Monday, October 19, 2020

A Jealous God

 

Jeffrey Dahmer (d. 1994, aka "The Milwaukee Monster") was one of the most infamous serial killers in the United States. In 1991 he was convicted for the brutal torture and murder of sixteen people. In most cases, he had cannibalized his victims, and in some cases performed necrophilia. Dahmer was a sodomite and had also been convicted of child molestation. On November 28, 1994, he was bludgeoned to death by a fellow inmate (it is believed the guards knew the inmate's intentions and allowed the killing to take place, so as to rid the world of such a monster).  The day after Dahmer was killed, the TV show Dateline NBC broadcast an interview they had conducted with him earlier that same year. The transcript of that interview is quite an eye-opener.

Dahmer had been a convinced atheist. He admitted that his disbelief in God led him to commit those horrid crimes:

If you don't...think there is a God to be accountable to, then...what's the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it in acceptable ranges? That's how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from slime. When we...died, you know, that was it, there was nothing. (Quote from the transcript of an interview with Jeffrey Dahmer on Dateline NBC, broadcast 11/29/1994).  After his trial, Dahmer found he could not explain his feelings of guilt; of right and wrong, against his atheistic worldview. He started reading the Bible. He became a "born again" Protestant. In that final interview, Dahmer stated, "I've since come to believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is truly God, and I believe that I, as well as everyone else, will be accountable to him (sic)." (Ibid---Dahmer claimed he was "prepared to die" and didn't deserve to live after what he had done).  

A notorious serial killer was brought to the conclusion that God exists, because that is the only way we can have objective moral values. By "objective moral value," I mean, e.g., even if Stalin and the Communists had conquered the world and brainwashed every single person (without exception) into agreeing that mass murder of political opponents (and other "undesirables") was moral--it would still be wrong.  Therefore, if something is considered morally good, and its opposite morally evil, it can only be such objectively if there is an external and eternal standard by which actions can be judged. This standard can only be found in the attributes of God.

One of the so-called "New Atheists," Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist, agrees that on the atheistic point of view, morality is a subjective human construct. He wrote:

In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we would expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference. (See Richard Dawkins, "God's Utility Function," Scientific American, [November 1995], pg. 85). Ironically, Dawkins accuses the Christian God of being---immoral! In his 2006 book, The God Delusion, Dawkins opines on page 31 that:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. Wait a second. How can Dawkins pronounce such an objective denunciation against God on what, in the final analysis, is just his opinion? Isn't this the same man who tells people there is "[no] justice...no good, no evil..."?  

This post will focus on the accusation of both atheists and non-Christians that the God of Christianity is immoral, and therefore Christianity cannot be true. In particular, I will examine the charge that God is jealous, angry, and violent. 

Are Jealousy and Anger Always Sinful?

1. Jealousy

The Bible and the Church clearly teach that God is jealous. In Exodus 20:5, we read, "You shall not bow down to them [other gods] or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God." However, it is also taught that jealousy is sinful. Galatians 5:18-21 tells us, "The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the Kingdom of God." (Emphasis mine). Isn't this a stinging indictment of God?

First, some necessary and proper distinctions are in order:

Envy is what you feel towards someone when he has something that you want.

Jealousy is what you feel when you have something you really like and don’t want to share.

Avarice (sometimes called covetousness) is what you feel about the thing you want that that other person has in his possession. This sinful feeling is the result of having the wrong attitude toward material things and being greedy. 

If jealousy is rooted in self-centeredness, it is evil. However, if it springs forth from concern for another's well-being, it is good. That's why St. Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 11:2, "I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to Him." (Emphasis mine). So there is a good (or "godly") type of jealousy. St. Paul was concerned for the well-being of the Corinthians. His jealousy was not from hurt and self-centered pride. A woman who is not jealous when another woman openly flirts with her husband can't be very committed to the relationship. Her jealousy should be understood as a guarding of their relationship.

