A Wrathful God

[Libs]

1. Historically it looks unlikely that they happened.

Nehor, would you mind expanding on that a bit? Is there really no proof that any of this happened? I know there is no proof of the Israelites being held in Egypt or wandering in the desert for forty years, but really don't know much about evidence for their history, in the "Promised Land".

Edited July 29, 2012 by Libs

[Calm]

Given the choice of dying with a bullet in the head or a sword stroke or in an earthquake and dying of old age I would choose the former.

There are many forms of old age that I would agree are better to be avoided. (There are many forms of middle age and even youth I suspect most would rather avoid.) However, I have seen many die of old age that were in relative comfort and still active in life, having purpose and surrounded by the people they love. I do not see dying at that age in one's sleep as worse than being killed in some pain at the prime of one's life or say at a time when life gets to involve a bit more effort than it used to be. I think how one values life has much more to do with what is going on around one, the people involved with you being involved in life than it does with the physical and mental limitations that get put on you as you get older...at least for most people. Those that are suffering might feel differently.

However, your scenario of violent death is pretty much the same of mine of dying in my sleep (at any age btw), it is about avoiding suffering whether caused by another or caused by our own bodies. If your body and mind were in excellent shape and you had a purposeful and relatively happy life, would you mind living to old age or would the wrinkles and gray hair be too much for you to bare having been the perfect 10 in your youth.

Edited July 29, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

From Mary, who is his mother, he inherited the power of mortality, the power to separate body and spirit, the power to die.

Couple of ideas...

Mortal beings don't have the ability to cause the body and spirit to separate without some sort of outside action, even in the case of suicide. Their bodies and spirits possess the quality that the bond between isn't permanent and thus they can die, not by choice (unless they act upon themselves), but in response to an outside cause (something outside the spirit, not a conscious direction to one's heart to stop beating or one's lungs to stop breathing). It requires a mortal blow of some kind whether of blunt object or chemical or something else that acts upon the body causing it to cease functioning.

Satan did not tell Christ to simply throw himself off the mountain and then pick himself up and walk away, he told him to save himself by having angels act to prevent his death.

There is nothing in the scriptures that indicate that Jesus was noted for being invulnerable to pain or injury and surely that would have been noted. His work with Joseph likely involved some physical risk of injury. Even managing to walk through life without ever being hurt would have been noted. Granted he could heal others so undoubtedly he could heal himself, though nothing is said of that happening, but even there that would mean his mortal body that he had taken on was vulnerable to all things mortal. There is nothing to indicate he was the scriptural version of Kal-El.

There are likely two ways that his immortality inherited from his Father could act in the limited mortal frame he inherited from his mother. First there is that no one or nothing could actually harm him unless he allowed it to happen. If so then the whole Satan interchange seems meaningless and he would have had to go through life allowing everything to hurt him so that he could experiencing life as the rest of mortals do. There is a huge emotional difference, however, between allowing something to happen to one and being out of control of what is being done to the self. I don't see how it can be truly said he knew what man goes through by experiencing what man goes through unless that means as well being out of control as man is of his physical needs...he felt hunger because his body was hungry, not because he allowed it to feel those sensations, he felt pain when he stubbed his toe because he stubbed his toe, not because he actively allowed the pain neurons to fire, etc. If so, then the second way of dying comes in....he knew what was going to happen ahead of time, he could have actively avoided it by simply slipping through the soldiers' hands as he had slipped away from others who had sought him in the past or done something more obviously miraculous by having angels come down and interfere or even possibly he could have acted on his own body and prevented his heart from stopping to beat but it seems to me the default mode was mortality so that it could be said that he had truly descended below all, that he had lived as a man and bore all things man bore including in probability some fear in anticipation of his suffering. After all, did he not ask for the cup to be taken from him? Wny would he ask that if he was not experiencing some sort of fear?

If his default mode was mortality, then he could certainly say he was the one who laid down his own life since he could have prevented it by allowing his immortality to interfere with the natural process, but the point is that he consciously chose not to interfere in his body's natural process. There was nothing miraculous in the way he died, nothing noteworthy in it either save that he died quicker than was expected which was likely due to his previous exertions in the Garden having worn him down. I suppose he could have chosen to died quicker than normal thus avoiding the pain and suffering that those who were crucified with him had to bear, but that seems contradictory to his claims of actual suffering.

Edited July 29, 2012 by calmoriah

[altersteve]

...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.

I don't think this is a fair comparison. God "killing" someone (bringing them back home to Him) is far different than a person killing their children, and God, as our Creator, does indeed reserve the right to bring us back to Him whenever He feels it necessary to do so.

