Did fathers give any answer about masacre in bible?

I read it and rejected it. As I said, I do not accept your definition of “good”.

2:18 in KJV says

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

So why did God start by making animals first? If God knew that Adam wanted a female human, then why did He offer Adam aardvarks, armadillos and the rest instead?

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?

I am pointing out that creation was not “perfect” before the Fall. It is only ever described as “good” , “very good” and “not good”. An allegedly perfect God made an imperfect creation, from the beginning. To me that implies a less than perfect God. God could have made Eve at the same time as Adam, He is omnipotent after all. Instead He chose a less than perfect method which resulted in the presence of “not good” in creation. God is not perfect right from the first chapters of Genesis as well as later during all the killings and massacres He causes.

It means that man’s unholy ways(sins) were in oposition to God’s perfect sanctity(goodness).

Since we are arguing about whether or not God is perfect and good, then you are merely assuming your conclusion here. A perfectly good God would not kill unborn babies en masse. That is the whole point of this thread, explaining why a ‘good’ God massacres so many people.

rossum

Your questions have been answered. God is good, and that goodness cannot allow sin.

God allows sin. Does every sinner drop dead the instant they commit their first sin? Sin exists in the world, so God must allow sin to exist. God created everything, so God created the serpent in the Garden of Eden:

Isaiah 45:7 – I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things.

Your claim that God does not allow sin is very obviously incorrect.

rossum

No I said He cannot. Sin eventually is conquered in the end.

Here is the passage from three different Bible translations, and they do not have the word “sin” in them. The passage is saying that there are misfortunes that do come from the hand of God, but it is not saying here that he is the author of sin which is man’s doing.

Isaiah 45:7 (Jerusalem Bible)

I am YAHWEH unriveled,
I form the light and create the dark,
I make good fortune and create calamity,
it is I YAHWEH who do all this.

Isaiah 45:7 (New American Bible)

I am the Lord, there is no other
I form the light and create the darkness],
I make well-being and create woe,
I, the Lord, do all these things.

Isaiah 45:7 (New International Version)

I am the Lord and there is no other,
I form the light and create the darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster,
I, the Lord, do all these things.

But He does allow sin. He even allows Satan to continue to exist, and as the story of Job shows He allows Satan to act in the world.

The fact remains that many of God’s actions described in the Old Testament are very problematical to say the least.

rossum

Nor did my quote from Douay-Rheims, it had the word “evil” in it. I am sure that you agree that the world contains evil. Since God created the world, then God created evil. If God didn’t create evil then someone/thing else created evil and God is not the creator but a creator, one among two or more. That is more of a Manichaean/Zoroastrian position than a Christian one.

rossum

If it is said that an earthquake destroyed many homes and is thus considered evil, we don’t imply that sin was involved. There are evils that are not sins. The quotations, including the one you cited, did not state that God is responsible for all evils.

If the whole context of the passage is considered, it is referring to the ills that man faces, not what man himself is responsible for.

And if the Bible is used to quote from, then the whole Bible, in the context of sin and other evil, must be considered to give the correct meaning to this passage. And there are countless passages referring to God’s holiness and goodness, and many more referring to the source of sin which are God’s creatures. This passage uses the word evil and not the word sin, and it does not say “all evil” which it would have to say to encompass sin since so many other passages in the Bible say that creatures are the source of sin.

Just as those Egyptian first born were not responsible for the actions of Pharaoh or for the action of God in hardening Pharaoh’s heart. Those dead Egyptians, some of them presumably newborn or young children suffered evil not through their own fault, but through the direct action of God.

We have already discussed the unborn and newborn children killed in God’s flood who also had done nothing to deserve death.

Your God, as described, is directly responsible for evil.

And if the Bible is used to quote from, then the whole Bible, in the context of sin and other evil, must be considered to give the correct meaning to this passage.

Have unborn children sinned? If so then do they all deserve to die immediately?

And there are countless passages referring to God’s holiness and goodness

Which constitute yet another contradiction in the Bible: a ‘good’ God who orders massacres and commits some Himself. That is the point of this thread, the contradiction between God the killer and God the loving Father.

rossum

originally posted by fred conty view post
if the whole context of the passage is considered, it is referring to the ills that man faces, not what man himself is responsible for.

Just as those egyptian first born were not responsible for the actions of pharaoh or for the action of god in hardening pharaoh’s heart. Those dead egyptians, some of them presumably newborn or young children suffered evil not through their own fault, but through the direct action of god.

We have already discussed the unborn and newborn children killed in god’s flood who also had done nothing to deserve death.

