Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Five Solas

Would you worship a God who commanded lying?

Would you worship a God who commanded lying?  

24 members have voted

  1. 1. Please choose the answer that best fits your position

    • I’m LDS and I would worship a God who commanded lies
      10
    • I’m LDS and I would NOT worship a God who commanded lies
      10
    • I’m Christian, non-LDS and I would worship a God who commanded lies
      1
    • I’m Christian, non-LDS and I would NOT worship a God who commanded lies
      3
    • I’m non-Christian, non-LDS and I would worship a God who commanded lies
      0
    • I’m non-Christian, non-LDS and I would NOT worship a God who commanded lies
      0


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, california boy said:

There has not been a war the US has fought in my lifetime that I believe was a defensive war to protect American families.

It's only ok to kill to protect American families, as if the rest of humanity is not worthy of protection?

In Rwanda we knew that genocide was happening and did nothing, even though we had the capacity to intercede and save hundreds of thousands of innocent lives.  Are you saying that if we had interceded, we would have been guilty of unjust killing in the eyes of God?

5 hours ago, california boy said:

And I think that self defense is the only justification for killing someone.

So you do believe that there are exceptions to the rule!

5 hours ago, california boy said:

Often culture is a.louder voice than God when people are writing what they believe God wants us to do. 

Perhaps.  However, I would say that culture is often a louder voice than God when people are interpreting what they believe God wants us to do too.

5 hours ago, california boy said:

If you are ingrained with the idea that having a loving relationship with someone of the same sex is wrong right, and everyone around the table has the same feelings, then what would be the expected outcome.  All in favor?  Then we are united.  It must be the will of God.

You see how it works both ways if we are relying on your argument?  I don't see how you come out on top with this argument that cultural and worldly influence can cloud our judgment.  I agree that it can, but I don't see why you are right and I am wrong because of that. 

In other words, you are saying "the Bible has some truth, but much of it is flat out wrong.  However, it is right when it agrees with my personal beliefs, and it is wrong when it doesn't."  Your reliance on the Bible to demonstrate that God cannot command to kill or lie does not become helpful to me at all, if that is really what you believe.  

We simply are not going to agree on what is God's word and what is not God's word in the Bible.  I am afraid that you are going to have to use other means besides the Bible to convince me that God will not command to kill.  You are going to have to convince me that a US intervention to save the Tutsi's in Rwanda would have been more evil than watching nearly 1 million innocent victims including men, women, and children, being brutally slaughtered and hacked to death by machete; having the capacity to intervene, and doing nothing.  

It is evil to kill to protect them, but as soon as someone is a threat to your life, then it is ok to kill?  "Save yourself at any cost, and protect not your neighbor!"  Is that what you believe God teaches?  Seems rather egoistic, no?

Edited by pogi
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎10‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 8:03 AM, Five Solas said:

On another thread, several LDS posters rallied to defend a statement made by the late Robert D. Hales that had been called into question.  I won’t rehash it here, but among the more ingenious defenses was the notion that Jesus commanded Peter to deny him (initially attributed to the late Spencer W. Kimball).  The story is told in John 18:15-27 and elsewhere (sans the command to lie).

Called out on it, another LDS poster defended the notion by arguing God (or at least the LDS one) had established a precedent for commanding lies—a couple thousand years previous in the case of Abraham and his wife Sarah, wherein Abraham lied to Abimelech about the status of Sarah, claiming she was his sister.  The story is told in Genesis 20 (again, sans any command to lie).

My request for a Scripture reference was ignored and when I asked again, another LDS poster chimed in that it wasn’t necessary for any to be provided.  (A curious attitude for a discussion board, at least in my opinion--but he got a "like" for his effort from the other one--so there you go.)

But I wanted to explore the topic further and with the help of a poll on a dedicated thread.  So here we go: Would you worship a God who commanded lies?

--Erik

____________________________________

So lie to me
But do it with sincerity
Make me listen
Just for a minute
Make me think
There's some truth in it

--Depeche Mode, 1984

 

Chiming in here way late in the game - I make a distinction between something that is not true and information that is considered a lie. My own customized-to-fit-my-argument definition of a lie is the withholding of information that another has a moral right to be aware of. That's how I got out of the "Santa Claus predicament" with my kids and myriad other situations that on the surface appear compromising. Another poster earlier commented on the "Nazis coming to your door" predicament. The Nazis in that situation did not have a moral right to know whether I harbored any Jews in my home and therefore I am entirely justified in not giving them the information. At any rate, this exchange should revolve around whether a recipient has a moral right to know said truth or not. In other words, there lots of deliberate mistruths out there but not all are considered lies.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

That's my thinking.  God cannot command us to do anything wrong.  As with Christ and Job he may sometimes give the adversary free reign to tempt and try.  But God doesn't ever promote sin.
So if God tells you to do something you consider a sin, odds are it's not a sin.

we believe God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son. He was considered righteousness for being willing to obey.

