Disbelieving the Scriptures.


Snow
 Share

Recommended Posts

TruthSeekerToo-

My comments were in response to HEP's claim that 'justice vs. mercy' is a false dichotomy. I don't disagree with much of what you're saying, except that I would point out that HEP's offered definition of "justice"- 'doing the right thng'- is too simple for the average person to fully comprehend. Without the atonement, the 'right thing' in payment for any of our sins would be eternal damnation and separation from God. It is through Christ's atonement that the demands of justice are fulfilled (as you pointed out); Christ then extends to repentant sinners mercy. Without Christ's atonement, what is "equitable" (according to the Lord's perfect justice) for our sins would be eternal death; separation from God- for no unclean thing can abide the Lord's presence. This would not be excessive punishment, it would be the just punishment- therefore, an atonement is needed to fulfill the demands of justice so that we imperfect beings can have a true state of probation on this Earth, and repent of our mistakes.

Edited by Maxel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 320
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So how much of this "justice" would be the dispensing of pain and a schadenfreude reaction, in reward for the righteous, to the comeuppance of the sinners?

Ummm... What?

I assume you're wondering how much of the Lord's justice is dispensed, for the sake of the righteous, to the wicked- and you're implying that the Lord and/or the righteous enjoy it? Did I read that right?

If I did read that right- frankly, you're baiting the question. We know that the Lord weeps over the wickedness of His children (see Moses 7:29-35, noting that the Lord says that "in [His] hot displeasure will [He] send in the floods upon them, for [His] fierce anger is kindled against them") but that doesn't stop Him from dispensing His justice. Therefore, any dispensing of pain or punishment from the Lord we can safely assume He does without joy.

I have to echo JohnnyRucdick's comment here: a little scripture study goes a long way.

Edited by Maxel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure this has already been stated, but i will say it again. There are, no doubt, some passages that are rejected, at some time or other and for some reason or other. It is our nature as human to sometimes reject what we don't understand, or to sometimes disreguard something we DO understand if that will support some emotional stand we may have at the time.

I believe that it is also our nature to recieve knowledge and understanding in widely varied ways, and that this can happen at any given point in time.

After that, you can discuss specifics all you want, but in time you'll either get it, or not (here on earth), and ultimately, i do believe that we will all know a lot more about ourselves and HF when we leave this life and enter into the other, or should i say, re-enter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, like 6 pages of nonsense since my last post. Must have been an exciting weekend for some folks.

Next question: Who decided Christ had to die for the world?

Um.. Christ did, actually.

HUH?

There's no eyewitness account. There is only Joseph Smith account of what he claims was an account on golden plates which are currently non-existent from an individual for whom there is no evidence ever lived.

You're forgetting we were also talking about biblical events, not just Book of Mormon events. Now, if you'd like to dismiss the only existing accounts of these events as "hearsay", go for it. However, since you're the one disputing the accepted "dogma", the burden of proof is on you. I hereby move for dismissal.

THINK-BEFORE-YOU-POST ®

Cute :) Kind of reminds me of third grade.

Yeah - how about 100% of the men, 100% of the women, 100% of the teens, 100% of the children and 100% of the infants.

Why not? Since teens and children and infants are subject to the instruction of their parents - if parents are giving evil instruction, then their children are necessarily going to only know evil. I'm sorry if psychology 101 wasn't on your itinerary when you vacationed in college.

THINK-BEFORE-YOU-POST ®

Do you ever get a headache just thinking about how some people can be so... you know... so, uh, um... well you know.

Reading THAT gave me a headache....

We know what right and wrong is. Murder, stealing, kidnaping rape, etc.... not right, wrong.

You must, necessarily, define these words.

1 Murder: the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law.

Therefore if the specific conditions are not covered by God's law as murder, then the act of killing is not murder (under God's law). Your task is to determine how murder is defined by God's law, and then you can say whether scriptural killings (ie Laban) were murderous or not.

