A Wrathful God

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Finished it. Bacrac won the debate, hands down, no contest. Twenty minutes in, for instance, he makes an excellent point: the traditional defense for God's "sovereignty" which justifies killing innocent children is that He is their Creator and they are contingent on Him for their very existence.

This is an absolute nightmare of a totalitarian deity; imagine if your neighbor claimed that because they had created their children that they were therefore justified in killing them.

That's not "discipline."

Copan's arguments often simply dodge the question. It's absolutely true that these are hyperbolized rhetorical texts (some of which very well probably didn't even happen, as described at least), but that doesn't change what the hyperbole is actually describing as desirable. It's not a matter of historicity, it's a matter of what kind of being God is said to be, and whether it is moral to give worth to such a deity.

If people were not so often brought up to try to justify God's actions in the text -- if we were to read it like we would a work of fiction, in other words, coming to our own conclusions about the characters -- would we think of God as the hero or the villain? A lot of times, I think we'd see Him as the Darth Vader of the piece in the historical sections.

Of course Joshua failed; that doesn't change his (purported) attempt. If the Colorado shooter's gun jammed, that doesn't change what he would have attempted to do. Rigdon's rhetoric about extermination was not justified, and Boggs wasn't justified to turn it back on the early Saints.

(As if a destruction has to be "utter" before it's immoral.)

If God created literally everything from nothing, then all these people He is feeling His supposedly "righteous" wrath for are His own fault. If He created the very conditions in which rape and murder are possible, it's His own fault. If He is the omnipotent Ground of All Being, then He had the power to create a world without the possibility of these horrors while still preserving Free Will.

Killing children because children were killed is not justice.

If the traditional philosophical view of God is correct, Rwanda is His fault. The Holocaust is His fault. The witchhunts and killings of homosexuals are His fault. He has no right to become "wrathful" at a situation He Himself caused! And this has nothing to do with sexual freedoms.

I agree with the Lewis quote that Hell is actually self-imposed. But why would you want to "get" a God like this one is described as being like? It would be a relief to get a "divorce" from such a creature.

We absolutely do not "need" the Ground of All Being God in order to be moral; Mormons are, in fact, "atheists" in regard to that kind of omnipresent God.

If we believe God is a human, one of us, then if He is moral, it's because He's a fellow humanist!

It always comes back to the argument against "materialism", as if there can be anything except material. But Bacrac is correct: we make our own meanings. Positing a God does not provide intrinsic meaning. Theism has no more authority for offering "value" than atheism.

Bacrac here is absolutely correct: We cannot assume God is good unless we ourselves have a value of Good. In other words, we already have our values. We are responsible for who we worship. We decide who to follow. True belief cannot be coerced; it can only be reached through persuasion, gentleness, meekness, longsuffering, and love unfeigned.

How can there be something "outside" the natural world? If we have any contact with it, then some bit of it is natural. The "moral argument" for God is completely worthless, and Copan's entire defense is ludicrous; it's based on the usual disdain for naturalism. But Good has to be independent of God. We have to have access to it ourselves; God cannot be the source, or He is actually also the creator of Evil.

[ERayR]

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?

Why do you look at death as punishment? It is only punishment to the unrepentant. To all others it is a reward.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Death isn't the reward. Eternal life is the reward, and God has the power to change people from mortality to immortality in the twinkling of an eye, so that they do not even taste death. There is nothing edifying about having your guts ripped out by blunt preindustrial weapons.

Edited July 29, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[ERayR]

Death isn't the reward. Eternal life is the reward, and God has the power to change people from mortality to immortality in the twinkling of an eye, so that they do not even taste death. There is nothing edifying about having your guts ripped out by blunt preindustrial weapons.

Which can not take place until death occurs. I am totally amazed at those who profess a glorious hereafter yet rail against and condemn the gateway to it. Oh I just can't wait to get to live with Jesus. Isn't it terrible that he died? Does something seem wrong here?

Edited July 29, 2012 by ERayR

[Calm]

Why do you look at death as punishment? It is only punishment to the unrepentant. To all others it is a reward.

Death is not a punishment, but dying just might be. Edited July 29, 2012 by calmoriah

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I am totally amazed at those who profess a glorious hereafter yet rail against and condemn the gateway to it.

Yeah, one should never rail against or condemn all those beheadings and fatal rapes and suicide bombings and genocides. They're obviously for a greater good.

Edited July 29, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[ERayR]

Death is not a punishment, but dying just might be.

Get ready for it it comes to all sooner or later.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Oh I just can't wait to get to live with Jesus. Isn't it terrible that he died? Does something seem wrong here?

Yes. I hate that Jesus died. It was a terrible, evil act of unrighteous political dominion.

As D&C 132 says, "The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which shall not be forgiven in the world nor out of the world, is in that ye commit murder wherein ye shed innocent blood, and assent unto my death."

[Calm]

Get ready for it it comes to all sooner or later.

I am hoping I am going to go by the 'sleep method'. I am not in the least fear about death...in fact I am looking forward to that because it is the first step in what I see as a wonderful adventure for lack of a better word, but dying....having seen people experience that part of life's equation in various ways....I do have a bit of trepidation about that. I am voting for short and sweet rather than long and agonizing. Edited July 29, 2012 by calmoriah

[CASteinman]

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 do not believe for one second that "thou shalt not kill" means that we are not allowed to eat fruits, vegetables, kill flies, hunt game, fell trees, eat grapes, etc. The idea that you have that it is any type of killing whatsoever is beyond silly and I do not take your objection seriously,

However, if you go to LDS.ORG, look the scripture up and click on the word "Kill" you will see it links to the word "Murder", which is how the Prophets of this dispensation have said it should be read.