I'd have a much harder time with that than "Tell them this instead of that so they don't murder you"

Share this post


Link to post

I would NOT, but I know that is based on a generality. Exceptions would, and do, happen. 

Only the Holy Spirit can tell you the difference. 

But as a general rule, obviously not. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

To the actual question of this OP...If I would want to be like God....would I lie??  If He is in all perception a perfect being...he would not lie nor would he ask anyone else to do so.  But we have seen a deception or differing in scripture/prophecy and in the humaness of it all...I believe in an honest God..the one I perceive could not be any other way...

Edited by Jeanne

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

I don't know if it has been said in this thread, but according to Talmudic commentators Sarai was Abraham's sister.   Probably used sophistry to get there, but that is what they say.

which is why it really isn't a lie.

7 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

The orthodox Jewish teaching is that preserving human life is the highest value. Jews are not permitted to break other laws in order to preserve human life: they are required to break other laws to preserve human life. To refuse to lie, when human life is at stake, is to break the law, not keep it.

This having been said, I think the principle behind the OP is also important. I do not agree with "If God said it, then do it." Humans never really know whether God said something. Plenty of psychotic people think that God tells them to murder people, and do it. Those people probably can't help being psychotic, but the right thing to do, if you think that God is telling you to kill someone, is not to go ahead and swing that axe. It's to suspect that you might be having a psychotic episode, and go to the hospital. And even well short of that, there can definitely be points at which your church or your peer group or your superior officer tells you to do something, and it is just wrong. You are not supposed to do it anyway, because of who said it.

Sometimes the God who commands is just not the real God, but the real God is the one who speaks in your heart, to tell you that this is wrong. When in doubt, I figure this is the ultimate rule. The real God is not the one driving the nails. God's the one on the cross.

interesting that every instance where deception has appeared permittable in scriptures it is used to protect life.

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/12/2017 at 5:14 PM, Glenn101 said:

If you believe the Old Testament and the God of the Old Testament you have to.

Exodus 3:18
18 And they shall a hearken to thy
voice: and thou shalt come, thou and
the elders of Israel, unto the king of
Egypt, and ye shall say unto him,
The Lord God of the Hebrews hath
met with us: and now let us go, we
beseech thee, three days’ journey
into the wilderness, that we may
sacrifice to the Lord our God.

The intent was to deceive the Egyptians that the Children of Israel were going three days into the wilderness to sacrifice to the Lord when the intent was to leave and never go back.

Then in Exodus 3:22
22 But every woman shall a borrow
of her neighbour, and of her that
sojourneth in her house, jewels of
silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment:
and ye shall put them upon
your sons, and upon your daughters;
and ye shall spoil the Egyptians

Here the Lord is telling the Children of Israel to "borrow" expensive jewelry, etc. from the Egyptians with the explicit purpose to deceive the Egyptians.

Glenn

Exodus 3, on the surface, appears to contradict the rest of Scripture.  Here we seem to have God commanding deception.  And not for any immediate purpose of protecting life--but rather for the purpose of obtaining liberty from bondage,  as well as for personal enrichment. 

Good exegesis will not support such conclusion, of course.  But kudos for surfacing a challenging passage that is exactly on topic. 

--Erik

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Exodus 3, on the surface, appears to contradict the rest of Scripture.  Here we seem to have God commanding deception.  And not for any immediate purpose of protecting life--but rather for the purpose of obtaining liberty from bondage,  as well as for personal enrichment. 

Good exegesis will not support such conclusion, of course.  But kudos for surfacing a challenging passage that is exactly on topic. 

--Erik

What is under the surface that good exegesis will bring to light that will not support my conclusion?

Glenn

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
22 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Reads like you're an Atheist. Not that there is anything wrong with that. But it is rather strange for an Atheist to come onto a religious Message Board.

Ever read about what a Sophie's Choice is?

SEE http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Sophie's+choice

Is expecting God and his prophets not to lie too high are bar?