2 Stealing: to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force

Since God, by definition, is the creator/owner of all things (in this Earth), he retains the right to grant permission to take any thing by any means.

3 Rape: the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.

God, by definition, is the giver of law, and thus the giver of all EXCEPTIONS to law. In addition, he granted His permission to take what he created (cr 2).

Possibility #1: You are correct; Nephi murdered Laban. In this case, God cannot have commanded Nephi to do the act, since by definition murder is sinful.

Possibility #2: God commanded Nephi to kill Laban. In this case, you are wrong, since by definition any Godly act is good.

To summarize what you didn't articulate explicitly - there are times when killing is not morally wrong (or unlawful) and therefore does not fall under the definition of murder. Snow's use of the word "murder" is a clear cut example of the expert use of equivocation. Snow is also an expert of the fallacy of many questions (aka the "loaded question"), and has shown excellent skill in using presentism. However, you yourself are guilty of using a false dichotomy (as Snow pointed out in another post). But you only did so because Snow's "loaded question" pushed you into it ;)

You keep phrasing things in impossible terms: "What is the evidence...that God ordered murder?" But of course, God cannot "order murder"; once God orders it, it isn't murder. Phrasing impossible questions, then gloating that they're impossible and that therefore you must be right, is not a valid way of establishing your point.

I know there's a fallacy for what you're describing here, but for the life of me I can't remember what it is. I think it may be an argument from fallacy, but I can't recall for sure. In any case, I believe your assertion that "once God orders it, it isn't murder" requires a supporting argument. Thankfully, I gave you one up above :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When my children make me angry and disobey me, I do not have them killed.

Except that your point lacks any eternal perspective. Life is a vacation, death is going home. If your kid went over to a friend's house and got into trouble, tell me you wouldn't call him home?

Our Father, who has an even more perfect love for us, would never command us to be killed.

It show's God's love for us that he gives us a chance to make things right before making us come home and be disciplined for our trouble-making. But he's said many times if we cause too much trouble: "The Lord slayeth the wicked.."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is Jesus living inside of you

No wonder I've gained a lot of weight.

:D;)

To answer the original question, I believe the Bible is Mans record of God and their attempt to explain things they did not understand, not God's record of God and His explainations

My thought on the matter is not how bad the Bible is or how full of errors it is, but how good it is despite mankinds involvement.

Edited by mnn727
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry for the multiple posts - still catching up on the last several pages.

This would tend to cast God as a bit erratic, since we have been told:

1. Do not kill

2. Love one another

3. Turn the other cheek

4. Forgive those that curse you

5. Do it seven times seventy (without limit)

What's with the mixed messages?!

:confused:

I know! God's a woman! :D

OR

We are given mortal laws for a mortal existence. We are commanded not to kill because killing takes away another person's agency 110%. However, since God gave us agency, He can also take it away (likewise with mortal life). And as has already been discussed, we are often the instruments God uses to bring to pass his will.

Love and death are not mutually exclusive states of being. Killing can be an act of compassion (as has been discussed regarding the flood).

Turning the other cheek does not negate justice (eternal justice or mortal justice) nor due process of law. Killing can be done as a just and right sentence for a crime without being done out of vengeance - and can even be done with love and forgiveness.

I wonder if you really believe your faith is quantitatively and qualitatively better than mine. I be you do.

Well his grammar and spelling is quantitatively better than yours :) But not by much (sorry max). And that's not an ad hominem attack, just a jocular tease :)

Edited by puf_the_majic_dragon
I'm a grammar nazi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except that your point lacks any eternal perspective. Life is a vacation, death is going home. If your kid went over to a friend's house and got into trouble, tell me you wouldn't call him home?

It show's God's love for us that he gives us a chance to make things right before making us come home and be disciplined for our trouble-making. But he's said many times if we cause too much trouble: "The Lord slayeth the wicked.."

