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

[Gray]

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

 

I agree the justifications are terrible. That's unfortunately what happens when people insist that holy texts must be literal and historical - the particular teachings have to be defended along with the universal ones, often at the expense of conscience. 

[barbarbar]

I agree the justifications are terrible. That's unfortunately what happens when people insist that holy texts must be literal and historical - the particular teachings have to be defended along with the universal ones, often at the expense of conscience.

Very well said.

[Skylla]

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

Barbarbar: Knock it off or you will be removed from the thread.

 

Skylla

[wenglund]

I think the crux of this issue comes down to a conflict between personal revelation and scriptural literalism

 

That may be a factor.

 

However, to me, the crux comes down to the conflict between humility and pride, including in relation to personal revelation and scriptural interpretation..

 

As I understand things, our experience with God may be radically different depending upon whether our humility or pride prevails. For, the presence of pride not only limits receptivity, but it may also inadvertently result in impactive observer/confirmation bias.

 

In principle, the same holds true for relationships between parents and children. In a fit of pride, a young child may view the parents as "big meanies" because of certain protective and/or disciplinary actions or even educational demands, but when humility sets in, the child may come to recognize the depth of love and wisdom behind the parents actions.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[halconero]

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?

 

Careful with blanket statements. There is archaeological evidence of both cultural assimilation, interaction, but also conquest. Most likely it wasn't an outright conquest, but a mixture of settling, migrations, and inter-tribal warfare.

 

Example: A recent dig undertook by UofT uncovered evidence at Beit-Shemesh points to cultural mixture in that area, vs conquest, but some miles north of it there is evidence of migration and warfare between tribal groups.

[JLHPROF]

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

 

I can agree with that to a point - the moral wherewithal to determine right from wrong is a God given ability (as in the Garden of Eden).

As far as determining who God is and what He wants, I believe that God does speak directly to man (or at least to certain men), not as inspiration but in actual verbal communication.  I know you question that assertion.  When God actually speaks I don't think so much is up for interpretation as you seem to.

[teddyaware]

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.

 

If God does the "terrible acts" Himself (e.g. the flood of Noah's day, the destruction of massive numbers of Nephites at the death of Christ, the destructions of the wicked at the Second Coming, etc.),  is He still worthy of worship? Or does the problem only exist when God commands His children to be the instruments of His destruction on the wicked who are ripened in iniquity?

Edited March 28, 2014 by teddyaware

[barbarbar]

If God does the "terrible acts" Himself (e.g. the flood of Noah's day, the destruction of massive numbers of Nephites at the death of Christ, the destructions of the wicked at the Second Coming, etc.),  is He still worthy of worship? Or does the problem only exist when God commands His children to be the instruments of His destruction on the wicked who are ripened in iniquity?

No.

[Mystery Meat]

There are plenty of merciful and loving explanations for something like the flood that killed so many people. These explanations can only be understood with an eternal perspective. Mortal life is not even a speck in the eternities. I maintain the following:

 

1. Thousands, probably millions, of people died in a flood in Noah's time.

 

2. God directly caused the flood.

 

3. God is love and not only warrants worship, but one day we will all understand with perfection how his love manifested itself throughout even the darkest moments of history.

[teddyaware]

No.

No.

So am I correct when I take your answer to mean you don't believe God wrought the massive destructions upon the wicked Nephites He testified to in 3 Nephi 9?

3 Behold, that great city Zarahemla have I burned with fire, and the inhabitants thereof.

4 And behold, that great city Moroni have I caused to be sunk in the depths of the sea, and the inhabitants thereof to be drowned.

5 And behold, that great city Moronihah have I covered with earth, and the inhabitants thereof, to hide their iniquities and their abominations from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints shall not come any more unto me against them.

6 And behold, the city of Gilgal have I caused to be sunk, and the inhabitants thereof to be buried up in the depths of the earth;

7 7 Yea, and the city of Onihah and the inhabitants thereof, and the city of Mocum and the inhabitants thereof, and the city of Jerusalem and the inhabitants thereof; and waters have I caused to come up in the stead thereof, to hide their wickedness and abominations from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints shall not come up any more unto me against them.

(the text continues on in this vein for several more verses, but I'll finish with verse 12)

12 And many great destructions have I caused to come upon this land, and upon this people, because of their wickedness and their abominations. (3 Nephi 9)

Edited March 28, 2014 by teddyaware

[barbarbar]

So am I correct when I take your answer to mean you don't believe God wrought the massive destructions upon the wicked Nephites He testified to in 3 Nephi 9?

3 Behold, that great city Zarahemla have I burned with fire, and the inhabitants thereof.

4 And behold, that great city Moroni have I caused to be sunk in the depths of the sea, and the inhabitants thereof to be drowned.

