Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Bill "Papa" Lee

Joseph’S Civil War Prophecy, Can Some Of The Pundit’S Help…

Recommended Posts

How much “restraint” do you think God should employ? And on what activities?

Even appearing in the clouds and saying, "you really shouldn't do that!" would be a nice start. Instead, he does nothing. (Or, at the most, gives us shoddy and ambiguous sacred texts with limited moral and historical credibility.)

Share this post


Link to post
Same God Who ordered the destruction of the Canaanites, the Jaredites, the Nephites (twice), and the Israelites (twice before Christ, and once afterward). You may not like Him, but He's consistent.

One begins to understand why Satan rebelled. This raises the interesting question of whether one should blindly follow whoever's in power, no matter how immoral, or whether perhaps the virtuous thing to do would be to join the opposition?

Share this post


Link to post

Chris,

I think you have crossed the line and have gone into the realm of blasphemy. You are now portraying Satan as the victim, and Father as the bad guy.

Edited by cdowis

Share this post


Link to post

Chris,

I think you have crossed the line now have gone into the realm of blasphemy. You are now portraying Satan as the victim, and Father as the bad guy.

It's his view of the moral question. And I can sympathize with it, because I don't agree with the basis. I do believe that a God who condones and orders mass genocidal violence against men, women and children is worthy of being rebelled against. I also am not convinced that God ever did such a thing, Propagandistic Israelite nationalist OT histories notwithstanding.

Share this post


Link to post
I think you have crossed the line and have gone into the realm of blasphemy. You are now portraying Satan as the victim, and Father as the bad guy.

Obviously, I don't believe that God and Satan actually exist. But if they do exist, and if God is as LeSellers has depicted him, then "blasphemy" is really just another word for thoughtcrime. If God is a cruel tyrant whom we worship only because he happens to be in charge, then "blasphemy" is the equivalent of speaking truth to power. Any God who commands genocide should go the way of Hosni Mubarak and Slobodan Milošević.

Edited by Chris Smith

Share this post


Link to post
if God is as LeSellers has depicted him, then "blasphemy" is really just another word for thoughtcrime. If God is a cruel tyrant whom we worship because he happens to be in charge, then "blasphemy" is the equivalent of speaking truth to power.
"...this do I hear, Denethor son of Ecthelion, Lord of Gondor, Steward of the High King, and I will not forget it, nor fail to reward that which is given: fealty with love, valour with honour, oath-breaking with vengeance."

Or, He could be, like Denethor, One Who respects the power of covenant.

The Nephites, the Jaredites, the Israelites, they were all covenant-breakers.

The same thing with the "victims" of the Deluge: they had broken covenants.

I do not pretend to understand the full impact of "patriarchal" covenants, where the oath makers' voice is binding on subsequent generations, but I believe they exist and are binding in spite of my naïveté.

Israel is the quintessential example of such covenants. They entered into the covenant at Sinai, broke it immediately, and were given a second chance. The new covenant, that of the Law of Moses, was binding on them, and on their nthth great grandchildren. How and why I do not know.

But I am convinced that He operates from a different vantage point than we do. And, He is correct, not us, and not you.

Lehi

P.S.: "Lehi" really is my name. You are invited to use it. LS

Edited by LeSellers

Share this post


Link to post
Or, He could be, like Denethor, One Who respects the power of covenant.

Tolkien's books make wonderful fantasy, but incredibly childish philosophy and theology.

But I am convinced that He operates from a different vantage point than we do. And, He is correct, not us, and not you.

I am convinced that genocide is not correct. Agree to disagree? :rolleyes:

Edited by Chris Smith

Share this post


Link to post

P.S.: "Lehi" really is my name. You are invited to use it. LS

And if you don't, he'll start name-dropping U.S. Presidents who've called him by that name again. True story.

Share this post


Link to post

I am convinced that genocide is not correct. Agree to disagree? :rolleyes:

This is an interesting thing--can you think of no situation where it would be correct?

Share this post


Link to post
This is an interesting thing--can you think of no situation where it would be correct?

No realistic one, no.

Share this post


Link to post

No realistic one, no.

If I correctly understand what realistic means when you use it, I suppose within your reality, I don't know if I could either. I'll think about it for a while.

Share this post


Link to post

Chris,

While I have great respect for your contributions on this forum, you continue to blaspheme my divine Father. I have made it known to the mods that either you go, or I will go. I cannot continue to participate in a forum which allows such perverse statements.

I will go now, and return only when I see that you are no longer a participant in the forum.

Edited by cdowis

Share this post


Link to post

I think chances are, we'll be seeing more of Chris, and less of cdowis, then. If it comes down to it, I'd definitely choose that over the alternative.

Chris' statement was not intended to be one insulting or offensive. It was a valid expression of a logical perspective held by many - that they see no reason to love or revere a person who had done many of the things attributed to him in scripture - such as genocide - which appear (quite understandbly) to be revolting, uncaring, and cruel. That if such an individual were their earthly king, they would feel justified in rebelling against that individual. That such rulers who do such now are viewed as despots and criminals who need to be deposed and stopped.

