"the God I Believe In Wouldn't Do That"

[The Nehor]

No, it isn't that way at all. One of my older sons was a constant problem growing up, willful, disobedient, if something was expected of him then he was definitely against it. Dropped out of high school, took up with a convicted felon who ended up stealing things from us and ruining my work vehicle, and when told that he must abandon his "friend" he said he would, but didn't. We had to kick him out of the house.

Now, there he was, homeless. Very cruel of us wasn't it? It was utterly necessary for our own safety (this felonious friend had a record as long as his arm, btw).

After a few years of being basically exiled from the family he finally came to his senses and started making his way back. He eventually got married, has two beautiful daughters, a steady job doing what he loves to do, and is in great favor among men.

If we hadn't kicked him out of the house I have no idea what would have happened, but I don't think it would have been very pretty. For him or us.

Father put us where He knew things would be rough, and he permitted evil to dwell in it so that we would be well and truly tested.

It's exactly what it must be to produce what Father wants. And anyone who doesn't like it, well, Father has a place for you, too. You'll love it there! It's called the Terrestrial Kingdom. And it's a swell place!

 

I don't disagree with you in any significant way. My only real statement is that we cannot hide God behind arguing that he doesn't cause evil; he just allows it. When you are omnipotent there isn't much of a line between being the cause and allowing something.

 

I agree that all this evil is for our good. I just don't enjoy it very much.

[barbarbar]

Personally, I believe that any god that would command or carry out many of the horrific acts in the OT is not worth worshiping. The wrath of god illustrated in OT appears to me to be reflective of the men that penned the OT. However, if the OT does accurately reflect the personality of the god of the universe then I would consider myself better off by living without such a god.

[teddyaware]

Personally, I believe that any god that would command or carry out many of the horrific acts in the OT is not worth worshiping. The wrath of god illustrated in OT appears to me to be reflective of the men that penned the OT. However, if the OT does accurately reflect the personality of the god of the universe then I would consider myself better off by living without such a god.

Read the Book of Revelation and you'll see the so-called God of the Old Testament returns within its pages. This fact has mystified many for generations because they thought the God of wrath ended with the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, only to find He returns full-force in John's vision of the future. But thanks to the Book of Moses we catch a glimpse of what goes on in heaven just prior to God sending forth His righteous judgments upon the wicked; and what we see is that He takes absolutely no pleasure in doing what He sometimes has to do in order to save His rebellious children from their own blind self-destructiveness.

28 And it came to pass that the God of heaven looked upon the residue of the people, and he wept; and Enoch bore record of it, saying: How is it that the heavens weep, and shed forth their tears as the rain upon the mountains?

37 But behold, their sins shall be upon the heads of their fathers; Satan shall be their father, and misery shall be their doom; and the whole heavens shall weep over them, even all the workmanship of mine hands; wherefore should not the heavens weep, seeing these shall suffer?

38 But behold, these which thine eyes are upon shall perish in the floods; and behold, I will shut them up; a prison have I prepared for them.

39 And that which I have chosen (Christ) hath pled before my face. Wherefore, he suffereth for their sins; inasmuch as they will repent in the day that my Chosen shall return unto me, and until that day they shall be in torment;

40 Wherefore, for this shall the heavens weep, yea, and all the workmanship of mine hands. (Moses 7)

 

If one denies the God of the Old Testament, that person denies the Christ for He is the God of the Old Testament.

Edited March 27, 2014 by teddyaware

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Every so often on this board someone will make a statement something along the lines of "The God I worship wouldn't cause innocents to suffer".

Recently someone said this about the plagues in Egypt killing children had to be myth.

Today's thread on the OT called God vengeful.

The OW thread has featured people saying "God wouldn't discrimate" against women.

Recently there was even a thread implying that God was cruel to make Jesus suffer and die for our sins.

 

In fact, people make this statement about a lot of things that they just can't accept God as doing.  Anything that is seen as unfair, unequal, cruel, vengeful etc. we like to say that "God wouldn't do that" and of course atheists always claim that natural disasters prove there is no loving God.

 

So, how do we justify putting our own ideas about right and wrong onto God? 

And where do we get the notion that to be a loving God He has to not directly cause suffering?

Prophecy would indicate that many more vengeful and deadly acts are in the near future as Gods judgements are poured out.  Many cities will be destroyed (including innocents presumably).  We are told Jackson County will be "wiped clean", that New York, Albany & Boston may be destroyed, that there will numerous natural disasters.  The scriptures record God ordering many deaths.

 

Do these things cause those who think "God wouldn't do that to the innocent" to lose faith?

