A Wrathful God

[Libs]

I have had problems with the wrathful God concept for along time, but especially since I read the Bible all the way through. Dr. Peterson, just recently, brought it up, again, on his blog, and I thought I would bring it here, so we could explore this further.

My problem has been seeing a perfect and infinitely loving God, as being (also) wrathful, at times. It just seems like a contradiction, to me. Not that I cannot perceive God as "angry", perhaps, at some of the horrible sin that is perpetrated on this earth, but angry to the point of killing every man, woman, child and beast (as he supposedly ordered the Israelites to do to the Cannaanites?)...that kind of extreme wrath I have a difficult time attributing to God. I, most especially, had a hard time with it, in the context of mainstream Christianity, where all of these people, who were killed, were, then, consigned to an everlasting hell. with no further hope. I think (?) LDS doctrine, would, at least, provide for their possible redemption, in the hereafter? That's something I wanted to ask.

This is the book that Dr. Peterson recommended:

Is God a Moral Monster by Paul Copan

I haven't read the book, but I have been listening to this (quite long) video, where Paul Copan debates this subject with atheist Norman Bacrac.

http://youtu.be/idCch7fjO1k

One of the things, in the video, that actually made "some" sense to me (from Copan) was that a loving God would cease to be loving, if he did not become angry over terrible atrocities. Maybe. Or not. I guess, I have always perceived God as being "sad" over sin, not really angry. Anger, in my view, is a weakness which God surely could not possess. Especially, a vengeful anger against his own children. (Especially, in light of the LDS concept of children, which is more like human offspring, than what mainstream Christians believe). Such a close relationship might give rise to some anger, but to the point of total destruction? Even we humans do not destroy our youth, when they become misguided. Why would a perfect God do that?

Anyway, those are my thoughts and problems with parts of the O.T. I would like to hear all of your ideas and thoughts on God's Wrath.

[divinenature]

I struggled with this same concept. I came to understand that the writing of the Bible were of men. The Bible is a record of a people and their thoughts on their tribal god.

A god who would murder or command the murder of innocent people and animals (animals that would not be consumed) is a monster not worthy of worship, IMO.

A god who commands "thou shalt not kill" and then orders the genocide of a population is a god of contradiction. How can a god like that ever be trusted?

An all powerful god could come up with so many better ways to alleviate the human population from evil besides murder.

Of course, some will say that god's ways are not are ways and it's not ours to question. Others will say that death isn't really all that bad or that big a deal. And still others might claim that god knew that all those innocent babies would grow up to be evil, horrible adults.

[Maidservant]

I also have no complete conclusions on this matter, only small elements. But I would like to know what the Hebrew word or words are that are translated as "wrath" in English. Before I make any further exploration.

[Maidservant]

I also would want to understand completely the transmission of the text. For example, Joshua Chapter 6. I would want to know exactly how that text arrives in my hand today. From where and when and by whom and why.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Copan has been recommended on this board before -- I haven't read his book (or finished the video, yet), but if it's anything like the essay in that thread which I did read, I'm going to have plenty of disagreements.

The fundamental problem is that if God's work is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of humanity as elected by the common consent of the divine council, and God also has the power to change people from mortality to immortality "in the twinkling of an eye", then it is simply inexcusable for Him to command genocide, especially if He is the First Cause God of the philosophers, who is even more of a monster for setting up the laws of the universe in such a way that He feels justified in murdering the beings He Himself created from nothing based on actions He (essentially) predestined them to perform. A lot of the historical sections of the Old Testament are just a long list of the dangers of religious fanaticism combined with political expedience (Dawkins' quote is accurate, frankly). It's very alarming to me when we try to justify that sort of God; if any God breaks the eternal law of justice, they cease to be worth worshipping as a "God" at all. I really think Mormonism has far more in common with "humanism" than with traditional Christianity, and I think it's extremely problematic when we try to appropriate defenses for God which depend on that traditional-Christian conception of Him. Most of them simply do not work, and we don't need them.