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

Is expecting God and his prophets not to lie too high are bar?

God no. Prophets, evidently.

 

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, pogi said:

It's only ok to kill to protect American families, as if the rest of humanity is not worthy of protection?

There will always be someone worthy to kill. I simply choose to not live my. life killing those that are worthy to be killed.

 

16 hours ago, pogi said:

In Rwanda we knew that genocide was happening and did nothing, even though we had the capacity to intercede and save hundreds of thousands of innocent lives.  Are you saying that if we had interceded, we would have been guilty of unjust killing in the eyes of God?

Killing is not the only option on how to help an oppressed people.

16 hours ago, pogi said:

So you do believe that there are exceptions to the rule!

I am not sure about anything.  Right now, I think in most cases, self defense and protecting your loved ones is moral.  Fighting a war in Vietnam to stop the spread of communism, or Iraq to protect business interests, not so moral.  Now whether I could actually point a gun at someone and shot them even if my life is in danger is something I am not sure about.

16 hours ago, pogi said:

Perhaps.  However, I would say that culture is often a louder voice than God when people are interpreting what they believe God wants us to do too.

You see how it works both ways if we are relying on your argument?  I don't see how you come out on top with this argument that cultural and worldly influence can cloud our judgment.  I agree that it can, but I don't see why you are right and I am wrong because of that. 

I don't expect you to look to me to determine what is moral and what is not.  I expect you to turn to God for those answers and no one else including church leaders.  They are still men, giving their best guess of what they think the will of God is and are doing so based on their own prejudices and beliefs.  

16 hours ago, pogi said:

In other words, you are saying "the Bible has some truth, but much of it is flat out wrong.  However, it is right when it agrees with my personal beliefs, and it is wrong when it doesn't."  Your reliance on the Bible to demonstrate that God cannot command to kill or lie does not become helpful to me at all, if that is really what you believe.  

Do you honestly believe that every single thing written in the Bible came from God Himself?   If you can not say that, then your belief in the Bible is exactly the same as mine.  Now we are just discussing each other's personal beliefs.   It is up to each one of us to ponder and pray about what others have written not only in the Bible but anywhere truth can be found.  How one determines truth requires more than one approach.  Certainly prayer and contemplation is an important part of that discovery.  But facts and common sense and intelligence should also be used.  I don't expect you or anyone else to have the same beliefs as me.  Why would they.    We are on a journey in this life. Knowledge and understanding does not end at any point along the way.

16 hours ago, pogi said:

We simply are not going to agree on what is God's word and what is not God's word in the Bible.  I am afraid that you are going to have to use other means besides the Bible to convince me that God will not command to kill.  You are going to have to convince me that a US intervention to save the Tutsi's in Rwanda would have been more evil than watching nearly 1 million innocent victims including men, women, and children, being brutally slaughtered and hacked to death by machete; having the capacity to intervene, and doing nothing.  

It is evil to kill to protect them, but as soon as someone is a threat to your life, then it is ok to kill?  "Save yourself at any cost, and protect not your neighbor!"  Is that what you believe God teaches?  Seems rather egoistic, no?

I don't think my job is to convince you of anything.  At the most, I can offer you something to think about.  I fully expect you to question anything I or ANYONE else says to you.  

I want to give you something to think about.  I am not suggesting an answer,  just a question.  Is it possible for you to be more moral than God?  Is it immoral for God to allow the people of Rwanda to die?

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

What is under the surface that good exegesis will bring to light that will not support my conclusion?

Glenn

What I mean is we must bring the totality of Scripture to bear on a difficult passage.  Another poster previously cited Numbers 23:19, but the theme reoccurs throughout the Old Testament (e.g., 1 Samuel 15:29, 2 Samuel 22:31, Psalms 12:6, Psalms 33:4, Proverbs 30:5) and the New.  

When the Bible is clear on a topic across the preponderance of 66 books--it would be poor exegesis indeed to pit the seeming anomaly against the whole in order to argue God commands people tell lies.  (And I don't think you actually believe that, based on another post you wrote--but maybe I've misunderstood you.)

I hadn't considered your example when I authored the thread.  It's a challenging one.  I'll enjoy looking into some commentaries when time permits.   

--Erik   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, california boy said:

There will always be someone worthy to kill. I simply choose to not live my. life killing those that are worthy to be killed.

You may not be the one doing the killing, but if you vote for anybody outside of the pacifist party, then you are a part of it. 

