Rather than force himself on us in the midst of our rejection, he sacrifices himself. He takes the wrath that is our just due for our own cruelty and stupidity. We deserve to be punished for our cruelty and in-humanity, but he takes it upon himself like a lamb to slaughter.

This is not blood-lust, it is the love of a father for his children…proposing a relationship of love, always respecting our freedom to love him back.
Compassion means “to suffer with”.

 

[ynotzap]

You’re compounding the problem by describing a god of deception.

The only god of deception is Satan, but what do we know about Satan if not by divine revelation, even though many know evil, they don’t understand the source. I know from experience in his reality, my belief was confirmed by my experience. I don’t fear what people might think, especially if they don’t know better. I recognize the Catholic Christian Faith for it’s truth, confirmed for me by experiential knowledge. If I said it was just my belief, I would expect people to question me, even my sanity. But I have many witnesses to confirm my experiences,which became their experiences. The world is in desperate need of enlightenment, and insanity reigns. If you don’t believe me check the newspapers, and world events, the killing of people all over the world, the hoarding of wealth, the homeless, the sick, and the starving. Does intelligence reign, love and compassion? Jesus is the Father’s gift of eternal love for fallen mankind. Jesus was murdered out of envy and jealousy, and ignorance the means that Satan and his cohorts used to bring about the death of Jesus. Jesus set Satan up, nobody really took the life of Jesus, He gave it freely, read Scriptures. He even said “Father forgive them for they know not what they do.” This is the moment of darkness, he (Satan) has no power over me."