Did fathers give any answer about masacre in bible?

Please read the top right of my posts. I am Buddhist, and in Buddhist terms, the Abrahamic God is indeed a “moral monster”.

Compare how many people YHWH kills in the Tanakh/Old Testament with the number of people the Buddha kills in the Tripitaka.

rossum

With God, no one is innocent or guilty on this earth. We are just varying shades of not bad.

Read the whole Tanakh and see why they deserved it. One’s actions can be the downfall and rise of many. If one sins against his brother, he disrupts that flow.How much more so if one sins against God?

So, killing the unborn is not killing the innocent, just killing the “not bad”. You might want to let the Pro-Life people know that.

In the Bible, God specifically orders the killing of pregnant women. That is difficult to justify. Even the Argentine Junta allowed pregnant prisoners to give birth before killing them, and putting the babies up for adoption. Do you really want me to accept a God who, on the surface, is less merciful than the Argentine Junta?

rossum

Why don’t you ask God? And for once quit taking my words out of context.

Back to the OP’s actual topic, I did a quick Google search and found articles on the topic that may be helpful: google.com/search?q=early+church+fathers+god+commanded+killing&gws_rd=ssl.

Apologetics is the explanation for why a particular faith is true, and in this apologetics forum that faith is Catholicism. You may disagree, but personally I find rossum’s questions reasonable and worthy of discussion, which is likely why he came here to CAF. It’s very much the purpose of this discussion forum.

If a particular political party has a platform that causes some controversy it would be reasonable to expect some people to have questions. The response from party members that the person should direct their questions to the candidate him or herself does nothing to answer those questions, especially if they are already in a place (like a discussion forum) to get those questions answered.

You have me right. The level of discussion here is generally better than in some other web forums I could name.

rossum

:thumbsup:

Correct. All are fallen…separated from God…as a result of Adam’s decision to disobey God.

However, the unborn are innocent of particular sins…they are members of a fallen race, but they have not committed any sins personally.

In the Bible, God specifically orders the killing of pregnant women. That is difficult to justify. Even the Argentine Junta allowed pregnant prisoners to give birth before killing them, and putting the babies up for adoption. Do you really want me to accept a God who, on the surface, is less merciful than the Argentine Junta?

rossum

No. I would not accept such a God, either.

However, what I really want you to do is to read good books and articles, watch YouTube videos, and think carefully about WHY God is not the moral monster you claim Him to be.

In other words, I want you to go beyond understanding “on the surface” in order to see WHY God was right to act as He did in the Old Testament. :thumbsup:

Since God ordered slaughter of children in the OT, and he never changes (Malachi 3:6), you can never really know whether the person saying “God wants me to shoot up this school” is outside the will of God. I find nothing in the bible to support the notion that that God “would never” do that today.

There are so many bible teachings about God using unbelievers to commit massacres, that I have difficulty with Christians who try to assure me that God did not do the same thing regarding the Muslim who killed the homosexuals at the gay nightclub in Orlando Florida. If ascribing bible massacres to God doesn’t diminish his glory, then ascribing modern-day massacres to god also would not.

For that reason, we need something more than confident assurances that God “would never” act today consistently with his unchanging nature as represented in the bible.

And doesn’t 2nd Peter 2:6 indicate the massacre of Sodom and Gomorrah is to function as a warning? How could that be the case if we are “sure” that God “would never” act consistently with the way he is portrayed in the bible?

That is exactly the God of the Bible. Numbers 31:17 “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.”

That is a specific order to kill all the non-virgin females among the Midianite prisoners. Some of those women would have been pregnant – there were thousands of them.

YHWH specifically ordered the killing of pregnant women. For every pregnant women killed one, or possibly two, unborn children also died.

rossum

I think it would be fair to say that Jesus would be considered one of the Fathers of the Church.

He didn’t mention it as a problem as far as I know. If it was important wouldn’t Jesus have said something about it? He quoted the OT, the Septuagint, and studied it from his boyhood up. And he never rejected any of the events in the Septuagint.

Could it be concluded that since he was quiet on this subject that he accepted this event as it stands, but understood it in some way that we have not yet arrived at?

As Mary did, this may be something we must ponder in our hearts for now.

It would also be fair to say that Jesus is not unbiased in this matter. If Jesus is God, then all the actions attributed to God in the Old Testament are equally actions of Jesus. His own opinion of His own actions may not be unbiased.

rossum

If Jesus is God, rossum, than he is perfect which means he would no be biased which implies imperfect.

If He was perfect then He would not have ordered the actions which triggered the question asked in this thread. Also, He would not have been able to create the world as described in Genesis, which is at one point described as “not good”, see Genesis 2:18. Furthermore, a perfect God would have known in advance that animals would not meet Adam’s need.

The God of Genesis, and of the Bible, is not perfect. Jesus specifically has less than perfect knowledge, He does not know the day when the world will end, Matthew 24:36.

rossum

Keeping in mind that the first principles of bible interpretation are grammar and immediate context, I see nothing in the grammar or immediate context of Genesis 6:6-7 to indicate that God’s regret over his own decision to create man, was intended by the author any less literally than Genesis 1:1 was intended.

For that reason, you have the uneviable task of reconciling your “god is perfect” belief, with God’s own admission that the way mankind turn out, caused God to be sorry he ever created man:

6 It repented him that he had made man on the earth. And being touched inwardly with sorrow of heart,
7 He said: I will destroy man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth, from man even to beasts, from the creeping thing even to the fowls of the air, for it repenteth me that I have made them. (Gen. 6:6-7 DRA)

Now what should we do with an interpretation of a bible verse which lacks any support from the immediate context?