5 hours ago, california boy said:

Killing is not the only option on how to help an oppressed people.

 I agree, but sometimes it is the only option to save a people being slaughtered.  Is freedom worth killing for?

5 hours ago, california boy said:

I am not sure about anything.  Right now, I think in most cases, self defense and protecting your loved ones is moral.  Fighting a war in Vietnam to stop the spread of communism, or Iraq to protect business interests, not so moral.  Now whether I could actually point a gun at someone and shot them even if my life is in danger is something I am not sure about.

Fair enough.  But who are your "loved ones?", or put another way, "who is your neighbor?"

5 hours ago, california boy said:

I don't expect you to look to me to determine what is moral and what is not.  I expect you to turn to God for those answers and no one else including church leaders.  They are still men, giving their best guess of what they think the will of God is and are doing so based on their own prejudices and beliefs.  

I am not looking to you to determine what is moral.  I am simply dismantling your argument.

5 hours ago, california boy said:

I don't think my job is to convince you of anything.  At the most, I can offer you something to think about.  I fully expect you to question anything I or ANYONE else says to you.  

I agree that is not your job.  But if you are going to make the claim that God would never command anyone to kill because it is always immoral, then I am going to expect you to give me some evidence or at least some reason for your claim.  While I don't think that we will be able to use the Bible to find answers to this question that we will both agree upon, I do think that we can probably find some common ground by examining our conscience.  

Quote

I want to give you something to think about.  I am not suggesting an answer,  just a question.  Is it possible for you to be more moral than God?  Is it immoral for God to allow the people of Rwanda to die?

Think of this, God allows for blindness, yet Christ healed the blind.  God allows for death, yet Christ raised Lazarus from the dead.  God also allows for all sorts of disease, yet Christ healed the lepers and those sick with palsy, etc.  God allows for hunger, yet Christ fed the hungry.  Is this not a lesson that God expects us to intervene - to do His work for Him while on this earth?  Intervention is what Christ expects from his disciples!  He taught them to do as he did; to feed the hungry, to heal the sick, to raise the dead, etc.  We are His hands - but he will not force our hand. 

Are we more moral than God for intervening?  No.  We are less moral than God, however, when we do not His will and the work of intervention in this life.

"All that evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

What I mean is we must bring the totality of Scripture to bear on a difficult passage.  Another poster previously cited Numbers 23:19, but the theme reoccurs throughout the Old Testament (e.g., 1 Samuel 15:29, 2 Samuel 22:31, Psalms 12:6, Psalms 33:4, Proverbs 30:5) and the New.  

When the Bible is clear on a topic across the preponderance of 66 books--it would be poor exegesis indeed to pit the seeming anomaly against the whole in order to argue God commands people tell lies.  (And I don't think you actually believe that, based on another post you wrote--but maybe I've misunderstood you.)

I hadn't considered your example when I authored the thread.  It's a challenging one.  I'll enjoy looking into some commentaries when time permits.   

--Erik   

There are things about the scriptures that I do not understand at my present spiritual development. Things which seem contradictory in the Bible for which there has been no satisfactory exegesis. The examples given are but two. Others talk about the Lord hardening pharaoh's  heart several times or an evil spirit from the Lord that deviled King Saul. I believe that at some point in time I will be able to understand what I now see through Paul's glass so darkly.

Glenn

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, pogi said:

You may not be the one doing the killing, but if you vote for anybody outside of the pacifist party, then you are a part of it. 

There is never an election where only one issue should determine my vote.  But I do think that the biggest responsibility we give our president is to keep us out of war.  Other policies fall far short of importance compared to the loss of life that comes from war on both sides.  I am curious what wars you think the United States has fought in your lifetime that you feel was a fight  worth the loss of life, the mangling of families, the destruction of community and loss of loved ones.  The cost of loosing fathers, sons, children, mothers.  

3 hours ago, pogi said:

 I agree, but sometimes it is the only option to save a people being slaughtered.  Is freedom worth killing for?

Freedom is not protected by how many wars are fought.  The biggest single factor in bringing freedom is when a population is educated.  The higher the education level of a people the less likely they will allow oppression.  In the long term, democracy has almost always followed when a country becomes educated.  It is no coincidence that the strongest nations where the greatest freedoms are guaranteed are also some of the most educated populations.

3 hours ago, pogi said:

Fair enough.  But who are your "loved ones?", or put another way, "who is your neighbor?"

