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

[The Nehor]

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.

 

It sounds right to me. The prohibition on murder is specifically for us and not for God. Everyone is going to die. It is pretty much a guarantee. God just does not want us thinking we have the right to make the decision as to when for ourselves or others.

 

We only fear death because God made us that way. Death is a release and an escape. Would the innocent have lived happy lives here on earth if God had let them survive while those around them died? I don't know but I am guessing omniscience has a pretty good grasp of what is best. Mortality is a blessing but I am not so sure extended mortality is still always a blessing.

Edited March 28, 2014 by The Nehor

[stemelbow]

It sounds right to me. The prohibition on murder is specifically for us and not for God. Everyone is going to die. It is pretty much a guarantee. God just does not want us thinking we have the right to make the decision as to when for ourselves or others.

 

We only fear death because God made us that way. Death is a release and an escape. Would the innocent have lived happy lives here on earth if God had let them survive while those around them died? I don't know but I am guessing omniscience has a pretty good grasp of what is best. Mortality is a blessing but I am not so sure extended mortality is still always a blessing.

 

Of course you're not sure.  you also don't know that God ordered any murders at al.  You have Nephi telling you He so constrained.  Nephi might have a better idea than you on that.   

[The Nehor]

Of course you're not sure.  you also don't know that God ordered any murders at al.  You have Nephi telling you He so constrained.  Nephi might have a better idea than you on that.   

 

Unless you are suggesting Nephi was lying I think Nephi and I agree on what happened.

 

I don't think the orders to kill the Canaanites given in the Torah are entirely accurate. This is just a niggling suspician though. I know God has little problem moving people from this world to the next (see the Flood, Sodom & Gomorrah, 3 Nephi, and the prophecies of what is coming before the end). The reason I doubt it is that killing can have a deleterious effect on people even if done by God's order and for a good cause. I do not see why God would use the Israelites under Moses (who by all appearances were spiritually rebellious children) and put them in that kind of spiritual danger. I suspect a good bit of it was added in later by an overzealous writer filled with patriotism and convinced he was honoring God by adding it.

[stemelbow]

The nehor,

 

Unless you are suggesting Nephi was lying I think Nephi and I agree on what happened.

 

That's fine.  Just pointing out you don't know.  That is you and Nephi could be wrong.

 

I don't think the orders to kill the Canaanites given in the Torah are entirely accurate. This is just a niggling suspician though. I know God has little problem moving people from this world to the next (see the Flood, Sodom & Gomorrah, 3 Nephi, and the prophecies of what is coming before the end).

 

And if the flood myth, Sodom and Gomorrah and 3 Nephi are not true?  What if they too are repeated myths of events that never took place? or if 3 Nephi is people taking liberty to describe deaths and destruction as a cause of God but actually are not?

 

The reason I doubt it is that killing can have a deleterious effect on people even if done by God's order and for a good cause. I do not see why God would use the Israelites under Moses (who by all appearances were spiritually rebellious children) and put them in that kind of spiritual danger. I suspect a good bit of it was added in later by an overzealous writer filled with patriotism and convinced he was honoring God by adding it.

 

If that's your reasoning fine by me.  We all think differently.  The point is though, we could all be wrong.  Perhaps it is our challenge to accept that God does not order murder.  That we need to accept the level of hate, or fear that causes us to murder and attribute it to God is destructive to us. 

[barbarbar]

The problem is that God does indeed operate in the very way you say He shouldn't.

I agree...that is the problem.

[barbarbar]

It sounds right to me.

To each their own I guess.

[teddyaware]

I agree...that is the problem.

One of the signs of maturity is accepting reality as it really is. Wishing and hoping the dark side of existence away won't change the fact that there is a dark side that must be delt with one way or another. And though it is true that we can eventually learn how to overcome and control the dark side of existence, we will never be able to destroy it. It is just as the Prophet Lehi taught so many years ago:

11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.

13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away. (2 Nephi 2)

So if it ever did become possible to destroy the dark side of life, all things would inevitably vanish and cease to exist. As a consequence, I accept things as they really are and not as the immature side of my personality might wish them to be.

Edited March 29, 2014 by teddyaware

[The Nehor]

The nehor,

 

 

 

That's fine.  Just pointing out you don't know.  That is you and Nephi could be wrong.

 

 

 

 

And if the flood myth, Sodom and Gomorrah and 3 Nephi are not true?  What if they too are repeated myths of events that never took place? or if 3 Nephi is people taking liberty to describe deaths and destruction as a cause of God but actually are not?

 

 

 

 

If that's your reasoning fine by me.  We all think differently.  The point is though, we could all be wrong.  Perhaps it is our challenge to accept that God does not order murder.  That we need to accept the level of hate, or fear that causes us to murder and attribute it to God is destructive to us. 

 

If Nephi was wrong then I really question why God would put that episode in the "most correct book on earth". Seems pointlessly tricky.

 

If they aren't true then God has a very strange way of teaching. God causing a natural disaster and allowing a natural disaster is, to me, a distinction without a difference. The only possible exception would be a self-inflicted one (dust bowl, global warming, etc.) but I really doubt the Nephites had the ability to damage the environment on that scale. That power seems to have been reserved for the last days.

[barbarbar]

One of the signs of maturity is accepting reality as it really is. Wishing and hoping the dark side of existence away won't change the fact that there is a dark side that must be delt with one way or another.