I am not looking for a "why does God allow these things" answer.  I am looking for a "how do we deal with these things and have faith in such a being" answer.

The OT is accurate.

[stemelbow]

I'm not.  I am skeptical of half the phone calls and e-mails I get but that's a different story.

 

Alright since this was brought back up...if this unnamed lady has all the answers to why, why is she not officially a prophetess?  She has proclaimed to have all the answers to someone.  SOme believe her, it seems.  So, what's going on here? 

[Stargazer]

Personally, I believe that any god that would command or carry out many of the horrific acts in the OT is not worth worshiping. The wrath of god illustrated in OT appears to me to be reflective of the men that penned the OT. However, if the OT does accurately reflect the personality of the god of the universe then I would consider myself better off by living without such a god.

 

If God created us so He could torture us and laugh at our suffering, then you would probably be right. But He didn't.  He created us in order to raise us up, not to get pleasure from our pain.  The process of refining us, and determining which of us are suitable for that glory requires that we be tested.  And in the end, virtually all of us will be raised to more happiness and joy than we can possibly imagine.  

 

What "horrific" acts are you speaking of, anyway?  The most horrific acts I see in the OT are those which humans commit (and which God must necessarily permit).  The only ones that appear to be directly caused by God are the Flood, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.  And perhaps the destruction of some of the cities of the Canaanites during the conquest of Palestine, post-Moses.  And you can find arguments as to why those might be justified, just like you can find justification for the destruction of Germany and Japan during World War II.  

 

What you say has more than a little of the scent of pride, though.  You wouldn't want to live with this God that you have imagined?  Buddy, if He exists, you are stuck with Him.  You have utterly no choice in the matter, and all your self-righteous posturing (and I say this in the most respectful sense imaginable) is just that: posturing.

 

By the way, are you Vegan?  If not, what about all those animals you have killed and eaten?  Didn't they die horribly, and all to satisfy your blood lust?  So don't go off making like you're some virtuous personage in comparison to this God you don't understand yet feel free to vilify in your ignorance.

 

Edited March 27, 2014 by Stargazer

[ERayR]

Alright since this was brought back up...if this unnamed lady has all the answers to why, why is she not officially a prophetess?  She has proclaimed to have all the answers to someone.  SOme believe her, it seems.  So, what's going on here? 

 

I didn't say I thought she had all the answers, I just said that in general I am not skeptical of her.  If she has all the answers for everybody including the church I would be skeptical.  If the answers are merely common sense then perhaps she is blessed with an abundance of common sense.  Heaven only knows there is certainly a dearth of it in the general population and anybody with a good measure of it would certainly seem like a prophet(ess).

Edited March 27, 2014 by ERayR

[stemelbow]

I didn't say I thought she had all the answers, I just said that in general I am not skeptical of her.  If she has all the answers for everybody including the church I would be skeptical.  If the answers are merely common sense then perhaps she is blessed with an abundance of common sense.  Heaven only knows there is certainly a dearth of it in the general population and anybody with a good measure of it would certainly seem like a prophet(ess).

 

This may be a case of a misunderstanding then.

 

The Nehor said, "I know one lady who gets answers to the why questions for almost everything via Revelation."

 

I read that and think some lady telling The Nehor that she has answers as to why questions on almost everything?  My goodness, we're left with so many unanswered why questions it seems to me.  Either she is overstating it, The Nehor is, someone is lying, or better than it all, she is the true prophetess we should all be listening too.  

 

But the Nehor can't send her my way, so I'm guessing he's just confused, as usual.   

[barbarbar]

If God created us so He could torture us and laugh at our suffering, then you would probably be right. But He didn't. He created us in order to raise us up, not to get pleasure from our pain. The process of refining us, and determining which of us are suitable for that glory requires that we be tested. And in the end, virtually all of us will be raised to more happiness and joy than we can possibly imagine.

What "horrific" acts are you speaking of, anyway? The most horrific acts I see in the OT are those which humans commit (and which God must necessarily permit). The only ones that appear to be directly caused by God are the Flood, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. And perhaps the destruction of some of the cities of the Canaanites during the conquest of Palestine, post-Moses. And you can find arguments as to why those might be justified, just like you can find justification for the destruction of Germany and Japan during World War II.

What you say has more than a little of the scent of pride, though. You wouldn't want to live with this God that you have imagined? Buddy, if He exists, you are stuck with Him. You have utterly no choice in the matter, and all your self-righteous posturing (and I say this in the most respectful sense imaginable) is just that: posturing.