You addressed my opinions (things the Spirit has taught me about God that I can't prove). But you didn't address any of the scriptures. You're analogy is bad because God does not make us die physically when we make mistakes. Apples and oranges.

Is it justice for a baby to be killed because its parents are idol worshippers? NO. A baby is sinless, therefore it is UNjust to kill a baby. Could you show me where the innocent children had a chance to repent-oh wait, children have nothing to repent of. All children are born with the Light of Christ.

Alma 34:11 Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another. Now, if a man murdereth, behold will our law, which is just, take the life of his brother? I say unto you, Nay.

We actually have a lot of evidence that God allows very wicked children to stay on the earth.

The days of Adam were extended so that he would have an opportunity to repent IN THIS LIFE. Cain was spared from the death penalty. In the example of Adam we see that God wants us to have the opportunity to repent before we die (Adam is symbolic of all mankind). And with Cain we see that God doesn't just "take out" bad guys.

Jesus taught love. It is not loving to kill. He forgave his killers. He did not come with an army to slay the wicked.

Why is it so important (to some) for genocide to be righteous?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are you talking abowt? I'm a gud spellr!

Hukt on foniks wurkt for yu!

You addressed my opinions (things the Spirit has taught me about God that I can't prove). But you didn't address any of the scriptures. You're analogy is bad because God does not make us die physically when we make mistakes. Apples and oranges.

Sure he does. Didn't you see the scripture in First Nephi I quoted? Let me quote it again: "Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief."

Is it justice for a baby to be killed because its parents are idol worshippers? NO. A baby is sinless, therefore it is UNjust to kill a baby. Could you show me where the innocent children had a chance to repent-oh wait, children have nothing to repent of. All children are born with the Light of Christ.

You're still thinking of death as a bad thing. I thought my allegory of the friend's house was pretty good, so I'm at a loss for a better way to explain things. In any case, it may be unjust for you or I or any man to kill a child of his own accord - but that is because, as I said, we do not have the right to take away another person's agency. Wicked parents take away their children's agency by denying them the chance to choose right and good - these children, if they're allowed to grow up, will then undoubtedly follow in their parents footsteps and condemn themselves accordingly. If God decides it's better for them to die before the age of accountability and to be given a chance in the millenium, then who am I to question his judgement? He is, after all, the ultimate judge.

We actually have a lot of evidence that God allows very wicked children to stay on the earth.

True enough. There must needs be wickedness to tempt us, else there would be righteousness in being good. The converse is also true, there must needs be righteousness or else there would be no sin in doing evil. Children born and raised in a "ripe for destruction" wicked society never have the chance to choose right, and thus they have lost their agency.

Jesus taught love. It is not loving to kill. He forgave his killers. He did not come with an army to slay the wicked.

It CAN be loving to kill. At least for God.

Why is it so important (to some) for genocide to be righteous?

So we don't have to feel bad about the Inca, or Mayans, or the Cherokee or slavery. Duh. Guilt is one of the primary causes of PTSD. Eliminate the need for guilt (by making your killing God-sanctioned) and your soldiers stop going nuts on the battlefield. It worked for the crusades :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You addressed my opinions (things the Spirit has taught me about God that I can't prove). But you didn't address any of the scriptures. You're analogy is bad because God does not make us die physically when we make mistakes. Apples and oranges.

Is it justice for a baby to be killed because its parents are idol worshippers? NO. A baby is sinless, therefore it is UNjust to kill a baby. Could you show me where the innocent children had a chance to repent-oh wait, children have nothing to repent of. All children are born with the Light of Christ.

Alma 34:11 Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another. Now, if a man murdereth, behold will our law, which is just, take the life of his brother? I say unto you, Nay.

We actually have a lot of evidence that God allows very wicked children to stay on the earth.

The days of Adam were extended so that he would have an opportunity to repent IN THIS LIFE. Cain was spared from the death penalty. In the example of Adam we see that God wants us to have the opportunity to repent before we die (Adam is symbolic of all mankind). And with Cain we see that God doesn't just "take out" bad guys.