Edited July 29, 2012 by altersteve

[altersteve]

There are many people who believe that god told them to kill someone. How do you know they aren't telling the truth? Or are you open to the possibility that they are?

Are those the only two options, knowing they aren't telling the truth or being open to the possibility that they are? What about being open to the possibility that they think they are -- that they sincerely believe God commanded them to kill someone?

How do you know Nephi wasn't mentally ill when he heard voices telling him to assassinate Laban?

Nephi did not "assassinate" Laban and there is no indication that he "heard voices." And FAIR has responded to this allegation here. Besides, if the Book of Mormon is true, which it is, then nothing no vision, revelation, etc. in the book is a delusion or a sign of mental illness.

[CV75]

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.

I would say there is definitely sadness, but also anger when He has sacrificed and shared everything that is Holy to Him for His children’s benefit, and then they knowingly and willfully throw whatever they were willing to receive back in His face back seek His destruction. His anger is more likely at the situation of their rejecting the option of mercy and so requiring Him to carry out justice, and so in most cases the anger is not toward them personally.

Another way of looking at it is that Atonement absorbs all the anger, contention and rebellion of God’s children, but when they reject this gift, it all falls back against them—the wrath that God absorbed is released back upon them, and the anger they had against the truth is now unleashed to operate upon them, which is only fair.

[Libs]

In the case of the Cannites, I don't think they were aware of Israel's God. They were worshipping other gods (I assume out of ignorance).

[blackstrap]

I recall reading accounts of young healthy soldiers that were captured in the Korean conflict,who laid down,pulled a blanket over themselves,and were dead within 24 hours. No self-inflicted wounds,just gave up. This led to changes in military training to toughen the will of soldiers to resist. The mind can be a terrible weapon.

[Sine Saw Square]

I think I have been taught and from my own experience I perceive that anger disrupts my sensitivity to the Spirit.

Is being angry bad?

Is the wrath attributed to God something fundamentally different?

Is it an emotional state or an attempt to describe something else to an ancient culture?

[Libs]

That's an interesting observation, SSS. I agree that anger tends to subdue the spirit, which is why it is difficult to imagine an "angry and wrathful God". It seems almost contradictory. What we are calling "anger", in God, may very well be something different.

But, I still have a problem with God "ordering" the death of whole nations (and in the case of the flood, almost the entire earth). There has to be some serious symbolism in all of that (and did not happen, in reality, IMO).

Edited July 29, 2012 by Libs

[why me]

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.

Today in sunday school we were discussing alma 36 and 37 and I noticed the language that was used. It seemed that major parts of the book of mormon were written during old testament times and the language used by the prophets in the book of mormon reflect that language. I saw no kind message or words when it came to sin. I made a comment in class that it was interesting to see such language in the book of mormon during the BC times. And then, when christ comes the language seems to soften in the book after his visit.

I see an angry god in the old testament and I see an angry god in the BC times of the book of mormon. I think that even god changes according to the times. Now he is more merciful.

[why me]

That's an interesting observation, SSS. I agree that anger tends to subdue the spirit, which is why it is difficult to imagine an "angry and wrathful God". It seems almost contradictory. What we are calling "anger", in God, may very well be something different.

But, I still have a problem with God "ordering" the death of whole nations (and in the case of the flood, almost the entire earth). There has to be some serious symbolism in all of that (and did not happen, in reality, IMO).

And maybe the people in the old testament needed such an god to keep them in line. But then again, was it not god who killed the couple who cheated on their tithing in the new testament? Today we live in the time of love. God is love etc. But what does that mean: god is love? And what is god's love?

[The Nehor]

Nehor, would you mind expanding on that a bit? Is there really no proof that any of this happened? I know there is no proof of the Israelites being held in Egypt or wandering in the desert for forty years, but really don't know much about evidence for their history, in the "Promised Land".

Historically the Hebrews were in the Promised Land. They probably invaded. There is no historical record or evidence of the Israelites committing acts of genocide/ethnic cleansing in the land by wiping out man, woman, child, and animal throughout the land.

[The Nehor]

And maybe the people in the old testament needed such an god to keep them in line. But then again, was it not god who killed the couple who cheated on their tithing in the new testament? Today we live in the time of love. God is love etc. But what does that mean: god is love? And what is god's love?

It is a great and terrible thing to be loved by a God. A loving doctor can cause more pain then a sadist. The sadist will eventually tire of the game. The doctor won't stop no matter how painful it gets until you are fixed.

C.S. Lewis pointed out that what many want is a half-senile heavenly grandfather who is not that worried as long as the young ones are having a good time and that at the end of every day it can be said that a good time was had by all. I admit there are times I would prefer such a world but that is asking for God to love me less not more. The Love of God is not satisfied until the object of his love is perfectly lovable and we are so far from that. The only hope I cling to is that one day the surgery will be over and I can be whole. God speed that day.