What in the world are you taking about...non-sequitur. I never denied that existence can be dark. I am just arguing that the god of the OT has the morality of a north korean dictator. Oh the irony of your lecturing someone regarding "reality."

[stemelbow]

If Nephi was wrong then I really question why God would put that episode in the "most correct book on earth". Seems pointlessly tricky.

 

If they aren't true then God has a very strange way of teaching. God causing a natural disaster and allowing a natural disaster is, to me, a distinction without a difference. The only possible exception would be a self-inflicted one (dust bowl, global warming, etc.) but I really doubt the Nephites had the ability to damage the environment on that scale. That power seems to have been reserved for the last days.

 

God put it in?  I thought that was put in by Nephi.  Are you saying that people writing the scriptures didn't write them but God did through them? 

[The Nehor]

God put it in?  I thought that was put in by Nephi.  Are you saying that people writing the scriptures didn't write them but God did through them? 

 

God directed Mormon as to what to put in and then helped Joseph with the translation which includes explanatory notes.

 

It is not an either/or.

[jchristopher]

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.

You are refuting the authenticity of the biblical record, correct?

[jchristopher]

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.

If the biblical record is true, then you are his child and he is your God and all truth flows from Him, if not, he would not be your God and the record would not be true. But if it is true, it must follow that whatever God does is moral and that he sets the standard and that everything he does is the eternal good of all. His ways are higher than our ways.

[jchristopher]

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.

How do u know if something is right or wrong? From where does your source of discernment flow?

[omni]

I find it easier if I skip past the God-approved genocide portions of the OT. Instead I focus on the faith affirming stories like where God commands his prophet Isaac to sacrifice his only son or when he kills one of his children for committing the unforgivable sin of steadying the sacred ark to prevent its fall.

[stemelbow]

God directed Mormon as to what to put in and then helped Joseph with the translation which includes explanatory notes.

 

It is not an either/or.

 

I'm not so confident this is right.  It seems likely that Nephi wrote the story.  everyone or anyone afterward wasn't there, so they left it, copied it, and repeated it.  While it's possible God was involved as you suggest its also possible He was involved without directing the story.

[teddyaware]

What in the world are you taking about...non-sequitur. I never denied that existence can be dark. I am just arguing that the god of the OT has the morality of a north korean dictator. Oh the irony of your lecturing someone regarding "reality."

Looks like I may have hit a sensitive spot.

Let's face it, as far as I can tell, what you believe is at variance with the LDS standard works and with mainstream LDS thought. Yet you act like I'm the one who's way out in left field.

For the sake of clarity, let's get specific: If I understand you correctly (please correct me if I'm wrong), in spite of what the Lord personally testifies to in 3 Nephi 9, you apparently refuse to believe the Book of Mormon account wherein God says He destroyed all the inhabitants (both guilty and innocent) of the Nephite cities that had ripened iniquity at the time of Christ's death; and you believe this because you will not to accede to the idea that it's within the character of a just God to destroy the guilty and the innocent together. 

 

But have you ever stopped to think this very thing that you decry as an impossibility happens every day of our lives throughout the world? For instance, almost 300,000 people died in the 2004 Tsunami in Southeast Asia, and among those that died were surely some very wicked people. So why, then, did the Lord allow the tsunami to kill a great number of innocent as well the wicked who may have been more deserving of death. He had the power to stop it but why didn't He?

 

If I am misstating your position, please clarify so that I won't continue to labor under possible false impressions of your personal beliefs. Rather than very terse comments, take some time to clearly set forth what you believe on this subject so that we can dialogue without misunderstanding each other. Using the scriptures to make your points will also be helpful.

 

All the best...

 

Edited March 30, 2014 by teddyaware

[barbarbar]

Looks like I may have hit a sensitive spot.

Let's face it, as far as I can tell, what you believe is at variance with the LDS standard works and with mainstream LDS thought. Yet you act like I'm the one who's way out in left field.

For the sake of clarity, let's get specific: If I understand you correctly (please correct me if I'm wrong), in spite of what the Lord personally testifies to in 3 Nephi 9, you apparently refuse to believe the Book of Mormon account wherein God says He destroyed all the inhabitants (both guilty and innocent) of the Nephite cities that had ripened iniquity at the time of Christ's death; and you believe this because you will not to accede to the idea that it's within the character of a just God to destroy the guilty and the innocent together. 

 

But have you ever stopped to think this very thing that you decry as an impossibility happens every day of our lives throughout the world? For instance, almost 300,000 people died in the 2004 Tsunami in Southeast Asia, and among those that died were surely some very wicked people. So why, then, did the Lord allow the tsunami to kill a great number of innocent as well the wicked who may have been more deserving of death. He had the power to stop it but why didn't He?

 

If I am misstating your position, please clarify so that I won't continue to labor under possible false impressions of your personal beliefs. Rather than very terse comments, take some time to clearly set forth what you believe on this subject so that we can dialogue without misunderstanding each other. Using the scriptures to make your points will also be helpful.

 

All the best...

I've already answered your questions in my previous posts. Feel free to review them.

[Gray]

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.

 

I'm not an expert, but I'm under the impression that the evidence states that the early Hebrews were culturally indistinguishable from Canaanites. They seem to have been an offshoot rather than outsiders who came in conquering 

[Gray]

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 believe he is probably using the standard of the Light of Christ, aka conscience