Edited July 28, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Libs]

Thank you for all of the comments, so far. All very interesting. It's nice to know I am not the only one who struggles with these concepts.

I am about halfway through the video and Copan is talking about people who don't want a God, so God gives them a divorce (in other words sends them to hell, and eternally away from him)....but, that's not really my issue. For me, and I think for a lot of people, it's a question of who God really is and what his attributes might be. It's not that I do not believe in God or want to be apart from him. I don't understand the God of the O.T. I question whether or not some of it is truly an accurate representation of God.

Jeremy, you bring up another question I've had about the perception of God's justice. How can an eternal punishment for a very temporary and short lifetime of sin, be called "justice"? I just don't see how.

[CASteinman]

I don't have a problem per se with God being angry -- I just do not like the idea of Him being angry with me.

And I believe He has given us a path to avoid this. Thus we have, as the scriptures say "A voice of warning" unto all of us.

When He looks upon us in our sin, murders, violence, envying, child abuse, lying and so on, it is not hard to believe that He might be upset with this -- particularly when He observes how it perpetuates and magnifies horrors and evil.

I suppose we have some solace in the fact that it appears His greatest wrath is upon perdition and his sons, and not as intensely focused upon us merely wicked people. In fact, we even get a chance to repent and stay on the path. Which is a great blessing.

I also take some comfort in certain words of the D&C that suggest our understanding of Him maybe more harsh than He really is.. and for the time being... He is ok with our misunderstanding in this area.

[Libs]

I struggled with this same concept. I came to understand that the writing of the Bible were of men. The Bible is a record of a people and their thoughts on their tribal god.

A god who would murder or command the murder of innocent people and animals (animals that would not be consumed) is a monster not worthy of worship, IMO.

A god who commands "thou shalt not kill" and then orders the genocide of a population is a god of contradiction. How can a god like that ever be trusted?

An all powerful god could come up with so many better ways to alleviate the human population from evil besides murder.

Of course, some will say that god's ways are not are ways and it's not ours to question. Others will say that death isn't really all that bad or that big a deal. And still others might claim that god knew that all those innocent babies would grow up to be evil, horrible adults.

I've heard all of those justifications and explanations. I haven't been very happy with any of them. On the other hand, I dislike completely dismissing huge portions of the Bible without, at least, trying to understand and consider that it "could have been" God??

[Libs]

I also take some comfort in certain words of the D&C that suggest our understanding of Him maybe more harsh than He really is.. and for the time being...

I really hope that is true.

[CASteinman]

I really hope that is true.

Oh... its what He says pretty clearly. I take Him at His word for it, though I think it is a bad idea to talk about it too much. In fact, He commands us not to... so I will shut up now.

[CASteinman]

A god who commands "thou shalt not kill" and then orders the genocide of a population is a god of contradiction. How can a god like that ever be trusted?

He didn't exactly say.. "Thou shalt not kill". And in the OT He gave instructions on when it was good to kill.

Edited July 28, 2012 by CASteinman

[divinenature]

He didn't exactly say.. "Thou shalt not kill". And in the OT He gave instructions on when it was good to kill.

What? What did he say exactly?

Deuteronomy 5:17 Thou shalt not kill.

Mosiah 13:21 Thou shalt not kill.

Exodus 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.

D&C 59:6 Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Thou shalt not steal; neither commit adultery, nor kill, nor do anything like unto it.

Romans 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

D&C 42:18 And now, behold, I speak unto the church. Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come. 19 And again, I say, thou shalt not kill; but he that killeth shall die.

3 Nephi 12:21 Ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, and it is also written before you, that thou shalt not kill, and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment of God;

Matthew 5:21 ¶Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou ^ashalt not ^bkill; and whosoever shall kill shall be ^cin danger of the judgment:

22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is ^aangry with his brother ^bwithout a cause shall be ^cin danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, ^dRaca, shall be ^ein danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

[CASteinman]

What? What did he say exactly?

The word is correctly translated as murder or assassination.

[divinenature]

The word is correctly translated as murder or assassination.

