Michael Zimmerman I’m not sure why, but I don’t seem to receive notifications even when you tag me… later I’ll reply to your (excellent) responses to the later post I made regarding the nature of the supernatural (which was made during a period of a certain amount of spiritual desolation, as you may have guessed.)
I’ve been carefully considering your arguments and I must profess that the doctrines you teach are sensible ones that provide a deeper and richer understanding of the nature of God than any other I have encountered. The fact that you defer to the teaching authority of the Catholic Church is particularly wonderful. Well done, you.
However, in my attempts to reconstruct your arguments for those who are unfamiliar with them, and lacking the Charism that you guys apparently possess, I have encountered a few facts that (to my mind) challenge some of the doctrines you have proposed.
First of all, I would like your critical input on my own response to a thread that brought up the Israelites’ taking of Jericho in Joshua 6:
“I do not believe God intended for the Israelites to actually kill anyone. God is infinitely opposed to every sin, killing included. You will note that God did not actually order the Israelites to kill anyone, only that He had given the city to them, and set about providing a means for them to take it.
The author of the book of Joshua also probably desired to show how God was on the side of the Israelites; hence, he cast God as being a source of great help to the Israelites during the battle itself. This is not wrong or inaccurate, but it also demonstrates the limitations of Jewish theology at the time. God loved the inhabitants of Jericho as much as He loves the rest of His creation, and while it was not His will that any should die, He was still able to use the evils of war in a way that would carry out His plan for the Israelites (and through them, the entire world), just as how He was able to use the evils of the Passion in His overall quest of salvation for the whole world. He hates evil and in no way partakes in it Himself, but He is capable of turning existing evil against itself to further carry out His will.”
This naturally led to some heated discussion, and when I claimed that God in no way endorses or condones evil actions (including killing), a few points were brought up to me. I responded to them in my own way (for the most part successfully), but I am curious as to how you would have responded.
1) With regard to the exact wording of the 6th Commandment: “[I]n its context “ratsakh” applies only to illegal killing (e.g., premeditated murder or manslaughter) — and is never used in the administration of justice or for killing in war.”
2) 1 Samuel 15. This one I had a LOT of trouble with; I cannot find a way to “interpret over” 1 Samuel 15:2, in which God is directly quoted ordering Saul to kill the Amalekites. I don’t see how this can be a product of literary style or misguided theology, since God does indeed “speak” every once in a while, even to the present day (indeed, I know of one case of a former hard-bitten atheist, former President of the Secular Student Alliance, who converted after apparently having a direct experience of the divine). I am unwilling to say that the author of 1 Samuel was simply making it up based on his limited knowledge of God as well, since Scripture is God-breathed and I find it difficult to accept that God would allow Himself to be attributed to false quotes based on bad theology, if He was really the one “leading on” the authors the whole time. If He did not say these things to Saul as it is written here, He could have very easily “inspired” the author to write something different and a bit clearer. What do you say to this?
3) Someone pointed out that, in the event of a kidnapper holding his brother (for example) hostage, he would not have any reservations about shooting the kidnapper to rescue his family. It got me to thinking: would it really be God’s will that we merely entrust the situation entirely to Him, when committing an evil action of shooting the kidnapper (even incapacitating him with a shot to the shoulder or leg is willfully committing him harm) could result in an obviously greater good? I have heard before that the Catholic Church would even deem shooting the kidnapper a sin, and require attending the Sacrament of Confession afterwards. But surely the whole point of Confession is to detest our sins and endeavor to never commit them again, while I would know full well – even while making the Act of Contrition – that if I were in that situation again, I would likewise not hesitate to protect my family by shooting again. So… is it the “good” and sinless thing to not harm the kidnapper, given the alternative of shooting to incapacitate (and in the process, willfully doing harm)? Is that really, to use the expression, what a sinless man like Jesus would do? Likewise in all cases where it seems the bigger sin is in dereliction of taking action to amend the situation: doing “nothing,” while not inherently sinful, achieves a far greater foreseeable evil than the good that a de jure “sin” might foreseeably produce, assuming no possibility for “taking a third option”.
I realize that it is questions such as this that some philosophers dedicate their lives to addressing: nevertheless, I would appreciate your take on the matter. I would say that this is not a question of “mental reservation,” or else, the entire teaching of “the ends do not justify the means” falls flat.
4) When I said that this had always been Church doctrine, if not necessarily explicitly, a fellow Catholic made the following argument (quoted directly), which I would like to know your response to:
“St. Thomas Aquinas in Summa says this “”All men alike, both guilty and innocent, die the death of nature: which death of nature is inflicted by the power of God on account of original sin, according to 1 Kgs. 2:6: ‘The Lord killeth and maketh alive.’ Consequently, by the command of God, death can be inflicted on any man, guilty or innocent, without any injustice whatever. In like manner adultery is intercourse with another’s wife; who is allotted to him by the law emanating from God. Consequently intercourse with any woman, by the command of God, is neither adultery nor fornication. The same applies to theft, which is the taking of another’s property. For whatever is taken by the command of God, to Whom all things belong, is not taken against the will of its owner, whereas it is in this that theft consists. Nor is it only in human things, that whatever is commanded by God is right; but also in natural things, whatever is done by God, is, in some way, natural, as stated in the I, 105, 6, ad 1.” and here again “God is Lord of death and life, for by His decree both the sinful and the righteous die. Hence he who at God’s command kills an innocent man does not sin, as neither does God Whose behest he executes: indeed his obedience to God’s commands is a proof that he fears Him.”
Sorry for the long post, but you understand the necessity: before accepting something as sound doctrine from whence further conclusions can be drawn, it must be tested in every way to see if it holds up. I look forward to your reply, and apologize in advance if I am late in responding to it, as well as for the lateness of this particular response. God bless all of you.
March 16, 2013 at 3:20am · Like