I think Christ set an important example in both defining our neighbors and teaching us how to treat them.  While Christ had the power to decimate any standing military and throw off oppression, He showed us a better way to find peace within ourselves and peace to give to others.  Do you not ponder the example that Christ showed us on how to live?  

3 hours ago, pogi said:

I am not looking to you to determine what is moral.  I am simply dismantling your argument.

I didn't know this was an argument.  I am only presenting my personal beliefs.  You have to decide for yourself if I represent anything of value to you.

3 hours ago, pogi said:

I agree that is not your job.  But if you are going to make the claim that God would never command anyone to kill because it is always immoral, then I am going to expect you to give me some evidence or at least some reason for your claim.  While I don't think that we will be able to use the Bible to find answers to this question that we will both agree upon, I do think that we can probably find some common ground by examining our conscience.  

So I have presented my beliefs.  Do you see anything of value that you think we can find a common ground in?

3 hours ago, pogi said:

Think of this, God allows for blindness, yet Christ healed the blind.  God allows for death, yet Christ raised Lazarus from the dead.  God also allows for all sorts of disease, yet Christ healed the lepers and those sick with palsy, etc.  God allows for hunger, yet Christ fed the hungry.  Is this not a lesson that God expects us to intervene - to do His work for Him while on this earth?  Intervention is what Christ expects from his disciples!  He taught them to do as he did; to feed the hungry, to heal the sick, to raise the dead, etc.  We are His hands - but he will not force our hand. 

Are we more moral than God for intervening?  No.  We are less moral than God, however, when we do not His will and the work of intervention in this life.

Those are excellent illustrations of exactly what I have been talking about and what I believe is the commission that Christ has given us to do.  And perhaps this is the common ground that you seek.  I believe if we focus on the very examples that you have given us from the life of Christ, we will be doing the will of God.

3 hours ago, pogi said:

"All that evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

I hope you don't think that i suggest that good men do nothing. 

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

There are things about the scriptures that I do not understand at my present spiritual development. Things which seem contradictory in the Bible for which there has been no satisfactory exegesis. The examples given are but two. Others talk about the Lord hardening pharaoh's  heart several times or an evil spirit from the Lord that deviled King Saul. I believe that at some point in time I will be able to understand what I now see through Paul's glass so darkly.

Glenn

Those examples are a little different from the topic at hand.  God hardening the pharaoh's heart is repeated in both Old Testament and New (see Romans 9).  And God is sovereign over all, including evil spirits (as the opening chapter of the Book of Job will make clear--even Satan accomplishes nothing without God willing him to do so).

And the implication of all this, is profound. 

--Erik 

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

Those examples are a little different from the topic at hand.  God hardening the pharaoh's heart is repeated in both Old Testament and New (see Romans 9).  And God is sovereign over all, including evil spirits (as the opening chapter of the Book of Job will make clear--even Satan accomplishes nothing without God willing him to do so).

And the implication of all this, is profound. 

--Erik 

Agree that they are a little different. The two things I noted though are in that realm. No satisfactory exegesis has been proffered for God telling Moses to say that the purpose of letting the Children of Israel go three days into the wilderness was to sacrifice to their God when the real reason was a permanent exodus. And then telling the Israelites to borrow jewelry and gold etc. from their neighbors with the clear intention to never return them. Those are things that I have to put on my shelf until I can get a clear understanding...something that may not happen in this life.

Romans 9 is the best scriptural evidence against free will that I have read. But that is for another thread.

Glenn

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, california boy said:

I am curious what wars you think the United States has fought in your lifetime that you feel was a fight  worth the loss of life, the mangling of families, the destruction of community and loss of loved ones.  The cost of loosing fathers, sons, children, mothers.  

There have been several US operations in my life-time which I support.  Operation Neptune Spear is one that perhaps we can both agree upon. 

18 hours ago, california boy said:

Freedom is not protected by how many wars are fought.  The biggest single factor in bringing freedom is when a population is educated.  The higher the education level of a people the less likely they will allow oppression.  In the long term, democracy has almost always followed when a country becomes educated.  It is no coincidence that the strongest nations where the greatest freedoms are guaranteed are also some of the most educated populations.

I am sure there is some truth to that, and I always support any non-violent measure first, but I think that it is a little naive to think that freedom can always be won without fighting (or at least the threat of fighting). For example, in 1991 a military coup took control of the nation of Haiti just 8 months after Jean-Bertrand Aristide (a Catholic priest) won the first democratic presidential election in the country.  Aristide was forced into exile. In 1994, Operation Uphold Democracy put Aristide back into office without any fighting required.  

