Does God "Kill" People

[Tacenda]

When Adam & Eve partook and left the garden, they left the protection, except God did provide a Saviour. In my heart I think He also provides angels to help us. And I think the earthlife is just a drop in the bucket of eternal life. Maybe he provides angels to be with those that are dying from starvation, illness, violent acts etc. But expects the living to help those in need. He is really dependant on us because of Adam & Eve's disobedience.

[CV75]

If we tackle the suicide bomber before he successfully crashes the plane, we are "violating his agency".

Actually, the bomber already foreited his agency (the ability and privilege God gives us to choose and to act for ourselves) by presuming to choose and act for others. Tackling him correctly presumes he has no agency and that others still want theirs.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Thanks, canard78. And yep, the Weeping God is a vital bit of Restoration. Still (though I love Nibley's book on the subject and plan to read the Givens' soon), I don't think that Enoch's story is a successful theodicy if taken entirely literally, since God still sends the Floods.

(On the other hand, I think that Santillana and Dechend are correct in noting that the reason there is exactly zero evidence of a literal planet-covering Flood is because the worldwide mythical "floods" are heuristic teaching devices representing times of chaos and astronomical observations. Certainly I think much of the Adam and Eve story is "figurative as far as the man and woman are concerned", and we are not punished for Adam's transgression, which did not result in original sin; we're responsible for our own Falls, thenkyewverymuch.)

I think another thing to remember from the Pearl of Great Price is the idea that God has worlds without number to visit, which is why it's so important that we act as His hands when we can and save people to the best of our ability even when He's not physically present in our world.

[bluebell]

If we tackle the suicide bomber before he successfully crashes the plane, we are "violating his agency".

We are allowed to do that, because that's a use of OUR agency. This is OUR test, after all, and our experience.

If we just stand by when we know we have the power to stop him, how are we not at least

if he is

? The ultimate responsibility always lies with the person using their agency to do deliberate harm, but if we have the power to use our own agency to prevent that harm and yet we don't use it, then we've become as salt that has lost its savor because we've chosen not to be the saviors of men.

It's all a part of our test. We do what we can, and leave the rest in God's hands.

(And if, as stated in the New Testament, the last enemy God will destroy is death itself, and if He has the power to change us from mortality to immortality in a twinkling, then all of the horrific murders attributed to God in the Old Testament make no sense. Onan slain because he spilled his seed on the ground? 42 kids mauled to death by bears because they teased a Prophet of Yahweh? Ugh. Not a God I'm interested in, thanks.)

I don't believe those parts of the bible are true, but not because they don't make sense to me. If i'm only interested in a God who does exactly what I think He should, then I'm only interested in worshipping a being who is exactly like me with my exactly same level of intelligence and understanding-and since i'm pretty messed up, i'm not interested in THAT kind of a god.

I would be setting my gods too low, that's for sure, if i made 'i must agree with and understand everything he does' part of my requisite.

If God has the power to stop holocausts, then he damn well better.

Why?

If He's just standing around twiddling His all-powerful and omnipresent thumbs while letting people get shot in the head and thrown into gas chambers as an object lesson, then He's an evil "God" and I'm certainly not going to worship Him.

No he's not. He's not any more evil than i am when i hold my children down so a doctor can do something horribly painful to them because i know, in the long run, it will be best. Protecting your children from all hurt and all harm is NOT the sign of a good parent. It's the sign of a weak and selfish parent.

On the other hand, if God is limited in what He can do, then we're wrong to blame Him for our own sins, but we're also wrong to attribute every last causal relationship in the universe to Him, and He cannot be present in every detail of every moment of every day (isn't that why it's such a big deal for Him to descend to our world and take us back into His presence? Because He's not everywhere at once?).

This just seems like a way of creating a god after your own image. It seems like you are saying 'If God doesn't behave exactly as I would in every situation, it must be because He can't-or obviously He would'.

If He found Himself in the midst of other uncreated Intelligences just as we did, then He is not the ultimate source of existence and we are therefore not contingent on Him; we, like Him, cannot be created or destroyed, and so we are responsible for our actions and God is not to blame for creating the possibility for murder from nothing ... but neither is He responsible for every good thing, even if He fits good things into His overarching Plan.

