The Righteous VS. The Good

[Just_A_Guy]

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.

I don't think LDS doctrine teaches that God and Jesus live in a sort of perpetual mind-meld. But that's beside the point. Your parsing out the "God Jesus" from the "Man Jesus" pretty much leaves the underlying point of my post #37 (which is the basis for this line of discussion) intact: a father sacrifices the life of one innocent offspring (who, at least in one phase of the trinitarian multiple-personality-disorder you attribute to Jesus, has a separate will that must be consciously bent to the parent's) for the benefit of a culpable offspring. Wholly unethical for a mortal to do; yet God the Father did it.

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 -

I freely admitted that my own view (that a fully informed individual might well prefer the afterlife to this life, which is more or less what Joseph Smith taught as well) was speculation. But so is yours. If you want me to go along with your revision of scripture (and the underlying principle that if any portion of scripture challenges my conception of God, it is the scripture and not me who must change); it had better be based on something much stronger than "well, I love this telestial earth, and so must everyone else!"

Other than repeating the loaded terms "baby" and "killing" in the same sentence ad infinitum, do you have any substantive arguments supporting the arguments I posed earlier, viz. "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"?

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.

And what do you make of the fact that the authors of the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, the New Testament., and of the Doctrine and Covenants all approvingly record (or cite to other references of) God's killing people, or ordering their deaths?

If something's true, then it isn't my fault that someone else chooses to pervert it for their own ends.

[Justice]

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.

Well, there the evidence that scripture says it happened. But, yeah, you're right... little else.

I don't need anything else.

I don't disbelieve anything in the scriptures because of the lack of evidence. If they can't find evidence, it just means they can't find evidence. It doesn't disprove anything.

Now, if you have evidence against said event happeneing, let's hear it.

[Guest Alana]

They don't call them the terrible twos and sixes for nuthin'.

:)

Wait, there's a terrible sixes? But that's less than a year away...noooo!!!

[Maxel]

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

All right, I see what you're saying. However, I didn't mean to imply anything that hadn't already been established through earlier conversations. And there's good reason to argue that doubting certain parts in the Bible is easier than doubting certain parts in the Book of Mormon. The more recently given scripture is the scripture that is more relevant to our day and situation, and scripture from the current dispensation is the most relevant. Scripture given through divine translation that was kept by prophets over the years and edited by its final keepers would be far, far less prone to errors of any kind than the books of scripture that make up the Bible.

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.

Perhaps because others do not hold the right to do some acts that are God's right?

Consider an earthly analogy: would it be lawful for a lynch mob to execute a man accused of murder without a proper trial? No- because the right to take the man's life is not given to the mob. Would it be lawful for a jury, having heard testimony and evidence against the accused, to sentence him to death? Yes- because the right to take the accused's life (as a punishment) is given to the court and jury.

I was reading Alma 40 just now and verses 11-12 struck me as having a lot to do with the question of 'would the Lord take the life of an innocent because of his/her parents' wickedness'?

11 Now, concerning the state of the soul between death and the resurrection—Behold, it has been made known unto me by an angel, that the spirits of all men, as soon as they are departed from this mortal body, yea, the spirits of all men, whether they be good or evil, are taken home to that God who gave them life.

12 And then shall it come to pass, that the spirits of those who are righteous are received into a state of happiness, which is called paradise, a state of rest, a state of peace, where they shall rest from all their troubles and from all care, and sorrow.

The fact that the life of a child has to be taken is horrible and sad- but the fate of the child is far more glorious than its abrupt end might suggest.

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

I appreciate the frankness. This helps me understand where you are coming from more easily- thank you for that. Edited September 6, 2009 by Maxel

[Snow]

I don't think LDS doctrine teaches that God and Jesus live in a sort of perpetual mind-meld. But that's beside the point. Your parsing out the "God Jesus" from the "Man Jesus" pretty much leaves the underlying point of my post #37 (which is the basis for this line of discussion) intact: a father sacrifices the life of one innocent offspring (who, at least in one phase of the trinitarian multiple-personality-disorder you attribute to Jesus, has a separate will that must be consciously bent to the parent's) for the benefit of a culpable offspring. Wholly unethical for a mortal to do; yet God the Father did it.

I get it. You think that Christ voluntarily giving his life to redeem mankind is analogous to killing innocent babies and children, and I do not.