Quote

 

As a final effort to force the dictator to step down without violence, the delegation presented General Cédras with a video feed of the entire 82nd Airborne Division's aircraft being loaded with troops. While allowing Cédras to process the panic-inducing sight, he was informed that while he assumed he was watching a live feed, he was in fact viewing a video captured more than 2 hours before. As such, the lead elements of the 15,000-strong paratrooper force had already launched from Fort Bragg, NC and were currently over the Atlantic Ocean. They further informed him of the United States' commitment to supporting democracy and that a forced-entry airborne assault on the island nation would, in all likelihood, result in Haiti coming under U.S. control before the next sunrise.

The delegation proceeded to issue a final ultimatum to the dictator. His choices were to either recognize the wish of the Haitian people as expressed through the democratic election of Father Jean-Bertrand Aristide and quietly retire, or continue to deny the election's outcome; in which case the U.S. would forcibly wrest control of his country and see justice done. To remove all uncertainty from the general's mind, he was reminded by the delegation that the 82nd Airborne Division had also spearheaded overwhelmingly decisive victories during Operation Urgent Fury in Grenada and Operation Just Cause in Panama in the recent past. Within minutes, General Cédras capitulated under the most favorable terms available to him at that time.

 

Do you really think that the voice of the people would have been heard without military capabilities and threat of action?  Would "education" have turned things around in Haiti without any fighting (or the threat of fighting) when a corrupt dictator is in charge?  

19 hours ago, california boy said:

So I have presented my beliefs.  Do you see anything of value that you think we can find a common ground in?

I think we have common ground in that you do potentially see exceptions to the rule in matters of self-defense.  I think that if you examined your conscience, you would see that there could be potential exceptions in not just "self-defense" but in "other's-defense" as well, and that "self-defense" alone is way too egoistic. 

20 hours ago, california boy said:

Those are excellent illustrations of exactly what I have been talking about and what I believe is the commission that Christ has given us to do.  And perhaps this is the common ground that you seek.  I believe if we focus on the very examples that you have given us from the life of Christ, we will be doing the will of God.

So you do agree that the will of God is for us to intervene, even when he does not, correct?  That to intervene, even when God does not, does not presuppose that we are more moral than God?

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, pogi said:

There have been several US operations in my life-time which I support.  Operation Neptune Spear is one that perhaps we can both agree upon. 

I am sure there is some truth to that, and I always support any non-violent measure first, but I think that it is a little naive to think that freedom can always be won without fighting (or at least the threat of fighting). For example, in 1991 a military coup took control of the nation of Haiti just 8 months after Jean-Bertrand Aristide (a Catholic priest) won the first democratic presidential election in the country.  Aristide was forced into exile. In 1994, Operation Uphold Democracy put Aristide back into office without any fighting required.  

Do you really think that the voice of the people would have been heard without military capabilities and threat of action?  Would "education" have turned things around in Haiti without any fighting (or the threat of fighting) when a corrupt dictator is in charge?  

I think we have common ground in that you do potentially see exceptions to the rule in matters of self-defense.  I think that if you examined your conscience, you would see that there could be potential exceptions in not just "self-defense" but in "other's-defense" as well, and that "self-defense" alone is way too egoistic. 

So you do agree that the will of God is for us to intervene, even when he does not, correct?  That to intervene, even when God does not, does not presuppose that we are more moral than God?

I don't think in any of the examples you presented, the order came from God to kill anyone.  Nor would I call any of those examples a war.

And I don't think you understand what I mean by education.  It is not something that is done in a matter of weeks or months or years. Sometimes it takes a generation.  I would hardly call Haiti an educated population.  So your example is irrelevant.  Frankly I have no idea why you even used that as an example to address my beliefs.  Perhaps that is all you could think of.  But it didn't make any sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post

To the title question: I worship a God who has commanded killing people. Why in the world would I have a problem with a God who may or may not command lying? 

For the record: I have never been commanded to murder and I've never been commanded to lie. I assume all such situations would be rare as they would be contextual exceptions. 

With luv,

BD

Edited by BlueDreams
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, california boy said:

I don't think in any of the examples you presented, the order came from God to kill anyone.  Nor would I call any of those examples a war.