Have you ever tried to find God in the details of your life?

[Damien the Leper]

And people without God(s) kill people. Every single one of us will die at some point. Just as ever single one of us will be Resurrected at some point. I don't have a death wish, and quite frankly I don't want to live forever in this old tired, disabled, body. I look forward to my glorious resurrection.

I saw it as a bumper sticker a few years ago. It wasn't to say that people without god(s) don't kill. The point is that killing in the name of a god is unethical.

[thesometimesaint]

I think he's making a play on the gun lobby slogan. But anyway,

Given the possible loss of a dear friend, I live in hope and reassurance of the Resurrection. I just feel frustrated at the notion that death comes upon every living creature at a moment of God's chosing. I don't think I can accept that. I also struggle with the notion that it's death by consequence for some people (from nature or evil) but death at a moment of God's choosing for others.

I believe that God knows when we will die, but that Agency prevents him for telling us when that is, or preventing us from speeding up the process. We don't know the end from the beginning like God does. The Resurrection makes death irrelevant from an eternal perspective even though we morn the loss of loved ones in this life. Death is not a permanent good bye but more like an Hawaiian Aloha. We will meet again and hug each other in the eternal realms of the hereafter.

[Damien the Leper]

I think he's making a play on the gun lobby slogan.

No. Read above in post #30.

Edited November 28, 2012 by Valentinus

[CV75]

(And if, as stated in the New Testament, the last enemy God will destroy is death itself, and if He has the power to change us from mortality to immortality in a twinkling, then all of the horrific murders attributed to God in the Old Testament make no sense.

With all due respect to Uncle Ben (may he rest in peace) they make sense in that He was preserving the agency of those souls being so impeded by the ones He removed from the premises so as to warrant their removal them from the premises.

The rest of your post got a bit rant-ish, so no point getting into 'all that."

[thesometimesaint]

I saw it as a bumper sticker a few years ago. It wasn't to say that people without god(s) don't kill. The point is that killing in the name of a god is unethical.

Was it anymore ethical for Stalin to kill millions than it was for the Crusaders to kill thousands?

[Damien the Leper]

And of course, people with no gods kill people (lest we forget the horrors of atheist communism).

If someone wants to kill another person, if someone wants to hate another, any excuse will do.

Again, reference post #30. My post wasn't a cheap shot at religion. It was a direct shot at rationalizing (not justifying) killing in the name of a god.

However, your shot at "atheist Communism" has been noted and rejected (by me and maybe Volgadon if he wishes to join in) based on the history of countries who's primary political power happened to be Communist but failed to live by Communist ethics and lifestance.

[canard78]

I don't believe he does.

What's the point of this whole life? Is it so that everyone get's the exact same opportunities? Has the same length of life? Does it really matter how long we are here, or how we leave, in the bigger picture, as long as we've done 'enough' in God's eyes? What opportunities do we know a person loses, when God allows them to die?

If you don't know why we are here on this earth, then life doesn't make sense. If you believe that we are here to learn and to grow and to become a specific type of person that this process is independent of the length we get to stay, and if you believe that the afterlife is an amazing place where no opportunity or blessing is denied, then even without knowing exactly all the how's and why's, there can be peace.

Firstly, I thank you again for engaging in this topic Bluebell - at a troubling time when I'm trying to make sense of my anger and grief it's a useful place to bounce these ideas around. I guess is less a philosophical debate for me and more a way of processing the pain and frustration. I'm BIC/RM etc and I accept the LDS teaching on the purpose of life and our reason for being here. But there are still parts that don't make sense sometimes. Especially the parts that hurt I guess. I sometimes wonder whether peace comes from placing meaning on tragedy rather than their being actual meaning in tragedy.

If his mission in life was over in 1801, then I would guess yes. If not, then no. Just like everyone else, in my opinion.