Good jealousy is diligent to protect what we possess. God loves us and wants us to be eternally happy with Him. Therefore, when people sin and turn away from God, they are hurting themselves, and God wants to protect them from the sin that separates them from Him. He wants the worship due to Him which will prevent humans from being destroyed by the worship of the idols of money, sex, drugs, etc.

2. Anger

Like jealousy, anger can be both sinful and just. Anger that is an inordinate desire for revenge is sinful. Anger that is a righteous indignation over sin and creates an orderly desire for punishment is lawful and called just anger.   (See theologian Jone, Moral Theology, [1961], pg. 58). Hence, Our Lord displayed just anger when he threw the money-changers out of the Temple (See St. Mark Chapter 11).  Nothing outside of God can make Him ( i.e., cause Him to be) angry. That is, He cannot be provoked to anger (by something else), but He has anger at sin – and always has and always will because it is contrary to His holy Nature. Since His very Nature is absolutely good, God is (and always was and always will be) angry at sin. 

One of the big objections to God's anger at sin is that it leads to violence and massive deaths. Most frequently cited is the slaughter of the Canaanites recorded in the Book of Deuteronomy. Israel was commanded by God to completely exterminate the Canaanite inhabitants of the land including men, women, and children. This has wrongly been deemed a primitive and barbaric act of murder perpetrated on innocent lives. Deuteronomy 20:16-18 states:

But of the cities of these peoples which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance, you shall let nothing that breathes remain alive, but you shall utterly destroy them: the Hittite and the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite, just as the LORD your God has commanded you, lest they teach you to do according to all their abominations which they have done for their gods, and you sin against the LORD your God. (Emphasis mine). 

The commonly asked question is, “How could a good God command the Israelites to slaughter every man, woman, child, and even animal in the cities of the Canaanite nations? Isn't this the same God that listed ‘Thou shalt not kill’ in the 10 Commandments?”  Here is the context:

  • The Fifth Commandment prohibits murder which is the unjust taking of human life by other humans
  • Not prohibited are capital punishment, killing in self-defense, and just war ("societal self-defense")
  • God, the Author of Life, can take life from this Earth. God gave us life and it is His right to take it back. That is why, for example, doctors who want to choose who gets proper medical treatment when supplies are low are accused of "playing God." 
  • God ordered the extermination of the Canaanites because of their wickedness.  Archeology gives some hints about what the Canaanites did. On one High Place, archeologists found several stone pillars and great numbers of jars containing remains of newborn babies. When a new house was built, a child would be sacrificed and its body built into the wall to bring good luck to the rest of the family. Firstborn children were often sacrificed to Molech, a giant hollow bronze image in which a fire was built. Parents placed their children in its red hot hands and the babies would roll down into the fire. The sacrifice was invalid if a parent displayed grief. Mothers were supposed to dance and sing. The Israelites later copied this practice in a valley near Jerusalem called Gehenna. Hundreds of jars containing infant bones have been found there. (See, e.g., W.F. Albright Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan: A Historical Analysis of Two Contrasting Faiths [1968]). 
  • Canaanite practices included incest, child abuse, homosexuality, and bestiality--all condoned and promoted by their pagan and demonic-inspired religion
  • God took the lives of the Canaanites to prevent their wicked ways from corrupting His Chosen people, from whom would come the God-Man Jesus Christ
  • God gave them hundreds of years to repent. "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.  The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:8-9).  God said repeatedly that he would drive out the inhabitants of the land before Israel. Those who wished to leave had time and opportunity to do so and change their ways. 
  • By taking the lives of the babies, God prevented them from growing up to be evil like their parents and going to Hell. Dying before the age of reason, they would be spared in Limbo. Interestingly, those who deplore this act of mercy as "infanticide" usually see nothing wrong with abortion
Therefore, (a) God has the right to take life as He is the One Who gave Life; (b) the Canaanites were totally depraved and would not repent; (c) God was justified in removing them from Earth and sparing the souls of their children. In His Just Anger against this iniquitous culture of the Canaanites, who stood firm in their sins and jeopardized the salvation of the Jews, God protected His people from whom would be born the Savior of all humanity. 