From the D&C? CFR

[CASteinman]

From the D&C? CFR

You mean passages in the D&C that say if a person kills they should be killed? Seriously?

Are you arguing that God says "do not kill" grass, bugs, meat, peaches, artichokes?

Edited July 29, 2012 by CASteinman

[ERayR]

I have had problems with the wrathful God concept for along time, but especially since I read the Bible all the way through. Dr. Peterson, just recently, brought it up, again, on his blog, and I thought I would bring it here, so we could explore this further.

My problem has been seeing a perfect and infinitely loving God, as being (also) wrathful, at times. It just seems like a contradiction, to me. Not that I cannot perceive God as "angry", perhaps, at some of the horrible sin that is perpetrated on this earth, but angry to the point of killing every man, woman, child and beast (as he supposedly ordered the Israelites to do to the Cannaanites?)...that kind of extreme wrath I have a difficult time attributing to God. I, most especially, had a hard time with it, in the context of mainstream Christianity, where all of these people, who were killed, were, then, consigned to an everlasting hell. with no further hope. I think (?) LDS doctrine, would, at least, provide for their possible redemption, in the hereafter? That's something I wanted to ask.

This is the book that Dr. Peterson recommended:

Is God a Moral Monster by Paul Copan

I haven't read the book, but I have been listening to this (quite long) video, where Paul Copan debates this subject with atheist Norman Bacrac.

[media=]http://youtu.be/idCch7fjO1k

One of the things, in the video, that actually made "some" sense to me (from Copan) was that a loving God would cease to be loving, if he did not become angry over terrible atrocities. Maybe. Or not. I guess, I have always perceived God as being "sad" over sin, not really angry. Anger, in my view, is a weakness which God surely could not possess. Especially, a vengeful anger against his own children. (Especially, in light of the LDS concept of children, which is more like human offspring, than what mainstream Christians believe). Such a close relationship might give rise to some anger, but to the point of total destruction? Even we humans do not destroy our youth, when they become misguided. Why would a perfect God do that?

Anyway, those are my thoughts and problems with parts of the O.T. I would like to hear all of your ideas and thoughts on God's Wrath.

Oh I don't know why he should get angry enough to anialate certain groups. It just might have been the nature and magnitude of their sins and rather they were redeemable any other way. He obviously had a little more insight than you or I. Perhaps it was their fertility rites involving men, women and children. Perhaps it was their human sacrifice of their children. Perhaps it was all of the above and more. Perhaps he didn't want any of it left to contaminate Israel (as it eventually did). And just maybe he figured they would all be better off on the other side of the veil.

Just a thought.

[divinenature]

You mean passages in the D&C that say if a person kills they should be killed? Seriously?

Are you arguing that God says "do not kill" grass, bugs, meat, peaches, artichokes?

You claimed that the correct "translation" of kill is murder or assassinate. I am wondering where you get that from an English revelation. If god meant murder or assassinate couldn't he have said that?

I'm looking specifically for your source that the correct translation of kill (in the D&C) is murder or assassinate.

ETA: Murder is a legal term. Which laws are the ones we are going by to define murder?

Edited July 29, 2012 by divinenature

[divinenature]

Oh I don't know why he should get angry enough to anialate certain groups. It just might have been the nature and magnitude of their sins and rather they were redeemable any other way. He obviously had a little more insight than you or I. Perhaps it was their fertility rites involving men, women and children. Perhaps it was their human sacrifice of their children. Perhaps it was all of the above and more. Perhaps he didn't want any of it left to contaminate Israel (as it eventually did). And just maybe he figured they would all be better off on the other side of the veil.

Just a thought.

So, the alleged sacrifice of children is so wicked that the logical godly justice is that ALL the children get slaughtered. Hmmm. That just doesn't seem logical to me.

Edited July 29, 2012 by divinenature

[mapman]

I've sometimes wondered if stories about God commanding Israelites to wipe out entire peoples originated as justifications for the way that the Israelites felt about their neighbors.