We are talking about deadly-force interventions which might be justified in the eyes of God.  I never implied that any order came from God, but it is not hard to see that killing Osama Bin Laden was probably justified in the eyes of God.  And if justified in the eyes of God, then it is not too far a stretch to imagine that God could command to kill, as the scriptures suggest He has done historically.   I don't need to say anything about war to prove my point, all I need to do is demonstrate how there might be exceptions to the rule of "thou shalt not kill".  However, I am willing to go to war to preserve all of those things which Captain Moroni stood against.

What about an active shooter situation, do you think that killing would be justified to protect and defend innocent people besides yourself?  This whole "self-defense" only idea just seems so selfish, and deadly for others who might need our protection.  

1 hour ago, california boy said:

And I don't think you understand what I mean by education.  It is not something that is done in a matter of weeks or months or years. Sometimes it takes a generation.  I would hardly call Haiti an educated population.  So your example is irrelevant.  Frankly I have no idea why you even used that as an example to address my beliefs.  Perhaps that is all you could think of.  But it didn't make any sense to me.

I used that example to show how unrealistic it is to think that education could have led to a peaceful overthrow of a military dictatorship without a fight.  Do you really think that those willing to kill for power through a military coup are simply going to turn power over to a democratically elected president because the people are educated?  Those who are educated would have to fight for power, for freedom, for a voice...that is all there is too it!  Otherwise those people in power would be all to happy to retain their power indefinitely. 

Just how do you propose that the people under a a dictatorship receive a proper education about the virtues of democracy and freedom anyway? 

Do you really think that education will stop all killing, corruption, and hunger for power?  

Edited by pogi
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, pogi said:

We are talking about deadly-force interventions which might be justified in the eyes of God.  I never implied that any order came from God, but it is not hard to see that killing Osama Bin Laden was probably justified in the eyes of God.  And if justified in the eyes of God, then it is not too far a stretch to imagine that God could command to kill, as the scriptures suggest He has done historically.   I don't need to say anything about war to prove my point, all I need to do is demonstrate how there might be exceptions to the rule of "thou shalt not kill".  However, I am willing to go to war to preserve all of those things which Captain Moroni stood against.

What about an active shooter situation, do you think that killing would be justified to protect and defend innocent people besides yourself?  This whole "self-defense" only idea just seems so selfish, and deadly for others who might need our protection.  

I used that example to show how unrealistic it is to think that education could have led to a peaceful overthrow of a military dictatorship without a fight.  Do you really think that those willing to kill for power through a military coup are simply going to turn power over to a democratically elected president because the people are educated?  Those who are educated would have to fight for power, for freedom, for a voice...that is all there is too it!  Otherwise those people in power would be all to happy to retain their power indefinitely. 

Just how do you propose that the people under a a dictatorship receive a proper education about the virtues of democracy and freedom anyway? 

Do you really think that education will stop all killing, corruption, and hunger for power?  

I think perhaps we may be talking past each other just a bit.  My original point that I don't believe that God ever commands someone to lie and I don't believe that God ever commands people to go to war.  Those stories in the scriptures that blame God to justify war I believe are the work of men, not God.  And to carry that belief forward, I don't think that God is on any nations side that claims they must go to war to say, stop Communism or to protect American business interests. It was you that inserted other possible reasons where killing might be justified.  On that point I would agree with the understanding that those times are far fewer than some people claim them to be.

Now as far as education goes, dictators and oppressive regimes thrive on ignorance.  When a nation becomes educated, they rarely last.  Sometimes the oppressive government is overthrown by force and is probably the easier way to accomplish the goal.  But Gandi showed us that military force is not essential in overthrowing an oppressive ruler. Education gives power.  It gives reasons to fight off oppression.  Can you name any country that the people are highly educated that over time have not thrown off their oppressive governments eventually?  I think that is quite telling.  We spend billions on military force.  What would have happened if instead, we spread the opportunity to be educated.  Military expansionism is the easy way to force others to do your will.  Claiming that God commands such action falsely justifies those wars.  Religion can be a very powerful ally and that is why so many wars are fought in the name of God.  I personally think that God is getting a bad rap and I simply don't believe that God has ever authorized anyone to go to war.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, california boy said:

It was you that inserted other possible reasons where killing might be justified.  On that point I would agree with the understanding that those times are far fewer than some people claim them to be.

I was the one who started the argument about killing.  Yes, my whole point this entire time has been that killing can be justified even though it is against one of the 10 commandments.  It is you that morphed my point into war. 