People claim they want a God of Love without thinking it through or imagining it as the indulgent love of a morally blind parent. Well, they got the God of Love and He is both terrifying and exhilarating.

[Libs]

Historically the Hebrews were in the Promised Land. They probably invaded. There is no historical record or evidence of the Israelites committing acts of genocide/ethnic cleansing in the land by wiping out man, woman, child, and animal throughout the land.

Interesting. Thanks..

[Libs]

It is a great and terrible thing to be loved by a God. A loving doctor can cause more pain then a sadist. The sadist will eventually tire of the game. The doctor won't stop no matter how painful it gets until you are fixed.

C.S. Lewis pointed out that what many want is a half-senile heavenly grandfather who is not that worried as long as the young ones are having a good time and that at the end of every day it can be said that a good time was had by all. I admit there are times I would prefer such a world but that is asking for God to love me less not more. The Love of God is not satisfied until the object of his love is perfectly lovable and we are so far from that. The only hope I cling to is that one day the surgery will be over and I can be whole. God speed that day.

People claim they want a God of Love without thinking it through or imagining it as the indulgent love of a morally blind parent. Well, they got the God of Love and He is both terrifying and exhilarating.

When I say I believe in a God of love, I mean that God would not, himself, ever be the cause of our pain. We bring enough pain and suffering on ourselves, by our own actions, without needing a God to add to it. We need God to turn to, when those things happen. The God who loves is infinitely merciful, tender, loving and kind...irresistibly so. Never angry or hateful and above all never doing harm to his creation.

[The Nehor]

When I say I believe in a God of love, I mean that God would not, himself, ever be the cause of our pain. We bring enough pain and suffering on ourselves, by our own actions, without needing a God to add to it. We need God to turn to, when those things happen. The God who loves is infinitely merciful, tender, loving and kind...irresistibly so. Never angry or hateful and above all never doing harm to his creation.

I sadly have to disagree. While in the end God's actions and commandments lead to joy they sometimes lead to short-term pain. I also believe God does get angry. He claims to do so in the D&C. Again, his anger has no malice but is corrective and just. As for harm to his creations I am not sure what you mean. There is much pain in creation (ask anyone who went through labor without heavy drugs). God even claims to afflict his people to chastise them. I know of no promise in any scripture or revelation (public or private) that suggests that God will never do anything painful or even harmful.

[Libs]

Yes, I know there is much suffering in life. It comes with the package....which is why I am thinking that God doesn't need (or desire) to add to it. Of course, he hopes our suffering will turn us towards him, and often it does. And, when we do, finally, turn back to him, he is there with open arms, ready to comfort and console.

[why me]

When I say I believe in a God of love, I mean that God would not, himself, ever be the cause of our pain. We bring enough pain and suffering on ourselves, by our own actions, without needing a God to add to it. We need God to turn to, when those things happen. The God who loves is infinitely merciful, tender, loving and kind...irresistibly so. Never angry or hateful and above all never doing harm to his creation.

But it seems that god has done harm according to your definition. How to explain the couple that were killed for cheating on their tithing in the new testament? Or the god of the old testament? But I can understand your point because it is rather new age. God is understanding, loving never hating, never being unkind, always forgiving, always tender and kind. Sort of like a nice grandpa.

I remember a former woman friend who when taking about her premarital relationships said to me: god knows me and knows who I am. He understands me. Her logic was it was not a sin to have sex outside of marriage. What advice would you have gven this women with your understanding of god?

Strangely, she went to her church every sunday and was very active in it.

[CASteinman]

Some folk prefer a god without body, parts or passions.

[Libs]

My God has both body parts and passions. I just don't think he is an "angry" God.

But it seems that god has done harm according to your definition. How to explain the couple that were killed for cheating on their tithing in the new testament? Or the god of the old testament?

I think it's entirely possible that, either, man has attributed some things to God that were not of God...or that I am wrong... and God really does have a bad temper.

[CASteinman]

My God has both body parts and passions. I just don't think he is an "angry" God.

Hmmm.. Which passions does he have? Do you believe that it is holy to have some and not others?

[blackstrap]

Let's make a list of the passions that the scriptures say God has. I'll start: " I the Lord God am a jealous God"

[Libs]

Hmmm.. Which passions does he have? Do you believe that it is holy to have some and not others?

Well....no where, in the "fruits of the spirit" is anger or vengeance mentioned. So, we might take a clue from that?

[CASteinman]

Well....no where, in the "fruits of the spirit" is anger or vengeance mentioned. So, we might take a clue from that?

Maybe. But then, anger might be a fruit of the Spirit that was not mentioned.