The Righteous VS. The Good

[Maxel]

Yes, hear, hear. The world needed to be cleansed of all those evil and iniquitous two-year-olds. Why - they were setting a horrible example for all those six-month olds who were in turn dragging down the month-olds.

Drown them all I say... before their corrupt the newborns.

Would you have Noah raise all the children who hadn't reached the age of accountability? Or perhaps let them form their own society of children? Hope that those little children hadn't already been corrupted by their depraved parents' abuse (which we can safely assume included physical, emotional, and sexual)? What would you have the Lord do, Snow- or are you implying that the account is untrue? (Or were you being facetious and I missed it? If so, I apologize.)

Death can be an act of mercy- especially when the one dying is "saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven" (D&C 137:10).

[Snow]

Would you have Noah raise all the children who hadn't reached the age of accountability? Or perhaps let them form their own society of children? Hope that those little children hadn't already been corrupted by their depraved parents' abuse (which we can safely assume included physical, emotional, and sexual)? What would you have the Lord do, Snow- or are you implying that the account is untrue? (Or were you being facetious and I missed it? If so, I apologize.)

Obviously I am being facetious. A just god would not kill all the world's inhabitants, including the innocent... which by the way, matches the evidence... no such flood as described in the Bible.

Death can be an act of mercy- especially when the one dying is "saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven" (D&C 137:10).

Now who is being facetious...

Edited September 5, 2009 by Snow

[Maxel]

Obviously I am being facetious. A just god would not kill all the world's inhabitants, including the innocent... which by the way, matches the evidence... no such flood as described in the Bible.

I don't feel like arguing the point. I ask, though- do you think the Nephite cities destroyed at Christ's crucifixion had any innocent children living in them? Or were the children somehow taken away/killed by the parents/whatever? Do you think a just God would alow abused children reared in wickedness (through no fault of their own) to go on living for years, dealing with the emotional trauma associated with the abuse?

Which is more just: a swift end to prolonged suffering and then comfort and rest, or the needless perpetuation of earthly suffering?

One thing that might be interesting to note: I don't think 'innocent' equates to 'righteous'. A child is innocent because (s)he doesn't know better (is without the law); righteousness comes from choosing the better path in life and seeking to live the law.

Death can be an act of mercy...

Now who is being facetious...I was being serious... It is appointed to all men to die (except for the very, very few who are translated). I'd wager Christ's death was merciful- he could have gone on living forever in agony, I guess, but there was no reason to prolong His suffering once the appointed task was completed. I don't see death as such a tragic thing- painful sometimes, yes, but it's something we all must go through, and is a gateway to the spiritual realm beyond mortality.

[Snow]

I don't feel like arguing the point. I ask, though- do you think the Nephite cities destroyed at Christ's crucifixion had any innocent children living in them? Or were the children somehow taken away/killed by the parents/whatever? Do you think a just God would alow abused children reared in wickedness (through no fault of their own) to go on living for years, dealing with the emotional trauma associated with the abuse?

Which is more just: a swift end to prolonged suffering and then comfort and rest, or the needless perpetuation of earthly suffering?

One thing that might be interesting to note: I don't think 'innocent' equates to 'righteous'. A child is innocent because (s)he doesn't know better (is without the law); righteousness comes from choosing the better path in life and seeking to live the law.

Now who is being facetious...

I was being serious... It is appointed to all men to die (except for the very, very few who are translated). I'd wager Christ's death was merciful- he could have gone on living forever in agony, I guess, but there was no reason to prolong His suffering once the appointed task was completed. I don't see death as such a tragic thing- painful sometimes, yes, but it's something we all must go through, and is a gateway to the spiritual realm beyond mortality.

It is difficult to believe the twisted kind of thinking that tries to spin evil as moral and bad as good.

If anyone were to do what you accuse God of doing they would 1. have their temple recommend taken away, 2. Be excommunicated from the Church, 3. thrown in prison for the rest of their life or executed, 4. be despised and reviled by all decent humanity the world over.... it from the sin is all relative school of thought, ie somethings it's good to kill little children and sometimes it is not.

No thanks. For me, killing babies is just plain wrong. Please don't offer to babysit my children.