Conclusion

God is indeed jealous; in the righteous sense of wanting to protect the members of His One True Church and to seek the salvation of all--even though through no fault of God, many will be lost by their own free will. God is justly angry at sin, and punishes the wicked both here and in the hereafter. It should be obvious that those who disparage God as the source of objective morality, and claim Him to be immoral, are culpably ignorant. 

Let us also be jealous and justly angry in the Great Apostasy. Let us be jealous in preserving the One True Faith, true moral teaching, and our Mass and sacraments against the Vatican II sect that wants them destroyed. Let us be justly angry against the sect for sending millions of souls to Hell with their wicked and un-Catholic doctrines, led by their demonic leader Mr. Bergoglio, who dares to say, "There is no Catholic God." 




33 comments:

  1. Proud atheists like Dawkins think they are putting God on trial, whose existence they deny ... isn't that a sign of madness? But they are the ones who will be judged on the last day. And they are already judged, as our Lord says.

    Atheism is one of the great evils of our time, responsible for many moral and social disorders. A life without God is meaningless, without an explanation of the world and its complexity. If there is no God, our actions in this life are useless because there will be no eternal reward for good deeds and eternal punishment for bad ones.

    Our God is a jealous God and His anger is great against the demonic sect of Bergoglio who idolizes false gods. She is the Whore of Babylon !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Simon,
      The nihilism of atheism is having devastating consequences on our society. However, it is helped by Bergoglio who informs us “Atheists go to Heaven.”

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  2. A very good post on the anger and jealousy of God.

    On a related note, I always find those who condemn slavery (in general, not just its horrors or the abuses therein), while at the same lambasting Sacred Scripture and Christianity for seemingly condoning the practice, to be utterly laughable. After all, slavery was a practice that lasted for all of known human history. It wasn't until the British Empire decided to enforce its abolition that the world over began to think of slavery as something uniquely wrong.

    Were it not for the Christian moral framework, slavery would still be practiced globally. As Jordan B. Peterson once insightfully remarked (for all his faults), the new atheists who think they can tear out the religious roots of the moral, civil, and philosophical edifice of Western Civilization, with no CONSEQUENCE for that edifice, are simply deluding themselves, and have no idea what kind of aftershocks such an endeavor will result in.

    Sincerely,

    A Simple Man

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Simple Man,
      A very astute observation on the logical consequences the “New Atheists” refuse to see. As one of the “Four Horsemen” of the New Atheism, Christopher Hitchens— who told us God is neither Great nor Good—- has gone to Judgement. He now knows the truth. If he didn’t repent and convert before death, Hitchens will lament for all eternity that the Great God, in His Goodness, was ever willing to save him.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  3. Can you recommend a any manual of Bible exegesis?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's the scriptural commentaries by Cornelius a Lapide and Fr. Leo Haydock, as well as the Catena Aurea of St. Thomas Aquinas which is a compilation of manifold saints on the Gospel.

      For Cornelius a Lapide on the Gospels: https://www.ecatholic2000.com/lapide/untitled-170.shtml

      There's also Bp. Frederick Knecht, D.D.'s practical commentary on Holy Scripture from 1910: https://www.ecatholic2000.com/knecht/untitled-198.shtml

      Sincerely,

      A Simple Man

      Delete
    2. Simple Man and Anon1:46
      Thank you for “filling in for me” while I had much work to do! Your recommendations are spot on!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  4. You can find Fr. Leo Haydock commentary on scripture in DailyCatholic.com, but only on Sundays and Feastdays

    ReplyDelete
  5. Off topic: Seems "Pope" Francis is going maskless:

    https://www.aol.com/article/news/2020/10/21/pope-reverts-to-mask-less-old-ways-amid-growing-criticism/24657799/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon6:42
      With his endorsement of sodomite civil unions, his mask is coming off in more ways than one!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  6. "Pope" Francis endorses same sex civil unions. How anyone can recognize this apostate as "Pope" is an abomination.

    https://apnews.com/article/pope-endorse-same-sex-civil-unions-eb3509b30ebac35e91aa7cbda2013de2

    JoAnn

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joann,
      After this, I find it hard that anyone in good faith can recognize this apostate as “pope “

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Just tried watching Matt Fradd’s latest video where he is crying crocodile tears over the latest nonsense from “Pope” Francis. When are he and others of the NO tradionalists going to wake up from their self-induced sleep and see him for what he truly is: not the Pope and definitely not Catholic.