Edited July 29, 2012 by CASteinman

[Calm]

Which can not take place until death occurs. I am totally amazed at those who profess a glorious hereafter yet rail against and condemn the gateway to it. Oh I just can't wait to get to live with Jesus. Isn't it terrible that he died? Does something seem wrong here?

Are we not supposed to be horrified that Christ was crucified? Is this not supposed to work on our own sense of sin and cause us to consider the way we have contributed to his suffering leading us to sorrow and hopefully to repentance?

It is glorious that God was willing to die for us. It is a condemnation of humanity that it was possible that there are those among us who were willing to kill him and to do so in a way that maximized his pain.

There is the crucifixion which should raise feelings of horror in everyone who considers it and then there is the resurrection which should bring joy.

Not experiencing or diminishing one of those emotions because one believes it is so important to feel the other when examining the life and death of Christ misses the whole story of redemption and without that one will not be able to fully accept the Atonement. Life is about sorrow and joy and Christ's life is the ultimate example of such for us to learn from.

Edited July 29, 2012 by calmoriah

[divinenature]

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.

Why send them down then? Why not close up the wombs or dry up the seeds? I can't buy that murder is the best thing an all merciful, all loving god could come up with.

[The Grimace]

I do not believe for one second that "thou shalt not kill" means that we are not allowed to eat fruits, vegetables, kill flies, hunt game, fell trees, eat grapes, etc. The idea that you have that it is any type of killing whatsoever is beyond silly and I do not take your objection seriously,

However, if you go to LDS.ORG, look the scripture up and click on the word "Kill" you will see it links to the word "Murder", which is how the Prophets of this dispensation have said it should be read.

Let's limit it to human beings. I don't see where divinenature said 'killing' includes pineapples.

Does this make it easier to answer her question?

[divinenature]

I do not believe for one second that "thou shalt not kill" means that we are not allowed to eat fruits, vegetables, kill flies, hunt game, fell trees, eat grapes, etc. The idea that you have that it is any type of killing whatsoever is beyond silly and I do not take your objection seriously,

Would you be so kind as to define what you believe "thou shalt not kill" means? You are the one who brought up non-sentient beings. Not I. You, and you alone, are responsible for that silliness. I have no idea why you are even talking about that and avoiding my CFR and actual questions.

So, again, where is the source that says kill should be translated as murder or assassinate? CFR

Edited July 29, 2012 by divinenature

[CASteinman]

Are we not supposed to be horrified that Christ was crucified?

That is an interestingly difficult question.

[CASteinman]

Let's limit it to human beings. I don't see where divinenature said 'killing' includes pineapples.

Does this make it easier to answer her question?

Nope. Either killing is killing without some limit on it ... or it has some reasonable limit.

The limit has been described as "murder".

This is way way beyond silly.

[Calm]

That is an interestingly difficult question.

Not to me.

I can understand the positive ramifications of his while still feeling the horror of the manner of his dying.

Just as I can understand the positive ramifications on having to put an innocent child through immense suffering in order to heal her of a physical handicap through surgery and other aggressive treatments while still being brokenhearted that there is not a better way.

Edited July 29, 2012 by calmoriah

[CASteinman]

Would you be so kind as to define what you believe "thou shalt not kill" means?

Yes, thou shalt not kill means thou shalt not murder. I gave you the reference already.

[divinenature]

Why would a good god command that people not murder or assassinate and then call people as prophets who have commited murder and assassination?

That doesn't make sense, either.

It is a contradiction. A loving god who commands no killing and then also tells some people to kill and even commit genocide. And how fortunate that the enemies of the writers of the OT had the same enemies as their god.

It's disturbing, to say the least. I struggled with this for many months.

[CASteinman]

Not to me.

Should we be horrified that Jesus did exactly what He intended to do and save mankind by taking on the sins of the world and then dying by horrific torture?

That is not such an easy question since if He had not done it... well we read the outcome of that and it is not good.

[CASteinman]

It's disturbing, to say the least. I struggled with this for many months.

You don't seem to be done struggling. Are you asking for help with this?

[divinenature]

Yes, thou shalt not kill means thou shalt not murder. I gave you the reference already.

I don't see the reference.

Also, murder is a legal definition. Does god just go for the legal definition in the land in which a person is living? So, in some places it is legal to kill your daughter if you think she was inappropriate with a man...god is okay with that because it isn't murder?

[divinenature]

You don't seem to be done struggling. Are you asking for help with this?

LOL. The struggle is over. Just relating to the OP.

[CASteinman]

Also, murder is a legal definition. Does god just go for the legal definition in the land in which a person is living? So, in some places it is legal to kill your daughter if you think she was inappropriate with a man...god is okay with that because it isn't murder?

Well... God has laws. And killing someone against His will is what He considers Murder. So... there you go. God does not go by the legal definition of the land in which a person is living but He does command us to do so.

[Calm]

Should we be horrified that:

1) Jesus did exactly what He intended to do and save mankind by taking on the sins of the world

We should be joyful.

2) and then dying by horrific torture?

We should most definitely be horrified.

That is not such an easy question since if He had not done it... well we read the outcome of that and it is not good.

Actually I think it is pretty clear as long as we don't make the mistake of confusing his willingness to die with those who were willing to kill him.

God said something about the fate of those who killed Christ and I don't remember anything about them becoming heros or being thanked for their roles.

Edited July 29, 2012 by calmoriah