5 And behold, that great city Moronihah have I covered with earth, and the inhabitants thereof, to hide their iniquities and their abominations from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints shall not come any more unto me against them.

6 And behold, the city of Gilgal have I caused to be sunk, and the inhabitants thereof to be buried up in the depths of the earth;

7 7 Yea, and the city of Onihah and the inhabitants thereof, and the city of Mocum and the inhabitants thereof, and the city of Jerusalem and the inhabitants thereof; and waters have I caused to come up in the stead thereof, to hide their wickedness and abominations from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints shall not come up any more unto me against them.

(the text continues on in this vein for several more verses, but I'll finish with verse 12)

12 And many great destructions have I caused to come upon this land, and upon this people, because of their wickedness and their abominations. (3 Nephi 9)

Non-sequitur. I'm arguing that the correctness of an action is not contingent on whether god does it or approves of it. I'm also arguing that if god did condone or commit the acts in the OT that we've discussed then god is immoral and not worthy of worship. I'm not arguing that he did or did not do those things. For the same of discussion I am assuming that he did.

[teddyaware]

Non-sequitur. I'm arguing that the correctness of an action is not contingent on whether god does it or approves of it. I'm also arguing that if god did condone or commit the acts in the OT that we've discussed then god is immoral and not worthy of worship. I'm not arguing that he did or did not do those things. For the same of discussion I am assuming that he did.

So am I correct in assuming you are not an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

[wenglund]

Non-sequitur. I'm arguing that the correctness of an action is not contingent on whether god does it or approves of it. I'm also arguing that if god did condone or commit the acts in the OT that we've discussed then god is immoral and not worthy of worship. I'm not arguing that he did or did not do those things. For the same of discussion I am assuming that he did.

 

Whose and what standard are you applying when determining the morality or immorality of a given act?

 

And, are you supposing that the standard is absolute and universal and not a function of different levels of laws for different levels of eternal development?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[jchristopher]

Great responses so far.

So what of those faithful Church members who have posted on this board that the God they believe in would never allow innocents to suffer or discriminate in his actions?  Are they just wrong?

I would have to ask them, what God do you believe in then?

 

News flash: There are many innocents suffering in the world today.

 

Has your God forgotten about them? 

Edited March 28, 2014 by jchristopher

[barbarbar]

So am I correct in assuming you are not an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

How is my activity in the church relevant to the discussion?

[jchristopher]

I thinks it's likely because those who take the opposing view are coming to realize their point of view is out of harmony with the scriptures. The only way a professed believer can believe suffering, even horrific suffering, isn't part of God's plan for the salvation of His children is to utterly ignore a veritable mountain of scriptural evidences that testify to the contrary.

2 thumbs up

[jchristopher]

I will be glad to add a dissenting voice to this thread. I do not consider the scriptural accounts that depict God as a petty, cruel, vindictive, bloodthirsty deity to be "translated correctly." The God I worship is good, whose dominion flows to him "without compulsory means" (D&C 132:46). While I believe he allows evil, I do not believe he is ever its author.

I agree with Terryl and Fiona Givens, who put the matter thusly in their book, The God Who Weeps:

I also highly recommend these two posts by Jeremy Orbe-Smith:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/56943-god-in-the-old-testament/?p=1209091215

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/56943-god-in-the-old-testament/?p=1209091346

Sounds like you're equating God's sword of justice with evil.

Tell me, where in these incorrectly translated scriptures does God use "compulsory means?"

[Mystery Meat]

How is my activity in the church relevant to the discussion?

 

It helps us understand your prospective. The arguments you are making remind me of the arguments my atheist friends make. They are good folk, it's just helpful to know where you are coming from.

[teddyaware]

How is my activity in the church relevant to the discussion?

My question was motivated by simple curiosity because a believing and active member of the Church would tend to believe the scriptures when they testify that from time to time God must destroy the self-destructive wicked in order to prevent them from damning themselves more and more. Your thinking is totally off the reservation on this point of doctrine, so it would be fascinating to know if you are nonetheless believing Latter-day Saint.

Edited March 28, 2014 by teddyaware

[barbarbar]

My question was motivated by simple curiosity because a believing and active member of the Church would tend to believe the scriptures when they testify that from time to time God must destroy the self-destructive wicked in order to prevent them from damning themselves more and more. Your thinking is totally off the reservation on this point of doctrine, so it would be fascinating to know if you are nonethelea believing Latter-day Saint.

Except that we're not just discussing the destruction of "wicked" people. We are also discussing the targeted killing of innocents, including children.

I attend church each week.

[barbarbar]

It helps us understand your prospective. The arguments you are making remind me of the arguments my atheist friends make. They are good folk, it's just helpful to know where you are coming from.

That's fair enough. However I do think that arguments and ideas should evaluated own their own.