      Delete
    3. Cyrus Tyr,
      I think it is willful disbelief. They want a “pope” and will cling to the imposter at any cost. If such were not the case, the Antichrist would not be able to take over. Many people will blindly follow him.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  7. I for one applaud Bergoglio. He is telling the whole world the true nature of NO and V2.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tom,
      He is indeed. Perhaps change on birth control is next, and the endorsement of divorce and remarriage; annulments not necessary.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Seems anything goes in the Vatican II sect. Perhaps Francis will be the V2 sect's last "Pope"?

      JoAnn

      Delete
    3. Joann,
      I feel Bergoglio will be followed by worse—-perhaps the False Prophet.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  8. Do you think the home alone position implies denial of the need of apostolicity in the Church?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon1:20
      Your query is an excellent one; very thought provoking. Upon reflection, I’d say in my opinion it is an implicit denial of Apostolicity.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  9. I missed out on everything meaningful in Life.
    Looking back,our Blessed Lord gave me enough time but my desire for
    hedonism outweighed repentance.
    It's very painful to live with but this was my choice.
    Peter2 which is quoted in this article is true.
    Good article + God bless.
    Andrew

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Andrew,
      You have God’s forgiveness and the future—as well as a real hope of Heaven. Remember that many great saints lived like heathens before they lived for God. Never allow regret to pull you down; rather be glad that you responded to God’s Grace and He has great plans for you.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Thank you.
      God bless
      -A

      Delete
  10. Introibo,
    I am from Poland and recently the Polish Constitutional Court ruled that eugenic abortion is unconstitutional. This sparked protests from feminists and other pro-choice supporters. How would you respond to such allegations about abortion?
    1. It is allowed to kill a sick / severely disabled unborn child (for example without a brain). The child will die moments after birth anyway and must suffer.
    2. Necessary defense is allowed. A mother can kill an unborn child when it endangers her life.

    God bless,
    Paweł

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pawel,
      The basic premise is that human life begins at the moment of fertilization. The child has 46 chromosomes and DNA that is distinct from both mother and father. It is unique HUMAN life. Humans only give birth to other humans. To those who object that it doesn't become human until a certain point, ask them how they know. All agree a baby just born is human. At what point prior is it not human? The Burden of Proof is on the abortionists to PROVE IT IS NOT HUMAN AND WHY. If it is stated "No one knows when life begins" then that is enough to stop abortion. If you go hunting and don't know if something you see in a bush is a deer or a human, do you shoot and hope it's not human OR MUST YOU NOT REFRAIN FROM SHOOTING BECAUSE IT MIGHT BE HUMAN? The answer should be obvious.

      As to you specific questions, keeping in mind what was just written:

      1. A child without a brain cannot suffer because the feelings of pain come from the brain. If you can kill someone because of a disability, why not after birth as well? Who are the pro-abortionists to decide what's a "worthwhile life"? Albert Einstein was on the Autistic spectrum. Hellen Keller was both deaf and blind. Motzart suffered mood disorders. Kill them too? They deny that people have life given from God and only God can take it away.

      2. This is a false dilemma because with today's medical technology, such cases have been virtually non-existent since the 1990s. What about that "one in a million case"? You can never directly kill another human being. The mother must try to bring the child to term, and the life most savable must be preserved (sometimes mother, sometimes baby).

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Just as a piggieback to this what does the Church teach regarding miscarriages Introibo?

      Thanks and God bless

      Delete
    3. David,
      A true miscarriage (not one deliberately induced) is the death of an unborn baby, but not murder. If it is likely that a miscarriage can happen, the child should be baptized via needle inserted into the uterus and a small amount of water injected over the baby’s head while the form is recited. This was declared valid by the Holy Office under Pope Pius XII.