[Just_A_Guy]

If anyone were to do what you accuse God of doing they would 1. have their temple recommend taken away, 2. Be excommunicated from the Church, 3. thrown in prison for the rest of their life or executed, 4. be despised and reviled by all decent humanity the world over....

You mean, knowingly and intentionally send one Child to an excruciatingly painful death in order to save the other children from the consequences of their own stupid decisions?

Somehow, I don't think God plays by our rules.

[Snow]

You mean, knowingly and intentionally send one Child to an excruciatingly painful death in order to save the other children from the consequences of their own stupid decisions?

I don't know what that means - but at issues is not killing one innocent child to protect other innocent children, but rather killing all innocents - presumably as a punishment for other people's sins, or in the case of the poster above, mercy killings.

Somehow, I don't think God plays by our rules.

It is not a matter of OUR rules. It is also a matter of God's rules. We are told, if you believe scripture and prophets, that shedding innocent blood is wrong, immoral and evil. You can't, without being hypocritical, claim that it is required that we, God's children, be moral and not evil but it is okay for God to be immoral and evil or okay for God's followers to be immoral and evil if He tells them to or at least if they claim that He told them to.

[Just_A_Guy]

I don't know what that means - but at issues is not killing one innocent child to protect other innocent children, but rather killing all innocents - presumably as a punishment for other people's sins, or in the case of the poster above, mercy killings.

It means what it says. Anyone who sent one of his innocent offspring to his death in order to spare other offspring who are more culpable would most likely

1. have their temple recommend taken away, 2. Be excommunicated from the Church, 3. thrown in prison for the rest of their life or executed, 4. be despised and reviled by all decent humanity the world over....

So, by your own criteria, an atonement would be against God's established rules and we may safely disregard any scripture that mentions such a heretical event. Right?

It is not a matter of OUR rules. It is also a matter of God's rules. We are told, if you believe scripture and prophets, that shedding innocent blood is wrong, immoral and evil.

We are also told, by those same scriptures and prophets, that all creation belongs to God and that He exercises, to a greater or lesser degree, control over life and death.

We can either make a serious effort to reconcile all of these statements--perhaps by allowing for the vast difference between ours and God's powers, responsibilities, and prerogatives--or we can simply disregard the scriptures and prophets who disagree with our own worldviews.

You can't, without being hypocritical, claim that it is required that we, God's children, be moral and not evil but it is okay for God to be immoral and evil or okay for God's followers to be immoral and evil if He tells them to or at least if they claim that He told them to.

You'd first have to establish a) that there's a universal standard of morality that is equally applicable to men (in all dispensations of time) as well as gods; and b) that under the aforementioned standard, there are no justifiable reasons for taking innocent life.

I haven't seen you establish either. Until you do, I see the whole thing as boiling down to a matter of "I can administer My own property; and you--not being My duly appointed agent in this matter--cannot."

[Snow]

It means what it says. Anyone who sent one of his innocent offspring to his death in order to spare other offspring who are more culpable would most likely

Would likely what?

You are confusing the issue. On one hand you have what some people claim is God killing babies and on the other hand you have God giving up his own life as the hands of unjust men in order to redeem mankind.

Let's focus on the issue at hand instead of introducing different topics.

So, by your own criteria, an atonement would be against God's established rules and we may safely disregard any scripture that mentions such a heretical event. Right?

Huh?

What criteria have I proposed that says that God may not give up His own life to redeem mankind?

Focus please.

We are also told, by those same scriptures and prophets, that all creation belongs to God and that He exercises, to a greater or lesser degree, control over life and death.

Control does not make it moral to kill babies.

We can either make a serious effort to reconcile all of these statements--perhaps by allowing for the vast difference between ours and God's powers, responsibilities, and prerogatives--or we can simply disregard the scriptures and prophets who disagree with our own worldviews.

By all means, feel free to reconcile it. How is killing babies moral and not evil?

You'd first have to establish a) that there's a universal standard of morality that is equally applicable to men (in all dispensations of time) as well as gods; and b) that under the aforementioned standard, there are no justifiable reasons for taking innocent life.

I haven't seen you establish either. Until you do, I see the whole thing as boiling down to a matter of "I can administer My own property; and you--not being My duly appointed agent in this matter--cannot."