Chris has shown to be one of the most congenial posters on this board - it just happens that he's also a critic of many faith-based claims. That doesn't make him a Bad Person.

In the course of this conversation, I don't see ANYTHING inherently wrong or mean spirited in what Christ has said. Making someone uncomfortable in their assertions by use of logic and rational comparison is part of good debate and discussion, IMHO.

Edited by nackhadlow

Share this post


Link to post

And if you don't, he'll start name-dropping U.S. Presidents who've called him by that name again.

And don't forget my mother-in-law.

True story.

I use Clinton and Carter as examples because I still have the papers they signed. The others disappeared in the Great Sellers Fire of 1985. True story.

Lehi

Share this post


Link to post

And don't forget my mother-in-law.

Dangit, I knew I forgot something ;)

Share this post


Link to post

Chris Smith is out of this thread.

Share this post


Link to post

Chris Smith is out of this thread.

EDIT

<<Never mind. Over the top Snark removed by myself. I do think this was handled poorly, however, and that Chris did nothing outside the bounds of an actual discussion on the subject, even though his perspective was uncomfortable to someone else. Genocide makes people uncomfortable. The thought that a loving God is said to have committed Genocide makes people even more uncomfortable, and draws praellels to known rulers who do commit genocide. It's not a far-out comparison, and it does make people uncomfortable. Chris pointed this out. His pointing this out is what made cdowis uncomfortable. That happens. I have been made uncomfortable in my own assertions and assumptions by insightful questioning from others, which led to my mind being changed. I'd much rather have my perspective challenged than just be met with people who who agree with everything I currently think.>>

That's all I'll say on this, and voluntarily remove myself from this thread, and leave cdowis rejoicing in his victory over those with a different mindset than him. Those who voice that they think the concept of a genocidal God is not okay are apparently considered Blasphemous here. It would make more sense if this were cdowis' directed thread...but it isn't.

Edited by nackhadlow

Share this post


Link to post
Tolkien's books make wonderful fantasy, but incredibly childish philosophy and theology.

Have you read The Silmarillion?

Anyone who has could not make that statement.

I am convinced that genocide is not correct. Agree to disagree?

You are entitled to believe any ol' dumb thing you want.

I restate my belief: God understand covenants. He is entitled to fulfill the conditions of a covenant when the people who've broken them are "ripe in iniquity". What you or I think is wholly immaterial.

Lehi

Share this post


Link to post

What you or I think is wholly immaterial.

Lehi

I'm curious - nackhadlow seems to feel the description of God you support is the product of Israelite mythologizing along a nationalistic bent. You seem to feel these descriptions of God are legitimate.

How would you reconcile this in light of this comment from Joseph Fielding McConkie? - "The whole system of salvation centers in our obtaining the "mind of Christ," as Paul said (1 Cor. 2:16). It is the process by which we come to think as God thinks, to believe as he believes, and therefore to act as he would act. It embraces, Paul explained, our "rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Tim. 2:15)."

The statement comes from this source, in case you were wondering. Source.

Share this post


Link to post

Chris Smith is out of this thread.

Absolutely incredible. And pathetic.

H.

Share this post


Link to post
How would you reconcile [the discrepancy of Lehi's and nackhaldow's opinions] in light of this comment from Joseph Fielding McConkie? - "The whole system of salvation centers in our obtaining the "mind of Christ," as Paul said (1 Cor. 2:16). It is the process by which we come to think as God thinks, to believe as he believes, and therefore to act as he would act. It embraces, Paul explained, our "rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Tim. 2:15)."

I don't have to: Brother McConkie does not define doctrine.

Even were we to assume his statement is correct, I am not "there" yet, and I doubt nackhadlow is, either. (I've been wrong before, twice today, already, so take this latter with the proverbial grain of salt.)

Lehi

Share this post


Link to post

Absolutely incredible. And pathetic.

H.

Yes indeed. I think cdowis and LeSellers should be banned for justifying genocide.

Edited by Mike Reed

Share this post


Link to post

Yes indeed. I think cdowis and LeSellers should be banned for justifying genocide.

It's "Lehi", please!

And, for the record, it was not "genocide". Those who were punished were not the only ones of their race; just those whose families were oath/covenant-breakers.

The Canaanites, for instance, were Semites, and there were Jaredites well beyond Mosiah; some Nephites (although they renounced even their corrupt version of Christianity to stay alive) survived Cumorah.

Lehi

Share this post


Link to post

It's "Lehi", please!

Then get your username changed, dude. Otherwise quit complaining when people call you by what your chosen username is prominently listed as.

Edited by nackhadlow

Share this post


Link to post

Then get your username changed, dude. Otherwise quit complaining when people call you by what your chosen username is prominently listed as.

No can do, much as I'd like to. Some other guy (who's name's most likely not "Lehi") took it long ago. He hasn't used it in years, but he's staked it out, and I can't use it.

It's not like I don't make it clear, both by these explicit pleas, and by signing every message with my name.

Lehi

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...