Jesus taught love. It is not loving to kill. He forgave his killers. He did not come with an army to slay the wicked.

Why is it so important (to some) for genocide to be righteous?

Babies have no need for more "time to repent".

They can go right on home to God.

They can go Home anytime:)

Could it be that in God's foreknowledge He know that if He placed that spirit in that

situation there would be an 89 percent chance that it would not live to see it's 4th let alone it's 8th birthday?

If so, then a ready made short cut for those among us who may have no need for 50 plus

years of earth trial and error.

Just a thought.

Bro. Rudick

Edited by JohnnyRudick
Afterthought:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we don't have to feel bad about the Inca, or Mayans, or the Cherokee or slavery. Duh. Guilt is one of the primary causes of PTSD. Eliminate the need for guilt (by making your killing God-sanctioned) and your soldiers stop going nuts on the battlefield. It worked for the crusades :)

LOL See, you do understand! :lol: I think you are exactly right. We pin it on God to make ourselves feel better.

I think war and killing is so sad. Your example of PTSD is a perfect example of why killing (even if justified by the law) is not without consequences. :(

Johnny, I can appreciate your thought. It sounds a lot like predestination to me.

The truth is, if believed literally, men went out and took babies and killed them. The scriptures state these babies couldn't atone for their parents sins and were without sin themselves. So there still is no justice in this genocide. Were we sent here to exercise our agency or not?

If killing can be loving and death is no big deal do you all believe in assisted suicide?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You must, necessarily, define these words.

1 Murder: the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law.

Therefore if the specific conditions are not covered by God's law as murder, then the act of killing is not murder (under God's law). Your task is to determine how murder is defined by God's law, and then you can say whether scriptural killings (ie Laban) were murderous or not.

2 Stealing: to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force

Since God, by definition, is the creator/owner of all things (in this Earth), he retains the right to grant permission to take any thing by any means.

3 Rape: the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.

God, by definition, is the giver of law, and thus the giver of all EXCEPTIONS to law. In addition, he granted His permission to take what he created (cr 2).

Okay - you are a believer in situational ethics - sometimes it good to murder, steal and rape - while I am not.

To each his own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . .Johnny, I can appreciate your thought. It sounds a lot like predestination to me.

The truth is, if believed literally, men went out and took babies and killed them. The scriptures state these babies couldn't atone for their parents sins and were without sin themselves. So there still is no justice in this genocide. Were we sent here to exercise our agency or not?

Yes, the rule is we are here for that and many other experiences.

It just may also be true that some of us do not need more then a body and

very little experience if any.

The men doing the killing I believe are also in a position to be judged in

how they carry out this gruesome task.

"It sounds a lot like predestination to me."

No, God's foreknowledge has nothing to do with predestination.

I have had many experiences where I was very accurate in my foreknowledge of what my children would do under certain circumstances.

God has a lot more experience.

Bro. Rudick

Edited by JohnnyRudick
Afterthought:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the rule is we are here for that and many other experiences.

It just may also be true that some of us do not need more then a body and

very little experience if any.

The men doing the killing I believe are also in a position to be judged in

how they carry out this gruesome task.

"It sounds a lot like predestination to me."

No, God's foreknowledge has nothing to do with predestination.

I have had many experiences where I was very accurate in my foreknowledge of what my children would do under certain circumstances.

God has a lot more experience.

Bro. Rudick

Well, I looked up the definition of predestination just to make sure I knew the real meaning. And, yes, this falls under the definition perfectly.

You are saying that God made sure those souls were taken from the earth before the age of accountability which guarantee's them salvation. It took away their agency and gave them a golden ticket to the CK.

Knowing what his children will do in certain circumstances does not mean he sends certain souls predestined for salvation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay - you are a believer in situational ethics - sometimes it good to murder, steal and rape - while I am not.

To each his own.

So you're saying that you believe that all killing murder, and therefore all killing is wrong?