Sure - situational ethics - sometimes it's good to kill babies and sometimes it is not... moreover, you think that I bear the burden of proof so demonstrate that killing babies is bad.

See the insanity that religion drives some people to? Maybe you don't.

[Just_A_Guy]

Would likely what? . . .

Huh?

What criteria have I proposed that says that God may not give up His own life to redeem mankind?

Snow, I'd appreciate it if you read my post in full rather than just knee-jerk disagreeing or nit-picking at everything I said. Had you read the quoted section, you'd see I was incorporating your own words into my point.

I'll respond further after I've had time to digest the remainder of your post.

[Snow]

Snow, I'd appreciate it if you read my post in full rather than just knee-jerk disagreeing or nit-picking at everything I said. Had you read the quoted section, you'd see I was incorporating your own words into my point.

I'll respond further after I've had time to digest the remainder of your post.

I read your entire post. Every word. Three times.

You said: "So, by your own criteria, an atonement would be against God's established rules and we may safely disregard any scripture that mentions such a heretical event. Right?"

That is - you are saying or implying or questioning that my criteria holds that it is hypocritical to for a god to give himself freely in order to redeem mankind.

I said nor implied nothing of the sort and the entire thought is outside anything I am discussing here.

[Just_A_Guy]

I've gone over the rest of your post. I think most of your concerns would be alleviated by just re-reading what I posted. I would, however, like to respond to the following:

Sure - situational ethics -

Scary, isn't it? But it is demonstrably true that God the Father has demonstrably done things that it would not be considered acceptable for a mortal to do--the sacrifice of His innocent Son being the paramount example.

you think that I bear the burden of proof so demonstrate that killing babies is bad.

Snow, such an obvious appeal to emotion is not like you. But I will concede that man, deciding of himself to kill babies and acting on that decision is bad.

To get back to your point, though: the simple truth is that you are the one trying to rewrite scripture; you are the one making (hitherto) dogmatic claims that God is bound to the same code of behavior that applies to us; and so you do bear the burden of proof.

The right to question sacred cows is not yours alone.

[Just_A_Guy]

I read your entire post. Every word. Three times.

You said: "So, by your own criteria, an atonement would be against God's established rules and we may safely disregard any scripture that mentions such a heretical event. Right?"

That is - you are saying or implying or questioning that my criteria holds that it is hypocritical to for a god to give himself freely in order to redeem mankind.

I said nor implied nothing of the sort and the entire thought is outside anything I am discussing here.

Snow, you're a sharp guy. I think you already understand this; but let me spell it out for you.

Sometime back, you implied that someone who acted as stated in some scriptures with regard to children would: (note: I'm now incorporating your own quote to make my point)

1. have their temple recommend taken away, 2. Be excommunicated from the Church, 3. thrown in prison for the rest of their life or executed, 4. be despised and reviled by all decent humanity the world over....

Well, if I sent an innocent child to his/her death in order to spare a culpable one, do you think for a moment that I wouldn't

a) have my temple recommend yanked;

b) be excommunicated;

c) go to jail; and

d) be despised and reviled?

Our ethics say that yes, I should be. Yet God the Father found it perfectly acceptable to do this to His own Son. And to my knowledge, no code of ethics condemns Him for it.

You state that Christ gave Himself freely. Yet, in the pre-existence, so did we all. Was Jesus' antemortal decision to sacrifice Himself somehow more "valid" than our own antemortal decisions to subject ourselves to whatever might transpire during our mortal probation?

Yes, there's the issue that Christ consented to His fate in this life as well. But then, He had a lot more first-hand knowledge than we enjoy. Who's to say that any child (or even an adult) having the same degree of knowledge of the Plan of Salvation as Christ did at the time of His sacrifice, wouldn't gladly consent to the Father's taking his life if the Father deemed it expedient to do so?

[Snow]

I've gone over the rest of your post. I think most of your concerns would be alleviated by just re-reading what I posted. I would, however, like to respond to the following:

Scary, isn't it? But it is demonstrably true that God the Father has demonstrably done things that it would not be considered acceptable for a mortal to do--the sacrifice of His innocent Son being the paramount example.