Why would having done all that you were meant to do here on the earth and being allowed to die, make you more important than someone who had not yet done everything and was kept alive until they could die after their mission was completed? In both cases, each person would live until they had done everything they needed to do, right? What's the difference between one and the other?

This fits if every one of God's billions of children are maintained alive until they've completed their mission on earth. But that would also mean that God could not cause or even allow their death to occur until the mission is complete. That's a lot of agency to meddle with.

Death is not the worse thing that can happen to someone. It's not a punishment for something, and living is not a reward-we are just wired to view life like that because of the survival instinct that God has given us, and because we don't like to miss people we love-it's hard and we never like hard things.

EVERYONE dies though. Someone who dies in battle and another who dies of old age, they are both dead-we see one as more tragic because humans react to death as if what happens in mortality is better and more important than what happens in the afterlife (if they even believe in an after life), but in reality, there is no difference between the two of them, except that one got to experience the peace and tranquility of the next life sooner than the other.

There is no difference if God was equal in administering either passive allowance of death by consequence of battle/age or administering death at a time appropriate to their completed mission. Could one be allowed to die, short of their mission while the other only died after their mission has been completed? I think you've already answered me by saying that someone wouldn't be allowed to die until after their mission on earth was complete and then they would either be allowed or caused to die. Is that right? So death only occurs (in every billion children) when God is ready to 'let them/make them?'

Have you ever asked yourself, does it really matter in the long run, to the person who dies through no fault of their own, when death occures, if God says it's alright? Will He approve something that is harmful to us (the whole and real us, not just the mortal body we are in right now)?

I agree. If God says it's time to come home, at a time of his choosing, then that's ok. But then that's saying that God does indeed choose when it's alright. Which sort of implies God chooses when we die.

I certainly don't have all the answers. Not even close. This is all my opinion. But I think they die because it's o.k.-becaue they are done and they deserve something better and so God gives it to them.

Let's not forget though the times that God doesn't stand by. These are easy to miss because, we seldom know the details of people's lives who survive. Read survivor stories though, read through journals of those who's time wasn't done yet-who still had other things to do-and it will help.



Because when God does intervene, we need to recoginze it. Otherwise, we begin to doubt His presence and deny His love. We become so swallowed up in life that we miss the details all together and make everything infinitely harder that God wants it to be for us.

If God intervenes I'm grateful. I've seen many minor miracles in my life where I'm often inclined to attribute it to an intervention by God. I struggle to explain it any other way. Even in the midst of our grief, there have been wonderful sequences of events for both him and us in trying to ease the challenge of the situation that I struggle to explain by anything other than the intervention of the divine. But it then just twists me back round to the complication of the idea of agency and intervention.

[Damien the Leper]

Was it anymore ethical for Stalin to kill millions than it was for the Crusaders to kill thousands?

For the love of...!! LAST TIME: It was not a shot at religion. It was a shot at rationalizing (not justifying) killing in the name of a god.

To imply anything about my posts in this thread in support of slaughtering any life based on my political position and a poor history of claimed "Communists" shows more about the poster than it does me. Stop making assumptions or attempting any "gotcha" reasoning.

Edited November 28, 2012 by Valentinus

[blackstrap]

Two things.

1. There is rarely if ever an answer to a 'why' question that is not immediately followed by a ' but...' statement.

2. Many years ago I read a thick book called IIRC "The Secret War " . In it it details the use of small things to accomplish great changes in the war outcomes. It was amazing to see how this worked ,and reminded me of how God probably does things in the world to accomplish His will.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I would be setting my gods too low, that's for sure, if i made 'i must agree with and understand everything he does' part of my requisite.

Hmm.