By the way, are you Vegan? If not, what about all those animals you have killed and eaten? Didn't they die horribly, and all to satisfy your blood lust? So don't go off making like you're some virtuous personage in comparison to this God you don't understand yet feel free to vilify in your ignorance.

Interesting response. You'll be an excellent god of your own Old Testament someday.

[barbarbar]

Read the Book of Revelation and you'll see the so-called God of the Old Testament returns within its pages. This fact has mystified many for generations because they thought the God of wrath ended with the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, only to find He returns full-force in John's vision of the future. But thanks to the Book of Moses we catch a glimpse of what goes on in heaven just prior to God sending forth His righteous judgments upon the wicked; and what we see is that He takes absolutely no pleasure in doing what He sometimes has to do in order to save His rebellious children from their own blind self-destructiveness.

28 And it came to pass that the God of heaven looked upon the residue of the people, and he wept; and Enoch bore record of it, saying: How is it that the heavens weep, and shed forth their tears as the rain upon the mountains?

37 But behold, their sins shall be upon the heads of their fathers; Satan shall be their father, and misery shall be their doom; and the whole heavens shall weep over them, even all the workmanship of mine hands; wherefore should not the heavens weep, seeing these shall suffer?

38 But behold, these which thine eyes are upon shall perish in the floods; and behold, I will shut them up; a prison have I prepared for them.

39 And that which I have chosen (Christ) hath pled before my face. Wherefore, he suffereth for their sins; inasmuch as they will repent in the day that my Chosen shall return unto me, and until that day they shall be in torment;

40 Wherefore, for this shall the heavens weep, yea, and all the workmanship of mine hands. (Moses 7)

If one denies the God of the Old Testament, that person denies the Christ for He is the God of the Old Testament.

That's fine.

[JLHPROF]

Personally, I believe that any god that would command or carry out many of the horrific acts in the OT is not worth worshiping. The wrath of god illustrated in OT appears to me to be reflective of the men that penned the OT. However, if the OT does accurately reflect the personality of the god of the universe then I would consider myself better off by living without such a god.

 

So if the OT is accurate is the error in God's actions or your opinion?  Because one can be considered perfect and the other cannot.

 

I think there are people who in their desire for a loving God cannot accept a God that directly causes pain and suffering to us poor mortals.  That is really the question - how do we reconcile our notion of God with the God that actually exists?

 

God has destroyed cities and nations directly and innocents have suffered and died because of it.  God has also indirectly sat back and let nature and man cause innocents to suffer.  So is our understanding of what it means to be a loving God in error?  Because God is perfect.

[barbarbar]

So if the OT is accurate is the error in God's actions or your opinion? Because one can be considered perfect and the other cannot.

I think there are people who in their desire for a loving God cannot accept a God that directly causes pain and suffering to us poor mortals. That is really the question - how do we reconcile our notion of God with the God that actually exists?

God has destroyed cities and nations directly and innocents have suffered and died because of it. God has also indirectly sat back and let nature and man cause innocents to suffer. So is our understanding of what it means to be a loving God in error? Because God is perfect.

If the OT accurately depicts reality then I can't stop god from doing what he does. But I don't have to agree with or defend his actions. And I certainly don't have desire to live the guy forever.

[JLHPROF]

If the OT accurately depicts reality then I can't stop god from doing what he does. But I don't have to agree with or defend his actions. And I certainly don't have desire to live the guy forever.

 

And I completely understand that.  It still begs the question - does that mean you believe God is doing something wrong if he does these actions?  Or are we mistaken in thinking the actions are wrong?

[barbarbar]

And I completely understand that.  It still begs the question - does that mean you believe God is doing something wrong if he does these actions?  Or are we mistaken in thinking the actions are wrong?

Assuming such a god exists, I would consider him no better than anyone that physically, verbally, and/or emotionally abuses their own children. Commanding some of your children to literally slaughter some of your other children (including young children) is wrong. I'm having trouble understanding why anyone would think that would be okay. Explain to me how killing children is more moral or right than trying to preach to their parents and moving on if they don't listen. Killing children is never a good decision.

[JLHPROF]

Assuming such a god exists, I would consider him no better than anyone that physically, verbally, and/or emotionally abuses their own children. Commanding some of your children to literally slaughter some of your other children (including young children) is wrong. I'm having trouble understanding why anyone would think that would be okay. Explain to me how killing children is more moral or right than trying to preach to their parents and moving on if they don't listen. Killing children is never a good decision.

 

Now we're getting to the root of this thread.  I have no good answer, but I accept that God does sometimes allow (or even cause) innocents to suffer, AND I believe that God is loving, kind and perfect.