[barbarbar]

Whose and what standard are you applying when determining the morality or immorality of a given act?

 

And, are you supposing that the standard is absolute and universal and not a function of different levels of laws for different levels of eternal development?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I am applying the "do unto others as you would have done you" standard. If you we're on a piece of land that I reserved for me or my children I would not kill you and your family for wanting to stay, and I would appreciate the same treatment if roles were reversed.

Regardless of the standard used, I feel like the targeted killing of innocent children is generally considered immoral. Is that really a gray area?

[teddyaware]

Except that we're not just discussing the destruction of "wicked" people. We are also discussing the targeted killing of innocents, including children.

I attend church each week.

Alma supplies the answer to your concerns about the innocent who die because of the edicts of God:

8 And they brought their wives and children together, and whosoever believed or had been taught to believe in the word of God they caused that they should be cast into the fire; and they also brought forth their records which contained the holy scriptures, and cast them into the fire also, that they might be burned and destroyed by fire.

9 And it came to pass that they took Alma and Amulek, and carried them forth to the place of martyrdom, that they might witness the destruction of those who were consumed by fire.

10 And when Amulek saw the pains of the women and children who were consuming in the fire, he also was pained; and he said unto Alma: How can we witness this awful scene? Therefore let us stretch forth our hands, and exercise the power of God which is in us, and save them from the flames.

11 But Alma said unto him: The Spirit constraineth me that I must not stretch forth mine hand; for behold the Lord receiveth them up unto himself, in glory; and he doth suffer that they may do this thing, or that the people may do this thing unto them, according to the hardness of their hearts, that the judgments which he shall exercise upon them in his wrath may be just; and the blood of the innocent shall stand as a witness against them, yea, and cry mightily against them at the last day. (Alma 14)

 

So from the above we may conclude that the innocent who died because of God's edict of destruction against the evil Canaanites would be taken unto God in glory, and the responsibility for their premature deaths would not rest upon the children of Israel but on the guilty sinners of the Canaanite nation who, as Nephi testified, had to be destroyed because they had  ripened in iniquity.

Edited March 28, 2014 by teddyaware

[barbarbar]

Alma supplies the answer to your concerns about the innocent who die because of the edicts of God:

8 And they brought their wives and children together, and whosoever believed or had been taught to believe in the word of God they caused that they should be cast into the fire; and they also brought forth their records which contained the holy scriptures, and cast them into the fire also, that they might be burned and destroyed by fire.

9 And it came to pass that they took Alma and Amulek, and carried them forth to the place of martyrdom, that they might witness the destruction of those who were consumed by fire.

10 And when Amulek saw the pains of the women and children who were consuming in the fire, he also was pained; and he said unto Alma: How can we witness this awful scene? Therefore let us stretch forth our hands, and exercise the power of God which is in us, and save them from the flames.

11 But Alma said unto him: The Spirit constraineth me that I must not stretch forth mine hand; for behold the Lord receiveth them up unto himself, in glory; and he doth suffer that they may do this thing, or that the people may do this thing unto them, according to the hardness of their hearts, that the judgments which he shall exercise upon them in his wrath may be just; and the blood of the innocent shall stand as a witness against them, yea, and cry mightily against them at the last day. (Alma 14)

 

So from the above we may conclude that the innocent who died because of God's edict of destruction against the evil Canaanites would be taken unto God in glory, and the responsibility for their premature deaths would not rest upon the children of Israel but on the guilty sinners of the Canaanite nation who, as Nephi testified, had to be destroyed because they had  ripened in iniquity.

Assuming the Canaanites were "wicked," they only chose to be wicked. They did not choose to have innocent people murdered. That was god's decision. Assuming he is omnipotent, he could have easily destroyed only the wicked.

Does your reasoning really sound right to you? Imagine a man murders another man. He is convicted in court and the the judge says that as punishment his wife and two-year must be killed along with him. Does that really sound just to you? Does that sound like a legal system you would like to live under? Because that's essentially how you are saying god operated in the OT.

[teddyaware]

Assuming the Canaanites were "wicked," they only chose to be wicked. They did not choose to have innocent people murdered. That was god's decision. Assuming he is omnipotent, he could have easily destroyed only the wicked.

Does your reasoning really sound right to you? Imagine a man murders another man. He is convicted in court and the the judge says that as punishment his wife and two-year must be killed along with him. Does that really sound just to you? Does that sound like a legal system you would like to live under? Because that's essentially how you are saying god operated in the OT.

The problem is that God does indeed operate in the very way you say He shouldn't, just those passages in the Book of Mormon say He does. So either you'll have to throw the scriptures, including the Book of Mormon, onto the scrapheap or you're going to have to go back to the drawing board. A third possibility is that you could start a new religion with new scriptures that will conform to your ideas.

Edited March 28, 2014 by teddyaware