"I wish to pave the way with a few preliminaries in order that you may understand everything." -- Joseph Smith

"If we are to be fully acquainted with the mind, the purposes, and the decrees of the great Elohim who sits in yonder heavens [we] must have an understanding of God Himself in the beginning. If we start right, it is easy to go right all the time; but if we start wrong, it is a hard matter to get right." -- Joseph Smith

"In order to understand the subject of the dead for the consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary they should understand the character and being of God." -- Joseph Smith

The Book of Job implies that it's good to desire to reason with God. The Book of Isaiah says He asks people to come to Him and reason together. The Book of Ecclesiastes says "I applied mine heart to know, and to search, and to seek out Wisdom, and the reason of things." In Thessalonica, Paul went in to a synagogue, and over three sabbath days reasoned with others out of the scriptures. In Corinth and Ephesus, he reasoned with others in order to persuade them. Peter says to always be ready to give an answer to everyone that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you. If God is going to let people be killed when it's in His power to save them, He'd better be prepared to give me a reason I can understand, because otherwise I'm going to come to the conclusion that He is breaking the laws of justice and has therefore ceased to be a God worth worshipping as such.

If God has the power to stop holocausts, then he damn well better.

Why?

Call me crazy, but the pain of a flu shot doesn't seem quite as dire as, say,

. At any rate, this actually supports my point; if we don't have the power to do good without pain (a flu shot), then of course we still do it. If God doesn't have the power to stop every war (which I don't think He does), then we can't blame Him.

But if He does have that power ...

Edited November 28, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[thesometimesaint]

For the love of...!! LAST TIME: It was not a shot at religion. It was a shot at rationalizing (not justifying) killing in the name of a god.

To imply anything about my posts in this thread in support of slaughtering any life based on my political position and a poor history of claimed "Communists" shows more about the poster than it does me. Stop making assumptions or attempting any "gotcha" reasoning.

In general the world divides into two main groups Theists and Atheists, and if you count Agnostics maybe a third. I admit I'm biased, but I don't see how it could be anything but a shot at religion. Moreover Everyone rationalizes their behaviors or they stop doing those behaviors. Either by choice or by force.

I said nothing about the Communists ideology, just one of its more infamous practitioners. There are plenty of non Communists that have very bad behaviors. I've always assumed that you are a very moral caring person. I always assume the best motives until proven otherwise. So that's my assumption base.

I don't do "gotcha" questions. I'm not that smart.

[Damien the Leper]

In general the world divides into two main groups Theists and Atheists, and if you count Agnostics maybe a third. I admit I'm biased, but I don't see how it could be anything but a shot at religion. Moreover Everyone rationalizes their behaviors or they stop doing those behaviors. Either by choice or by force.

I said nothing about the Communists ideology, just one of its more infamous practitioners. There are plenty of non Communists that have very bad behaviors. I've always assumed that you are a very moral caring person. I always assume the best motives until proven otherwise. So that's my assumption base.

I don't do "gotcha" questions. I'm not that smart.

Fair enough. I apologize for being irrational.

[Tacenda]

What if we're in Satan's world right now? Does that make sense to some that struggle to know why HF looks on. Maybe his hands are tied?

Edited November 28, 2012 by Tacenda

[DavidB]

Does God kill people? Yes, God kills people. Flood of Noah, Sodom.

Does Nature kill people? Yes, nature does. Apart from storms, earthquakes and so forth, there are many many animals which kill humans.

Does God allow nature to kill people? Yes.

[Duncan]

Can't wait to hear it!

So, My dad was born in 1932 in Augsburg, Germany near Dachau, not close by but he had heard of it but didn't know about the camp that was there. Anyways, seems as though my dad had an uncle named Alois. Uncle Alois was a German Communist. Hitler as you know hated the Communists and so when war broke out Uncle Alois was rounded up and put in a political prisoner camp somewhere. So, during the war the German Authorities came to his camp and asked him and others if you want you can stay here or because you're a German national you can go fight. So he figured why not go and fight. He was sent to the Eastern Front and was fighting there. While there he saw how communism was being played out and he became disenchanted with it and abandoned his political beliefs about it. Also while in the eats he found out his wife had died. He got to go home to attend her funeral. So goes home and on teh train ride back to the eastern front the German MP's catch up with his train and randomly select soldiers and say the western front is collapsing and we need you over there and so he was sent to the western front. He goes to the base camp with other soldiers and is told okay your unit is I dunno 20 miles up this river so follow it and you'll meet up with them there. So, they follow this river and while walking they come into contact with American soldiers and they get captured and Uncle Alois is sent to the States in a POW camp! So, the war for Alois was being captured by the Germans and Americans, lost his wife and lost his beliefs. My dad said he was a recluse after the war and a strange, strange man! I don't know if this story was as advertised but you are my friend and there it is!