Edited July 29, 2012 by mapman

[ERayR]

So, the alleged sacrifice of children is so wicked that the logical godly justice is that ALL the children get slaughtered. Hmmm. That just doesn't seem logical to me.

It avails nothing to argue with the deliberately obtuse. Read the rest for comprehension. And just maybe he figured they would all be better off on the other side of the veil.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

To the OP...God is a parent and must sometimes discipline his children. So bad things happen and it attributed to God.

Edited July 29, 2012 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[Libs]

Oh I don't know why he should get angry enough to anialate certain groups. It just might have been the nature and magnitude of their sins and rather they were redeemable any other way. He obviously had a little more insight than you or I. Perhaps it was their fertility rites involving men, women and children. Perhaps it was their human sacrifice of their children. Perhaps it was all of the above and more. Perhaps he didn't want any of it left to contaminate Israel (as it eventually did). And just maybe he figured they would all be better off on the other side of the veil.

Just a thought.

Like I said, even though it is still very difficult for me to believe that God would order the killing of every man, woman, child and beast of a particular tribe or nation, it is still a bit easier to accept within an LDS context, where the possibility of redemption is still available.

But still......is that kind of wrathfulness truly a part of God's nature? Or does it seem more likely coming from man's nature...and, erroneously, attributed to God?

Edited July 29, 2012 by Libs

[ERayR]

Like I said, even though it is still very difficult for me to believe that God would order the killing of every man, woman, child and beast of a particular tribe or nation, it is still a bit easier to accept within an LDS context, where the possibility of redemption is still available.

But still......is that kind of wrathfulness truly a part of God's nature? Or does it seem more likely coming from man's nature...and, erroneously, attributed to God?

Some of us look at death as awful. From the vantage point of God I imagine it is barely a blip on the screen. This is just another form of "If God were a loving just God why does he allow _______ (fill in the blank).

[mapman]

The problem I have with these stories isn't that God is disciplining his children, but that he is apparently punishing innocent people. Why would God have all the children and animals killed?

[Calm]

I can understand the concept of the necessity of death for the purpose of learning and progression because I have seen people so locked into one way of viewing or doing things that nothing will change them in this lifetime (I am assuming there are ways to affect such a hardened person in the next life even though it has been taught that in some ways change is more difficult in the next life than in this one). If an entire society is this way such that any children raised in that society are fated to continue the locked in tradition, then in the past when most societies were not capable of taking in massive amounts of children unable to care for themselves, there would be the necessity of removing the entire society at the same time rather than saving the children for them to only die of neglect not having anyone to care for them.

However, I do not understand the methods claimed for it in the OT. I could see a loving God simply having everyone's heart (without the sometimes attendant pain) stopping at the same time so there was no pain or fear involved, perhaps most dying in sleep. I can almost see first having people realize that a prophecy of a flood or some other disaster is coming true (and thus there is a God, etc.), having the experience of fear and death to work on their mind about the consequences of sin, etc. so as to speed repentance in the spirit world. It is an effective teaching method (though not on the children who wouldn't make the connection..at least not until they learned as spirits) where necessary to first instil respect or even fear to control extreme unwanted behaviour and then move on as the individual learns self-discipline to avoid suffering, to more positive methods of learning.....however, teaching through actual violence as in death by someone coming at you with a sword is NOT an effective method. I just don't see the horror of being murdered, massacred or executed being able to be used in such a way, instead it would seem to me to more likely make it more difficult for them to 'see the light' and repent. Plus there is the effect of being the "hand of the Lord" in such an action. It is one thing if those doing the executions are the wicked, already past redemption at this point in their mortality (and having to wait until the next one to humble themselves and repent) or perhaps like those who were slaughtering the people of Limhi, the faith of their victims might touch their hearts and souls and cause the repentance to happen in this life....but I really don't see how enacting genocide is a good thing for the people of God to be participating in as surely it would tend to give them a disrespect for human life and would tend to cause them to look on others as "other" and not as their brothers and sisters, all children of God.

So I am quite open to the idea that the genocides in the OT are more about political justifications than obedience.

Edited July 29, 2012 by calmoriah