Well, I looked up the definition of predestination just to make sure I knew the real meaning. And, yes, this falls under the definition perfectly.

You are saying that God made sure those souls were taken from the earth before the age of accountability which guarantee's them salvation. It took away their agency and gave them a golden ticket to the CK.

Knowing what his children will do in certain circumstances does not mean he sends certain souls predestined for salvation.

Nobody has a golden ticket. What we're discussing here is Doctrine and Covenants 137 and verses 7, 8 and 9, I believe, still apply to children (verse 10). That is that "7 Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God; 8 Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom;

9 For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts."

Or in simple terms - even babies that die still get judged on whether they would have accepted the Gospel if they had lived. No free rides.

Also, parents who lose children will receive them in the resurrection "just as they laid them down": LDS.org - Support Materials Chapter - Words of Hope and Consolation at the Time of Death giving those children an opportunity to exercise their agency during the millenium.

So I was at family home evening with my singles ward last night and the lesson was over and we started talking about activities and this group wanted to play a card game and that group wanted to play volleyball and the other group wanted to eat the treats and I shouted out that anybody who wanted to read the scriptures could join me. I'm so disapointed, not surprised at all, but so disapointed that nobody took me up on that :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody has a golden ticket. What we're discussing here is Doctrine and Covenants 137 and verses 7, 8 and 9, I believe, still apply to children (verse 10). That is that "7 Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God; 8 Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom;

9 For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts."

Or in simple terms - even babies that die still get judged on whether they would have accepted the Gospel if they had lived. No free rides.

Also, parents who lose children will receive them in the resurrection "just as they laid them down": LDS.org - Support Materials Chapter - Words of Hope and Consolation at the Time of Death giving those children an opportunity to exercise their agency during the millenium.

So the parents that were supposedly so wicked that God commanded them killed will get to finish raising their children during the Millenium?

Satan will be bound during the M. reign and so I don't see how that will change their chances for salvation anymore than being killed as a child. Children are not tempted by Satan-children cannot sin. During the M. no one will be tempted by Satan (bound) therefore.....no sin seems like the logical answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

puf, do you believe in assisted suicide?

"To tell the truth I disapprove of suicide more than anything." - Vash the Stampede

But if you're going to kill yourself, at least have the decency to do it yourself. Asking somebody else to do it for you is just pathetic.

Besides, suicide is sinful. I can't imagine having somebody else kill you for you is any better.

So the parents that were supposedly so wicked that God commanded them killed will get to finish raising their children during the Millenium?

Satan will be bound during the M. reign and so I don't see how that will change their chances for salvation anymore than being killed as a child. Children are not tempted by Satan-children cannot sin. During the M. no one will be tempted by Satan (bound) therefore.....no sin seems like the logical answer.

A: Satan will be bound by the righteousness of the people that he will "have no hold upon the hearts" of the people - he won't be tied up and gagged, he'll still be out there tempting - trying his darndest (and failing! w00t).

B: Part of the purpose of sealing the whole human race is so those children born to wicked parents will have a family to raise them during that time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"To tell the truth I disapprove of suicide more than anything." - Vash the Stampede

But if you're going to kill yourself, at least have the decency to do it yourself. Asking somebody else to do it for you is just pathetic.

Besides, suicide is sinful. I can't imagine having somebody else kill you for you is any better.

A: Satan will be bound by the righteousness of the people that he will "have no hold upon the hearts" of the people - he won't be tied up and gagged, he'll still be out there tempting - trying his darndest (and failing! w00t).

B: Part of the purpose of sealing the whole human race is so those children born to wicked parents will have a family to raise them during that time.

So, it is not okay to kill someone in great pain or who truly desires to die. BUT, it is okay to kill someone who really, really does not want to be killed (I think you used the words "loving" and dying is not that big a deal but maybe that was another poster).