Edited November 28, 2012 by Duncan

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-november-26-2012/god-s-priorities?xrs=share_copy Edited November 28, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[bluebell]

Again, reference post #30. My post wasn't a cheap shot at religion. It was a direct shot at rationalizing (not justifying) killing in the name of a god.

However, your shot at "atheist Communism" has been noted and rejected (by me and maybe Volgadon if he wishes to join in) based on the history of countries who's primary political power happened to be Communist but failed to live by Communist ethics and lifestance.

Stop being so defensive.

It wasn't a 'shot' at anything and it wasn't an accusation that you were going for cheap shots either. It's just a fact that your post didn't mention, which i thought was relevant to the conversation. I said 'atheist communism' because i didn't want to label all communism with the same brush.

Sheesh.

Edited November 28, 2012 by bluebell

[bluebell]

The Book of Job implies that it's good to desire to reason with God. The Book of Isaiah says He asks people to come to Him and reason together. The Book of Ecclesiastes says "I applied mine heart to know, and to search, and to seek out Wisdom, and the reason of things." In Thessalonica, Paul went in to a synagogue, and over three sabbath days reasoned with others out of the scriptures. In Corinth and Ephesus, he reasoned with others in order to persuade them. Peter says to always be ready to give an answer to everyone that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you. If God is going to let people be killed when it's in His power to save them, He'd better be prepared to give me a reason I can understand, because otherwise I'm going to come to the conclusion that He is breaking the laws of justice and has therefore ceased to be a God worth worshipping as such.

We work at understanding God every day, but if God truly is God then we're not going to be able to grasp everything that He does.

Call me crazy, but the pain of a flu shot doesn't seem quite as dire as, say,

.

From God's perspective, i doubt it's much different.

At any rate, this actually supports my point; if we don't have the power to do good without pain (a flu shot), then of course we still do it. If God doesn't have the power to stop every war (which I don't think He does), then we can't blame Him.

But if He does have that power ...

Maybe i haven't been clear. I don't think God stops all pain and death and tragedy because I don't think He wants to because He knows it actually helps us. I certainly believe He could if He had that desire. Just like i could save my children a lot of pain and heartache, if i ultimately didn't care about them as much as i do.

If i'm understanding you correctly (and maybe i'm not), you don't believe that God has the power to stop all the pain and death, or otherwise he would. He doesn't have the power to prevent it.

If i understand right, my example does not support your argument because i do have the powerto stop pain sometimes from happening in my children, but I choose not to for the greater good. I choose to allow it even when i have the power to prevent it because it serves a purpose, even when they don't understand and are mad at me for it (which they sometimes are-and it sucks but I can't let that stop me from doing what's best).

If i'm not understanding you correctly, then we might be talking past each other and just not realize it.

[bluebell]

Firstly, I thank you again for engaging in this topic Bluebell - at a troubling time when I'm trying to make sense of my anger and grief it's a useful place to bounce these ideas around. I guess is less a philosophical debate for me and more a way of processing the pain and frustration. I'm BIC/RM etc and I accept the LDS teaching on the purpose of life and our reason for being here. But there are still parts that don't make sense sometimes. Especially the parts that hurt I guess. I sometimes wonder whether peace comes from placing meaning on tragedy rather than their being actual meaning in tragedy.

This fits if every one of God's billions of children are maintained alive until they've completed their mission on earth. But that would also mean that God could not cause or even allow their death to occur until the mission is complete. That's a lot of agency to meddle with.

There is no difference if God was equal in administering either passive allowance of death by consequence of battle/age or administering death at a time appropriate to their completed mission. Could one be allowed to die, short of their mission while the other only died after their mission has been completed? I think you've already answered me by saying that someone wouldn't be allowed to die until after their mission on earth was complete and then they would either be allowed or caused to die. Is that right? So death only occurs (in every billion children) when God is ready to 'let them/make them?'