Ok good, then we are agreed that sometimes breaking the 10 commandments can be justified and the right thing to do.  That God expects us, and even commands us to choose the right is a given.  That is the common ground of conscience that I suspected we would agree on. 

You originally stated:

Quote

God can take care of things pretty much by Himself without requiring me or any other mortal to break one of the 10 commandments.

Now that we are agreed that killing can be justified, and even expected of us to protect others from active shooters etc. Do you still stand by this comment?  Or do you really expect us to just sit back and watch, wait, and pray for God to miraculously intervene in an active shooter situation while we do nothing, because "God can take care of things by Himself"? 

Are we more moral than God for intervening while He does not? Absolutely not.  We are doing His will by putting our own life at risk to save the life of our neighbors. Isn't that what He did for us?

Do you not see now that if God intervenes, it will likely be through us, who act as his hands.  Sometimes that even means breaking one of the 10 commandments.  

Edited by pogi

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, pogi said:

I was the one who started the argument about killing.  Yes, my whole point this entire time has been that killing can be justified even though it is against one of the 10 commandments.  It is you that morphed my point into war. 

Ok good, then we are agreed that sometimes breaking the 10 commandments can be justified and the right thing to do.  That God expects us, and even commands us to choose the right is a given.  That is the common ground of conscience that I suspected we would agree on. 

You originally stated:

Now that we are agreed that killing can be justified, and even expected of us to protect others from active shooters etc. Do you still stand by this comment?  Or do you really expect us to just sit back and watch, wait, and pray for God to miraculously intervene in an active shooter situation while we do nothing, because "God can take care of things by Himself"? 

Are we more moral than God for intervening while He does not? Absolutely not.  We are doing His will by putting our own life at risk to save the life of our neighbors. Isn't that what He did for us?

Do you not see now that if God intervenes, it will likely be through us, who act as his hands.  Sometimes that even means breaking one of the 10 commandments.  

I also stated:

Quote

 am not sure about anything.  Right now, I think in most cases, self defense and protecting your loved ones is moral.  Fighting a war in Vietnam to stop the spread of communism, or Iraq to protect business interests, not so moral.  Now whether I could actually point a gun at someone and shot them even if my life is in danger is something I am not sure about.

It seems like people are all over the board on the intervention of God.  Probably just about every Fast and Testimony meeting that I ever attended someone stands up and testifies how God intervened in their lives.  Saved a love one, saved them, help them when they were lost, comforted them.  Heck God even regularly finds keys for people.  Should all of that be easily dismissed?  Can you see why I am not as sure as you seem to be that God wants us to break one of His commandments from time to time.  When I really analyze the situations that you bring up, and contrast that with the promise of intervention of God in our lives,  it makes me doubt more even the existence of God.  But even when I say that, I feel this Spirit testify of God.  So yeah.  I am not really sure about anything.  

Edit:  I just wanted to add that I have really enjoyed hearing your views on this issue.  Thanks for being patient with me.

 

Edited by california boy

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, california boy said:

It seems like people are all over the board on the intervention of God.  Probably just about every Fast and Testimony meeting that I ever attended someone stands up and testifies how God intervened in their lives.  Saved a love one, saved them, help them when they were lost, comforted them.  Heck God even regularly finds keys for people.  Should all of that be easily dismissed?  Can you see why I am not as sure as you seem to be that God wants us to break one of His commandments from time to time.

I don't understand your point.  Are you saying that because some people might attribute certain things to God when God probably had nothing to do with it, that God never intervenes?  I am not sure what that has to do with God expecting us to intervene for Him, to save the lives of others.  I don't see how that could be sin. 

Wouldn't that make us somewhat accountable for the death of innocent lives if we do nothing when something could have been done?  I would be more afraid of the judgement of God for watching people be killed and doing nothing, then for killing an attacker.

41 minutes ago, california boy said:

 When I really analyze the situations that you bring up, and contrast that with the promise of intervention of God in our lives,  it makes me doubt more even the existence of God.

What promise of intervention are you talking about?  

42 minutes ago, california boy said:

But even when I say that, I feel this Spirit testify of God.  So yeah.  I am not really sure about anything.  

Edit:  I just wanted to add that I have really enjoyed hearing your views on this issue.  Thanks for being patient with me.

I don't claim certainty with anything either.  But I do know what my conscience tells me, and I will follow my conscience until God corrects me. 

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...