 

So how to reconcile?  Not sure, but I do believe that whatever God requires is right, even if I don't understand it right now.

[barbarbar]

Now we're getting to the root of this thread.  I have no good answer, but I accept that God does sometimes allow (or even cause) innocents to suffer, AND I believe that God is loving, kind and perfect.

 

So how to reconcile?  Not sure, but I do believe that whatever God requires is right, even if I don't understand it right now.

Really? If god commanded you through President Monson to go to Jackson County, Missouri and kill all of its inhabitants, including children of all ages, would you faithfully carry out such a commandment while feeling like you we're doing something right and good. Before you answer, take a minute to really ponder what it would be like for you to personally commit such a terrible act against a little child. Then consider how according to the OT people actually did it. Now consider how you think that such an act is good and right. I don't know you, but I doubt that you are that disgusting.

[Stargazer]

Interesting response. You'll be an excellent god of your own Old Testament someday.

 

If that's your response, you either don't care to discuss the issues or you didn't have an answer.  I can live with that.

 

Edited in order to cut to the chase.

Edited March 28, 2014 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

Those who complain about what God commanded the Israelites to do in Canaan, should perhaps try to explain why it was or wasn't necessary to bomb and invade Germany in order to stop the evils that Hitler and the Nazis were perpetrating on the world.  There were many more women and children in Germany who died in order to stop that madness than were killed in Canaan.  We don't know why God commanded what he commanded, but among the peoples who were destroyed were those who routinely sacrificed their own children to their gods.  

 

Perhaps we should have just let Hitler keep on keeping on.  If a man enters my house with the evident intent to kill my family, perhaps I should take the high ground and let him.  In past discussions, one of the participants in this thread, bcuzbcuz, has professed his conviction that that indeed is preferable to taking the wrongdoer's life before he can take yours. Is pacifism of higher morality, or in other words, consenting to the murder of oneself and one's own, than self-defense unto bloodshed?  Perhaps so, but many disagree.

 

But if we humans are sometimes justified in committing violence in order to stop a worse violence, why should we think that God must take the higher ground and allow the evils to be continued without intervention?  

Edited March 28, 2014 by Stargazer

[teddyaware]

Those who complain about what God commanded the Israelites to do in Canaan, should perhaps try to explain why it was or wasn't necessary to bomb and invade Germany in order to stop the evils that Hitler and the Nazis were perpetrating on the world.  There were many more women and children in Germany who died in order to stop that madness than were killed in Canaan.  We don't know why God commanded what he commanded, but among the peoples who were destroyed were those who routinely sacrificed their own children to their gods.  

 

Perhaps we should have just let Hitler keep on keeping on.  If a man enters my house with the evident intent to kill my family, perhaps I should take the high ground and let him.  In past discussions, one of the participants in this thread, bcuzbcuz, has professed his conviction that that indeed is preferable to taking the wrongdoer's life before he can take yours. Is pacifism of higher morality, or in other words, consenting to the murder of oneself and one's own, than self-defense unto bloodshed?  Perhaps so, but many disagree.

 

But if we humans are sometimes justified in committing violence in order to stop a worse violence, why should we think that God must take the higher ground and allow the evils to be continued without intervention?

Good post. But I must say that thanks to the Book of Mormon we do know why the Lord commanded His people to destroy the people of Canaan. In 1 Nephi 17, Nephi is attempting  to convinced Laman and Lemuel that the people of Jerusalem, from whence they came, really were wicked enough to be smitten of God and taken captive by the king of Babylon just as their father Lehi had prophesied. In the midst of his narrative, Nephi then goes back in time and explains to his brothers why the Lord commanded the children of Israel to destroy the people of Canaan. Here's what he said, 

32 And after they (the children of Israel) had crossed the river Jordan he did make them mighty unto the driving out of the children of the land (the people of Canaan), yea, unto the scattering them to destruction.

33 And now, do ye suppose that the children of this land, who were in the land of promise, who were driven out by our fathers, do ye suppose that they were righteous? Behold, I say unto you, Nay.

34 Do ye suppose that our fathers would have been more choice than they if they had been righteous? I say unto you, Nay.

35 Behold, the Lord esteemeth all flesh in one; he that is righteous is favored of God. But behold, this people had rejected every word of God, and they were ripe in iniquity; and the fulness of the wrath of God was upon them; and the Lord did curse the land against them, and bless it unto our fathers; yea, he did curse it against them unto their destruction, and he did bless it unto our fathers unto their obtaining power over it. (1 Nephi 17)

 

Edited March 28, 2014 by teddyaware

[changed]

To me it all comes down to the fact that we don't see the big picture - we don't see the cause and effect chain that would have resulted after any number of different situations played out... Ex - was it wrong to bomb Japan? but then if we didn't, some say the war would have went on and on, and many more people would have died etc. etc.  ... 