I agree. If God says it's time to come home, at a time of his choosing, then that's ok. But then that's saying that God does indeed choose when it's alright. Which sort of implies God chooses when we die.

If God intervenes I'm grateful. I've seen many minor miracles in my life where I'm often inclined to attribute it to an intervention by God. I struggle to explain it any other way. Even in the midst of our grief, there have been wonderful sequences of events for both him and us in trying to ease the challenge of the situation that I struggle to explain by anything other than the intervention of the divine. But it then just twists me back round to the complication of the idea of agency and intervention.

Death and suffering is just hard, especially when it happens to us-which shouldn't make a difference because if something's true when all the bad stuff is happening to other people, then it's still just as true when we are the ones who are suffering, but we are seldom that rational.

Sometimes i think it's best to concentrate on the smaller picture-the one we are a part of-because it's the only picture where we know all the parts and pieces because we are living it. It's almost impossible to make sense out of some huge tragedy because we may only see 1% of everything that took place. We just don't have enough information to make it all make sense. So i say, don't try.

Don't try to make a billion deaths make sense. We can't possibly know everything that transpired in each of those billion lives leading up to the moment. We can't know the details of their last breathes, their own or friends prayers, what they felt, how they were comforted or felt abandoned, what choices (theirs or others) lead to the end, or anything else. We just don't know enough to judge what God was doing when a billion people died, let alone to try to understand why He did it.

Instead, try to see what's transpiring in our own lives when death comes too close for comfort. That's certainly within our means, and seems to be vastly more informative for us anyway. That's how i approach it anyway.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

We have the power not to take our kids to the doctor, but we do not have the power to do the Good Thing (prevent the flu) without doing the Painful Thing (stick a needle in our kid's arm). That's perfectly fine, and I agree that a parent's perspective is different from a child's, and that people are right to engage in temporarily painful actions at that scale. But if there was a way to do the Good Thing without doing the Painful Thing (say, improvements in noninvasive technology), then we would be immoral if we chose to do the Painful Thing anyway.

And once we scale that argument up, it becomes ludicrous to say that God can still be moral if He has the power to stop Painful Things (millions of people killed in excruciating agony) and yet does nothing. It's not a case of a necessary flu shot, it's a case of that scene in Saw II where the girl is thrown into the pit of hypodermic needles by a psychopath trying to "teach her a lesson".

If God has the power to stop holocausts and doesn't use it, He is not a God I'll ever worship. If, on the other hand, God, who we believe to be "merely" an exalted man of flesh and bones, is limited in some ways and He simply cannot prevent every Painful Thing on every world, then He can still be good because He's using all the power He does have to do as much as He can to stop the Painful Things. If this view of God is correct, then, though He is not powerful enough to prevent all the deaths, perhaps as a Fisher of Men He can cast nets into the outer darkness to gather all the lost uncreated Intelligences back to Him in order to give them new bodies in a resurrection.

The problem is when we hold Gods to a different standard than any other Intelligence; I think they -- we -- are all just as subject to the law of justice. If your neighbor Joe Shmoe has the power to stop a holocaust and yet he deliberately chooses not to, we would agree that he's being immoral, right? So why is it different for God? We can't just handwave the problem away in order to confirm and preserve our preexisting belief in God's goodness by assuming that there must be mitigating circumstances floating around out there that provide a deeper context in the light of which God's actions could be correctly reframed as moral, because it is His goodness that is in question, and we can only judge an Intelligence's actions by what evidence we are capable of perceiving.

If a parent said "this is for your own good" while placing their children in a concentration camp, we would be absolutely correct to judge them to be insane or evil. And if God wants us to call Him Abba, then He doesn't get special privileges.

Edited November 28, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[bluebell]

If a parent said "this is for your own good" while placing their children in a concentration camp, we would be absolutely correct to judge them to be insane or evil. And if God wants us to call Him Abba, then He doesn't get special privileges.

What if it's only a concentration camp from our incredibly child-like and ignorant perspective?