Do you have a scripture or prophet that says all the children who died before accountability to wicked parents will be raised in the M. by righteous ones, because I have not ever heard that before. Sincerely. Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, it is not okay to kill someone in great pain or who truly desires to die. BUT, it is okay to kill someone who really, really does not want to be killed (I think you used the words "loving" and dying is not that big a deal but maybe that was another poster).

The difference is who's asking you to do the killing. If God is asking you to bring His judgement upon a wicked nation, that's a far different thing from your grandpa sayin "kill me before the cancer does, you whipper-snapper!". You're trying to compare 3rd grade flag football to the Tet Offensive.

Do you have a scripture or prophet that says all the children who died before accountability to wicked parents will be raised in the M. by righteous ones, because I have not ever heard that before. Sincerely. Thanks!

Yeah, I admit that was a tiny bit of a stretch to draw that conclusion - hence why I included the caveat "I believe". However, I do believe the scriptures I already quoted fully support my claim, so it's your turn to find a reference :) So what do you think happens to those kids? If they aren't given to another family, who's gonna raise them since their Earthly parents obviously can't? Or are they 2 years old throughout eternity?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference is who's asking you to do the killing. If God is asking you to bring His judgement upon a wicked nation, that's a far different thing from your grandpa sayin "kill me before the cancer does, you whipper-snapper!". You're trying to compare 3rd grade flag football to the Tet Offensive.

We still haven't overcome the hurdle of the innocent people being killed. They cannot be part of the "wicked" so they can have no judgement upon them. Since they are not being killed in judgement it has to be a different reason. I cannot think of a just reason to kill innocent children.

I'm wondering how many people here have had the whisperings of the Spirit before and acted on them, only to discover (or decide) later that it was wrong or it was more of the desire of their own heart?

Yeah, I admit that was a tiny bit of a stretch to draw that conclusion - hence why I included the caveat "I believe". However, I do believe the scriptures I already quoted fully support my claim, so it's your turn to find a reference :) So what do you think happens to those kids? If they aren't given to another family, who's gonna raise them since their Earthly parents obviously can't? Or are they 2 years old throughout eternity?

That's ok.

What Joseph actually taught was that a mother would receive her children exactly as they died in the resurrection. So they would be resurrected to their infant/child body and then grow until it reaches "the full stature of its spirit."

So, what he taught had nothing to do with the M. And he did say they would be resurrected to "celestial glory."

I went and reread your scripture (love that one btw) and have to point something out. I wish to point out that children will NOT be judged by what they would have done/believed or anything.

Check out these references over on lds.org regarding little children.

Little children obtain salvation through the Atonement of Christ. That is it. They are covered by his grace, they are not tempted by Satan, they are without sin.

And we read in D&C 45:58 that the children raised during the M. reign of Christ will "grow up without sin unto salvation." Sounds pretty golden to me! :D

I feel like a total threadjacker, sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I looked up the definition of predestination just to make sure I knew the real meaning. And, yes, this falls under the definition perfectly.

You are saying that God made sure those souls were taken from the earth before the age of accountability which guarantee's them salvation. It took away their agency and gave them a golden ticket to the CK.

Knowing what his children will do in certain circumstances does not mean he sends certain souls predestined for salvation.

Not predestined for Salvation.

Never said that.

Now I am asking you a question.;)

Never said this either.:D

I am asking you, OK?:o

Are you saying that the Spirits coming to this earth is like a giant dice game?:mellow:

God is just throwing us out here in Space and Time and where ever and when

ever we wind up is pure chance?:huh:

Remember, just asking:)

Bro. Rudick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference is who's asking you to do the killing. If God is asking you to bring His judgement upon a wicked nation, that's a far different thing from your grandpa sayin "kill me before the cancer does, you whipper-snapper!". You're trying to compare 3rd grade flag football to the Tet Offensive. . .

Now, isn't that "Predestination"?:rolleyes:

God is having this man killed, predestining his death early not giving him the

free agency to "clean up his act"?:o

Bro. Rudick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share