Your god, as described, is directly responsible for evil…

and if the bible is used to quote from, then the whole bible, in the context of sin and other evil, must be considered to give the correct meaning to this passage.

Have unborn children sinned? If so then do they all deserve to die immediately?..

and there are countless passages referring to god’s holiness and goodness
3.
Which constitute yet another contradiction in the bible: A ‘good’ god who orders massacres and commits some himself. That is the point of this thread, the contradiction between god the killer and god the loving father.

Rossum …

I believe you started off saying that God is responsible for sin, because of the passage you found in your bible that said that God is responsible for evil. And from this was deduced that God is responsible for sin apparently because your opinion is that evil equates with sin.

I then quoted the same passage from both Protestant and Catholic bibles that did not use the word evil. And that evil does not equate with sin for there are all kinds of evil that are not sins. So it does not mean that just because God makes evil that he makes sin.

That is where we are at. And I have had no response from you whether you undersand this or not … about the understanding of evil in that passage.

The other subject of the children’s death is another subject for another thread. In fact we are off the subject since it was about the Father’s of the church who wrote on the matter.

So I’m leaving it there hoping that you understand that evil does not equate with sin and that God did not make sin. If not, then maybe someday someone may help you where I have failed. And may your day be a nice one.

I said that God allowed sin. He is indirectly responsible for sin since He allows it to happen. Everything that happens in the world is allowed by God. If God does not allow something then it cannot happen.

And from this was deduced that God is responsible for sin apparently because your opinion is that evil equates with sin.

If God creates evil, as the Bible says, then God is not entirely good. There is some seed of evil contained in God, otherwise He could not create evil. Hence it is reasonable to say that God allows sin, for whatever reason.

I have already shown that the initial creation, before the Fall, was not perfect. Hence we can see that God is not perfect Himself, since he created a less than perfect pre-Fall world.

The other subject of the children’s death is another subject for another thread.

No, it is the subject of this thread, which talks about the Old Testament massacres, ordered or carried out by God, and which involved the deaths of children, both born and unborn. The deaths of children are on topic here.

On a technical point, I do not like the new format of your post. It does not come across well when quoted to make my reply.

rossum

Nope. You can blame Satan for that.

John 8:44
You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof.

Who created Satan? Who allows Satan to continue living? Who allows Satan free action in the world, even so far as killing the innocent – Job’s wife, children and servants for example.

If God is as powerful as claimed, then He could stop Satan instantly. However, He does not. That puts some of the blame on God. If a dog-owner lets his pet get out of control, then some of the blame lies with the owner.

rossum

God is not a tyrant. He respects Satan’s free will the same way he respects ours.

God, the dog owner, already has leashes on Satan. “The Devil knows his time is short”.

We mortals shouldn’t presume to know better than God.

I was not Satan who ordered that massacres in the Old Testament. If you count up the number of deaths directly caused, and ordered, then Satan is well behind God.

Allowing Satan freedom of action is one of the least of God’s dubious actions. Satan was not to blame for the massacre of innocent Amalekite children, both born and unborn.

rossum

Satan corrupted us, and we often allow him to continue doing so, to the extent where God may deem it fit to purify Mankind every now and then.

Don’t blame God for punishing us for our decisions. If you don’t want to experience God’s wrath, don’t allow Satan to influence you as he did the Amalekite’s.

And since God created Satan, then God is indirectly responsible for that corruption.

Don’t blame God for punishing us for our decisions.

I am not. I am blaming God for His own actions and decisions.

If you don’t want to experience God’s wrath, don’t allow Satan to influence you as he did the Amalekite’s.

How were newborn Amalekite babies influenced by Satan? How were unborn Amalekite babies influenced by Satan? What about the Amalekite animals; were they influenced by Satan as well? Why did a supposedly just and merciful God order the deaths of the unborn and of infants.

That is the basic problem of this thread: How can a God that orders, or directly commits, the massacres in the Old Testament be just and merciful?

rossum

It is all about collateral damage. Amalekites killed Israelite babies and pregnant women. And you might as well blame God for giving you the free will to basically question His judgement.

Or like Falwell and Robertson you can blame us “gays” :rolleyes:

Here is something to ponder. Would it be better to not exist at all? Is God so merciful that He even permits Satan to exist? Is an eternity of pain (of which Satan has) better than not existing at all?

Regarding infants ordered by God to be slain: Would it be better for those infants to grow up only to be eternally damned due to God’s foreknowledge of their future damnable choices or for them to die in the womb (and therefore not suffer the pains of eternal damnation) before those tragic choices could be made?

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.