      If that does not happen, the child’s soul will go to Limbo and enjoy some measure of natural happiness.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  11. There was another objection.
    3. It is certain that the child will die. The woman has to carry the baby until the end of pregnancy and the baby will die afterwards. It will be a tragedy for her.
    Do you have any article or website that responds to the allegations of the abortionists?
    I am attending high school with a math-physics extension and I want to answer my friends' accusations (they support abortion). They at the same time virtually all participate in catechesis taught by the Novus Ordo clergy (modernism is taking its toll). Fr. Trytek (sedevacantist) described today's Polish youth as "true childrens of the Council".

    God bless,
    Paweł

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pawel,
      What a sad commentary to have "Catholic" (Vatican II sect) youth supporting the murder of babies.

      To answer #3, it is factually wrong. The results of a meta-analysis entitled “Abortion and Mental Health: A Quantitative Synthesis and Analysis of Research Published from 1995-2009” shows that women who aborted experienced an 81 percent increased risk for mental health problems. This is much greater than bringing a child to term. Murder is always a tragedy. How do they know it is certain the baby will die? There are miracles, and doctors are not infallible. Using the same logic, if someone is declared terminally ill, rather than watch them die slowly and be sad about it, let's give them a lethal injection to die quickly.

      If you can afford it, I would highly recommend a book entitled "Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments" by Randy Alcorn. (Expanded edition) You can purchase it on Amazon.com for $14.99 (Kindle) or $19.99 paperback.

      I'll be praying for you to keep the Faith and stand strong for what is right, like you have been doing! We need more young Traditionalists like you!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Introibo,
      Thank you for answers my questions and for prayer. I need prayer very much, because I also struggle with impurity sins and I don't have a catholic priest to the confession (there are only Novus Ordo clergy).
      I would also like to thank you for all your work, especially the articles about the compatibility of faith and reason. They help me a lot in discussions about the Catholic faith with my friends.
      I also assure you, that I prayer for you.

      God bless,
      Paweł

      Delete
    3. Pawel,
      Thank you my friend! I’ll always answer all questions the best I can.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  12. Hello Paweł! It's nice to see a fellow sedevacantist from Poland here at Introibo's!

    When I was still in the Novus Ordo, I thought that tampering with the so-called abortion compromise (abortion in case of rape, incest, fetal defects, danger to the mother's health) was politically unwise - if abortion was to be made illegal in these instances, extreme leftists would rise to power on the wave of social outrage, thus liberalizing abortion laws like never before in Poland. That was my Novus Ordo way of thinking. This was advocated in the so-called conservative circles. After what I've read today on Twitter in these 'conservative' comments I can only say that there's no dividing line between conservatives, liberals, leftists etc. The only real distinction is Catholic and anti-Catholic (mostly the Novus Ordos with their pastoral shades of grey). The rest is political folklore.

    I believe that the Novus Ordos are OK with abortion in certain cases also because they deny the original sin and erroneously think that these poor babies are going to Heaven. Obviously, never heard of what the Church teaches in this matter.
    Pope Pius XII's address to midwives (1951) solves every question - never heard it cited nor even pointed to in the Vatican II sect!
    The movie "Unplanned" has been quite popular in Poland, I saw the greater part of it yesterday and must admit that it has contributed to this false belief of aborted babies being in Heaven - still, it shouldn't surprise me as it is filmed from a Protestant point of view and we all know how close that is to the Vatican II sect.

    Joanna S.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Joanna,
      I believe that the current decision of the Constitutional Tribunal is only political. This government had the opportunity for 5 years, but it did not change the abortion law anyway.
      Currently, the Novus Ordo churches (former Catholic churches) in Poland are under attack by feminists. This shows the hatred of these circles towards Christ and Catholic morality, which in this respect was mostly preserved by the conservative clergy of the Vatican II sect in Poland.

      God bless,
      Paweł

      Delete