And in the immediate context, v. 5 refers to something you think is literal (God was aware that men became wicked), in v. 8 Noah really did find grace in the eyes of the Lord.

So the immediate context not only doesn’t support the “anthropomorphism” interpretation, but indicates v. 6-7 were intended as straight forward historical reporting.

In other words, the position of open-theists (who believe God can and does change his mind, or make mistakes, or regret having done something) is quite defensible from the bible.

In that case, God could easily be biased while still being god. Why? Because God is defined by his own self-declarations and actions. If that weren’t the case, we could never “check” the accuracy of any theological statements. The church being criticized could just say “but we never get anything wrong”, and that would be wonderfully comforting way to feel better about turning away from criticism, but it would amount to the type of cultic thinking responsible for making Mormons so difficult to evangelize. When you criticise their leaders, you violate rule #1, there is no such thing as Mormon error.

Have you ever attended a church who believed their own infallibility was beyond criticism? There ain’t no talking them at all, right?

Originally Posted by Rossum…
If He was perfect then He would not have ordered the actions which triggered the question asked in this thread.

Being perfect He would be perfect in good as well. But He cannot be perfect in the sense of pleasing everyone because each person has his own idea of what he wants and dosen’t want. And there is no agreement among all what is most pleasing and desirable. As a matter of fact, each person may change there idea of what is pleasing and not pleasing(desirable) over time.

This picture would not be complete without due consideration that people make mistakes as to what is good or not good, desirable or not desirable.

How do you really know that what God did was wrong? God made the mountains and the giant forests on them; the ocean depths with all the sea creatures in them and winds above them, the vast blue sky and space containing all the galaxies and stars, the land, deserts and glaciers. If Jesus is God and he did all of this in his power and glory, then the good we see with our eyes is the testimony of his goodness and intelligence.

And just what has the average person accomplished with his power and intelligence? What is he capable of? And yet we want to give a lesson to God about what is right and what is wrong? The lessor giving the greater directions on what should be done?

Of course if a person dosen’t believe in God then it is every opinion for himself.

Also, He would not have been able to create the world as described in Genesis, which is at one point described as “not good”, see Genesis 2:18.

Genesis 2:18 does not have this.

Furthermore, a perfect God would have known in advance that animals would not meet Adam’s need.

I don’t know what you mean by this.

The God of Genesis, and of the Bible, is not perfect. Jesus specifically has less than perfect knowledge, He does not know the day when the world will end, Matthew 24:36.

Jesus was both God and man. He was speaking as a man in reference to this. As God he knows all. So what he was saying is that he did not want to reveal it.

It is the same when he said the Father is greater than he. He was speaking of himself as a man in reference to his Father who is God.

And in another place he says that he and the Father are equal. That when the apostles see him they see the Father. Meaning that he now is speaking of himself not as a man but as God, the Son of the Father, coequal to the Father.

Killing pregnant women, and hence killing their unborn babies, is “good”? I do not accept your definition of ‘good’ here.

How do you really know that what God did was wrong?

Again, is the indirect killing of unborn babies not wrong? Is the direct killing of newborn babies not wrong? If you do not think that such actions are wrong, then I have little wish to follow your version of morality.

Genesis 2:18 does not have this.

Yes it does: “And the Lord God said: It is not good for man to be alone: let us make him a help like unto himself.” (emphasis added) The world that the perfect God created was “not good” for a time.

I don’t know what you mean by this.

Why did the omniscient God not know in advance that Adam would not find a companion among the animals? Why did he bother to waste time with trying all the various animals before creating Eve? An omniscient perfect God would have gone straight to the correct solution, rather than trying known incorrect solutions first.

Would a perfect God regret His own actions? See Genesis 6:6.

I find it very difficult to see the God described in the Old Testament as “perfect”.

rossum

Originally Posted by rossum…
Killing pregnant women, and hence killing their unborn babies, is “good”? I do not accept your definition of ‘good’ here.

I’ve already explained this in my previous post.

Again, is the indirect killing of unborn babies not wrong? Is the direct killing of newborn babies not wrong? If you do not think that such actions are wrong, then I have little wish to follow your version of morality.

I’ve again explained this before in my previous post. But killing of newborn babies is happening all the time thru natural disasters, accidents, and so forth. So for these your answer would be the same?

2:18 in KJV says

And the Lord God said that it is not good for man to be alone. I will make an help meet for him."

“meet” means “mate” which refers to woman.

This is just his way of expressing the creation of woman, another creation he is making. Just as he made certain things on the first day, some more on the second day, and likewise for the other remaining days of creation.

If you said that about woman, that God was not good because now since woman had not been created that man was missing something and therefore was an imperfect, bad, creation, then we would have to say the same for each day that God took in creating everything. That is, that God was imperfect and bad from the first day of his creation since he had not created all of it in one split second, and so each new day of creation is a demonstration of how bad,imperfect, God is. Do you really think that?

The human author, inspired, wrote a story of creation to teach us something. He isn’t a sience teacher, he is an author of religious teaching which is not taught according to the rules of science.

Would a perfect God regret His own actions? See Genesis 6:6.

It means that man’s unholy ways(sins) were in oposition to God’s perfect sanctity(goodness). And since the animals were given to man to help him in life, they too were given the label of dissatisfaction being attached to man.

But in verse 8, Noah was an exception to this since he was a good man like unto God.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.