The other thing, we cannot see into people's hearts, we don't know what it takes to refine everyone... the refining process is brutal, but it's worth it imo.

[barbarbar]

Those who complain about what God commanded the Israelites to do in Canaan, should perhaps try to explain why it was or wasn't necessary to bomb and invade Germany in order to stop the evils that Hitler and the Nazis were perpetrating on the world. There were many more women and children in Germany who died in order to stop that madness than were killed in Canaan. We don't know why God commanded what he commanded, but among the peoples who were destroyed were those who routinely sacrificed their own children to their gods.

Perhaps we should have just let Hitler keep on keeping on. If a man enters my house with the evident intent to kill my family, perhaps I should take the high ground and let him. In past discussions, one of the participants in this thread, bcuzbcuz, has professed his conviction that that indeed is preferable to taking the wrongdoer's life before he can take yours. Is pacifism of higher morality, or in other words, consenting to the murder of oneself and one's own, than self-defense unto bloodshed? Perhaps so, but many disagree.

But if we humans are sometimes justified in committing violence in order to stop a worse violence, why should we think that God must take the higher ground and allow the evils to be continued without intervention?

Complete nonsense. The destruction of the Canaanites is not analogous to the bombing of Japan or Germany. Neither is the idea of defending your family against a home invasion at all like the Israelites actions. Consider the siege of Jericho. The Israelites wandered up to Jericho, spied on them, and determined to take their land for themselves because they felt entitled to it. The whole reason the walls of Jericho had to fall was because the people of the city had barricaded themselves in the city out of fear of the Israelites. The Israelites wanted the land and felt that destroying every man, women, and child to get it was righteous. The Israelites justified their actions by saying that their god commanded such actions. I hope you see the irony of your justification for the genocide committed by the Israelites.

Also, you mention that the Canaanites regularly sacrificed their children as a justification for the slaughtering of every man, women, and CHILD. How do you not see the error in your reasoning?

As I responded to another post earlier, I sincerely doubt that you would be at all comfortable with killing a child, even if god commanded it, yet you are completely comfortable with saying that such an act committed by the Israelites was good, right, and justified. I think if you really imagined yourself entering Jericho and walking up to a child and committing an act of violence against that child you may reconsider your views on the matter.

Again, if God really commanded such terrible acts to be carried out then he is not worth worshipping.

[Gray]

And I completely understand that.  It still begs the question - does that mean you believe God is doing something wrong if he does these actions?  Or are we mistaken in thinking the actions are wrong?

 

If we don't have the moral wherewithal to determine right from wrong, then we're probably not qualified to determine who God is and what He wants in the first place

[stemelbow]

Complete nonsense. The destruction of the Canaanites is not analogous to the bombing of Japan or Germany. Neither is the idea of defending your family against a home invasion at all like the Israelites actions. Consider the siege of Jericho. The Israelites wandered up to Jericho, spied on them, and determined to take their land for themselves because they felt entitled to it. The whole reason the walls of Jericho had to fall was because the people of the city had barricaded themselves in the city out of fear of the Israelites. The Israelites wanted the land and felt that destroying every man, women, and child to get it was righteous. The Israelites justified their actions by saying that their god commanded such actions. I hope you see the irony of your justification for the genocide committed by the Israelites.

Also, you mention that the Canaanites regularly sacrificed their children as a justification for the slaughtering of every man, women, and CHILD. How do you not see the error in your reasoning?

As I responded to another post earlier, I sincerely doubt that you would be at all comfortable with killing a child, even if god commanded it, yet you are completely comfortable with saying that such an act committed by the Israelites was good, right, and justified. I think if you really imagined yourself entering Jericho and walking up to a child and committing an act of violence against that child you may reconsider your views on the matter.

Again, if God really commanded such terrible acts to be carried out then he is not worth worshipping.

 

Great post.

[Gray]

Does it help the conversation at all to interject that the conquest of Canaan never actually happened? And in fact that the Israelites were essentially Canaanites themselves, early on?

[barbarbar]

Does it help the conversation at all to interject that the conquest of Canaan never actually happened? And in fact that the Israelites were essentially Canaanites themselves, early on?

Thankfully you are likely correct. My issue is the justifications people make when they assume the events actually occurred.