Okay - please demonstrate that. I should very much like to see it. If you could also demonstrate that God kills innocents people on account of other people's wickedness, that would be a bonus.

Snow, such an obvious appeal to emotion is not like you.

Emotional or not - it is the exact point that is at issue here - that God slays innocents, including babies.

But I will concede that man, deciding of himself to kill babies and acting on that decision is bad.

So it seems like you are saying that some entities, not man, can kill babies and that is good. Are you going to simply claim that how that is moral is a mystery or will you bear the burden of your implied assertion and show HOW that is moral.

To get back to your point, though: the simple truth is that you are the one trying to rewrite scripture; you are the one making (hitherto) dogmatic claims that God is bound to the same code of behavior that applies to us; and so you do bear the burden of proof.

The right to question sacred cows is not yours alone.

I am not rewriting scripture - I simply reject what anonymous men have written when it portrays a god that is evil and immoral.

I also reject the idea that God is a hypocrite and I don't appeal to mystery to explain it away.

[Snow]

Snow, you're a sharp guy. I think you already understand this; but let me spell it out for you.

Sometime back, you implied that someone who acted as stated in some scriptures with regard to children would: (note: I'm now incorporating your own quote to make my point)

Well, if I sent an innocent child to his/her death in order to spare a culpable one, do you think for a moment that I wouldn't

a) have my temple recommend yanked;

b) be excommunicated;

c) go to jail; and

d) be despised and reviled?

Our ethics say that yes, I should be. Yet God the Father found it perfectly acceptable to do this to His own Son. And to my knowledge, no code of ethics condemns Him for it.

You state that Christ gave Himself freely. Yet, in the pre-existence, so did we all. Was Jesus' antemortal decision to sacrifice Himself somehow more "valid" than our own antemortal decisions to subject ourselves to whatever might transpire during our mortal probation?

God - remember, Christ is God, deciding to lay down his life is completely different than one actively killing other innocent people. They are not analogous and one does nothing to bring understanding to the other.... unless you are going to represent that the babies consented to their deaths and that their thus voluntary deaths lead to the salvation of mankind.

Yes, there's the issue that Christ consented to His fate in this life as well. But then, He had a lot more first-hand knowledge than we enjoy. Who's to say that any child (or even an adult) having the same degree of knowledge of the Plan of Salvation as Christ did at the time of His sacrifice, wouldn't gladly consent to the Father's taking his life if the Father deemed it expedient to do so?

Gee - and who is to say that Elvis is not a reincarnated Angel Moroni. Wild speculations don't really help us to understand anything.

[Just_A_Guy]

See the insanity that religion drives some people to? Maybe you don't.

Oh, I see it; if by "insanity" you mean "foolishness". And to be honest, I'm not all that bothered by it. :)

Okay - please demonstrate that. I should very much like to see it. If you could also demonstrate that God kills innocents people on account of other people's wickedness, that would be a bonus.

Exhibit A: The Atonement (as I've been continually harping on).

Exhibit B: AIDS babies.

Shall I go on?

So it seems like you are saying that some entities, not man, can kill babies and that is good. Are you going to simply claim that how that is moral is a mystery or will you bear the burden of your implied assertion and show HOW that is moral.

Nice try. But no; I have no intention of taking the argument that far. I'm just pointing out that your attempt to rewrite scripture is based on a moral code to which you can't even demonstrate God adheres.

I am not rewriting scripture - I simply reject what anonymous men have written when it portrays a god that is evil and immoral.

Sophistry. You're taking something that was approved and accepted by the body of the Church, and making a calculated attempt to change the meaning thereof. Why? As far as I can tell, solely because you have independently concluded that you know the character of God better than did the person whose writings the Church chose to embrace as canon.

I also reject the idea that God is a hypocrite

As do I.

and I don't appeal to mystery to explain it away.

Then I suspect you're in for a lot of disappointment, because the simple fact is that you aren't a god (yet!).

Edited September 5, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[Just_A_Guy]

God - remember, Christ is God, deciding to lay down his life is completely different than one actively killing other innocent people.

All that Christ did, He did at the behest of His Father.

Gee - and who is to say that Elvis is not a reincarnated Angel Moroni. Wild speculations don't really help us to understand anything.

Except that your position appears based on the *speculation* that they did not (and/or would not) consent.

Edited September 5, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[Snow]

All that Christ did, He did at the behest of His Father.

God is one. That is official LDS doctrine. The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are so unified in thought, purpose and unity that they form one God. What the Father wants, the Son wants. It is the exact same thing.

Except that your position appears based on the *speculation* that they did not (and/or would not) consent.

There's more of that crazy religious spin. You call it speculation that innocent children don't want to be killed.

[Just_A_Guy]

God is one. That is official LDS doctrine. The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are so unified in thought, purpose and unity that they form one God. What the Father wants, the Son wants. It is the exact same thing.

They are unified because Jesus chose to submit His will to the Father. Doesn't mean Jesus didn't have his own desires, thoughts, feelings . . . He just recognized the Father's supremacy. Consider Jesus' prayer in Gethsemane that the "cup" be taken from Him (or have I stumbled upon yet another part of the Bible you don't accept?).

There's more of that crazy religious spin. You call it speculation that innocent children don't want to be killed.

Er . . . what I originally wrote was

Who's to say that any child (or even an adult) having the same degree of knowledge of the Plan of Salvation as Christ did at the time of His sacrifice, wouldn't gladly consent to the Father's taking his life if the Father deemed it expedient to do so?

and I later said that to assert otherwise was also speculation. And I stand by that. Imagine--a fully-informed being implicitly trusting his Father in Heaven!

[Snow]

They are unified because Jesus chose to submit His will to the Father. Doesn't mean Jesus didn't have his own desires, thoughts, feelings . . . He just recognized the Father's supremacy.

You imply that God, the Father and God, Christ were not unified, but rather disagreed and that that God, Christ then subjugated His own wishes to the God the Father's.

That's not LDS doctrine but you are certainly free to believe what you choose.

Consider Jesus' prayer in Gethsemane that the "cup" be taken from Him (or have I stumbled upon yet another part of the Bible you don't accept?).

That would be Jesus in his limited and human role as mortal man. It would not be Christ, God who is in perfect harmony with God the Father and God The Holy Ghost.

Er . . . what I originally wrote was

and I later said that to assert otherwise was also speculation. And I stand by that. Imagine--a fully-informed being implicitly trusting his Father in Heaven!

There's that perfect example of the inanity that religious dogma drives people to -Babies freely choose to be killed and to assume otherwise is mere speculation -

It's a very scary thought. It is the kind of thinking that led to Old Testament authors justifying acts of terrorism, murder, kidnapping, theft, rape, stealing as the will of God.

Edited September 5, 2009 by Snow

[Maxel]

Snow-

I'd appreciate it if you didn't attack the nature of my thinking and say I'm trying to spin evil as good and good as evil. Thanks in advance.

I'd also appreciate it if you answered the questions I posed earlier: if the whole world were indeed evil and Noah's family were the only righteous people left, what would you have God do with the innocent children? What about the innocent children in the Nephite cities that were destroyed at Christ's cricifixion- do you think they were somehow miraculously spared, that they died with their parents, or that there were no innocent children in those cities (or something else)?

Also, do you believe there were no innocent children in Ammonihah when it was destroyed according to prophecy?

Edited September 6, 2009 by Maxel

[Snow]

Snow-

I'd appreciate it if you didn't attack the nature of my thinking and say I'm trying to spin evil as good and good as evil. Thanks in advance.

Let's take out the spin then and state it as it is. In your thinking, killing innocent children can be both moral and and act of mercy ( definition: compassionate treatment, a disposition to be kind and forgiving: something for which to be thankful; a blessing), and I have the kind of thinking that holds that killing babies, children, and innocent people is bad.

I'd also appreciate it if you answered the questions I posed earlier: if the whole world were indeed evil and Noah's family were the only righteous people left, what would you have God do with the innocent children? What about the innocent children in the Nephite cities that were destroyed at Christ's cricifixion- do you think they were somehow miraculously spared, that they died with their parents, or that there were no innocent children in those cities (or something else)?

Also, do you believe there were no innocent children in Ammonihah when it was destroyed according to prophecy?

You are creating a false dilemma that I won't answer.

1. I do not believe that there were no other people that were not evil... as it so happens, there is zero evidence to support your contention. Granted there is no evidence to support that you aren't correct but you are the one that God killed people and I am making no such claim.

2. I do not think that you can justify killing babies on account of having also killed their parents, thus leaving no other options.

3. I don't accept that God proactively kills innocent people.

[Maxel]

You are creating a false dilemma that I won't answer.

1. I do not believe that there were no other people that were not evil... as it so happens, there is zero evidence to support your contention. Granted there is no evidence to support that you aren't correct but you are the one that God killed people and I am making no such claim.

Are the scriptures not evidence enough for this discussion? Since you're hesitant to accept the Restoration scriptures as wholly inspired and true, however, I'll let that pass. However, the supporting evidence in the canonical LDS scriptures (which is where we draw the entirety of this discussion from) favors the scenario of 'the whole world except Noah being evil'.

Let me reduce the question to one scenario:

Do you believe there were any innocent children in the Nephite cities that were destroyed at Christ's coming? If not, state your reasoning as to why not. If so, what do you think happened to them?

[Snow]

Are the scriptures not evidence enough for this discussion? Since you're hesitant to accept the Restoration scriptures as wholly inspired and true, however, I'll let that pass. However, the supporting evidence in the canonical LDS scriptures (which is where we draw the entirety of this discussion from) favors the scenario of 'the whole world except Noah being evil'.

I guess it is interesting that you seem to imply that there are two levels or qualities of scriptures - one ancient and other's newer and better.

Let me reduce the question to one scenario:

Do you believe there were any innocent children in the Nephite cities that were destroyed at Christ's coming? If not, state your reasoning as to why not. If so, what do you think happened to them?

I wouldn't know. That such happened is a matter of religious dogma. I don't feel compelled to consider religious writings as historical (or not). Religious writings can convey gospel truths without regards to actual historicity... that is, I don't have to believe in talking donkeys to believe that Jesus is the Christ and that through him mankind may be saved.

[Maxel]

I guess it is interesting that you seem to imply that there are two levels or qualities of scriptures - one ancient and other's newer and better.

I'm not quite sure how I implied that. I stated that you are hesitant to accept the Restoration scriptures as wholly true (and I think you're forced to agree with me, seeing as how you believe the events in 1 Nephi 4 can't have happened as they are described).

I wouldn't know. That such happened is a matter of religious dogma. I don't feel compelled to consider religious writings as historical (or not). Religious writings can convey gospel truths without regards to actual historicity... that is, I don't have to believe in talking donkeys to believe that Jesus is the Christ and that through him mankind may be saved.

I'm wondering why you don't even offer an opinion- you admit yourself that religious writings are net necessarily not historical. So, what do you think would happen to the children in the earlier situation? Just humor me.

Or take the spin out of your own words and flatly say that you believe those Nephite cities weren't destroyed and that the Book of Mormon is wrong in it's portrayal those events too.

Edited September 6, 2009 by Maxel

[Snow]

I'm not quite sure how I implied that. I stated that you are hesitant to accept the Restoration scriptures as wholly true (and I think you're forced to agree with me, seeing as how you believe the events in 1 Nephi 4 can't have happened as they are described).

You implied it by taking the issue that was at stake - the biblical story of the flood and then seeing if I would extend it even further by likewise questioning "restoration" scriptures. You knew I questioned ancient scripture but tried to put me on the spot seeing if I'd also do the same the BoM, as if doubting the Bible were relatively easier than doubting the BoM

I'm wondering why you don't even offer an opinion- you admit yourself that religious writings are net necessarily not historical. So, what do you think would happen to the children in the earlier situation? Just humor me.

Or take the spin out of your own words and flatly say that you believe those Nephite cities weren't destroyed and that the Book of Mormon is wrong in it's portrayal those events too.

I don't know what happened. There is zero evidence to support the claim and despite constantly trying, I've yet to find a way - short of appealing to mystery - to explain how a just God can commit what, if committed by anyone else, would be evil.

I could certainly be wrong, I just can't make any sense of the contrary (your) position and have not seen anybody else make any sense of it either.

Seriously Maxel - though I might argue as if I am right - I really just don't know.