I freely admitted that my own view (that a fully informed individual might well prefer the afterlife to this life, which is more or less what Joseph Smith taught as well) was speculation. But so is yours.

I get that too. You think that it is merely speculation that innocent babies and children don't want to die and I disagree.

If you want me to go along with your revision of scripture (and the underlying principle that if any portion of scripture challenges my conception of God, it is the scripture and not me who must change); it had better be based on something much stronger than "well, I love this telestial earth, and so must everyone else!"

I have no idea what that means.

Other than repeating the loaded terms "baby" and "killing" in the same sentence ad infinitum, do you have any substantive arguments supporting the arguments I posed earlier, viz. "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"?

Hey - it's your argument. If you think there is a justifiable reason for killing innocent people, let's hear it.

As for my argument... life is sacred. That's it. I believe that life is sacred. Killing babies is therefore wrong.

And what do you make of the fact that the authors of the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, the New Testament., and of the Doctrine and Covenants all approvingly record (or cite to other references of) God's killing people, or ordering their deaths?

You think that it is a "fact" that the authors of the Book of Mormon approve of God killing people?

I'd love to see you demonstrate that. Will that be before or after to demonstrate that God has demonstrably done things that are immoral for others to do?

If something's true, then it isn't my fault that someone else chooses to pervert it for their own ends.

... and I don't know what that means either.

[Maxel]

Wait, there's a terrible sixes? But that's less than a year away...noooo!!!

There's terrible everythings. I'm in my terrible 21's right now. I'm incorrigible.

[Snow]

Well, there the evidence that scripture says it happened. But, yeah, you're right... little else.

I don't need anything else.

I don't disbelieve anything in the scriptures because of the lack of evidence. If they can't find evidence, it just means they can't find evidence. It doesn't disprove anything.

Okay - do you accept the gospel's account of last supper at the celebration of Passover?

[Snow]

Thanks Maxel.

[Just_A_Guy]

Hey - it's your argument. If you think there is a justifiable reason for killing innocent people, let's hear it.

And we're back to that pesky burden-of-proof issue. As long as you're trying to rewrite scripture, the burden of proof still lies with you.

As for my argument... life is sacred. That's it. I believe that life is sacred. Killing babies is therefore wrong.

This is interesting, and I think worth discussing more. Why is life sacred, would you say? What implications does this sacredness have? Does anyone have the prerogative to take life? If so, who; and under what circumstances?

You think that it is a "fact" that the authors of the Book of Mormon approve of God killing people?

Nephi--in spite of great personal misgivings--accepted the idea of God ordering killings (see 1 Nephi 4). If Mormon objected to God's destroying entire cities (3 Nephi 9), he passed up a prize opportunity to express his objections (unless, as Maxel has said, you want to make the case that those cities contained no children).

I'd love to see you demonstrate that. Will that be before or after to demonstrate that God has demonstrably done things that are immoral for others to do?

Are you arguing that it wouldn't be "immoral" for me, of my own accord, to burn, bury, or sink a city (or sixteen cities)?

[Snow]

And we're back to that pesky burden-of-proof issue. As long as you're trying to rewrite scripture, the burden of proof still lies with you.

There's more of the insanity and inanity that religion drives people to: you claim that I have the burden to prove that killing innocent babies is bad.

Complain to the moderators is you like but that is insane.

This is interesting, and I think worth discussing more. Why is life sacred, would you say? What implications does this sacredness have? Does anyone have the prerogative to take life? If so, who; and under what circumstances?

Nephi--in spite of great personal misgivings--accepted the idea of God ordering killings (see 1 Nephi 4). If Mormon objected to God's destroying entire cities (3 Nephi 9), he passed up a prize opportunity to express his objections (unless, as Maxel has said, you want to make the case that those cities contained no children).

Don't try and change the subject. You claimed it was a fact that BoM authors approved of God killing people. Facts are demonstrable.

I predict that you cannot demonstrate your claim.

Are you arguing that it wouldn't be "immoral" for me, of my own accord, to burn, bury, or sink a city (or sixteen cities)?

No - you claimed that it was demonstrable that God has demonstrably done things that are immoral for others to do. I am challenging you to demonstrate it.

[Just_A_Guy]

There's more of the insanity and inanity that religion drives people to: you claim that I have the burden to prove that killing innocent babies is bad.

The fact that you refuse to quote me in full--just make misleading paraphrases of my position--comes off as pretty dishonest.

Complain to the moderators is you like but that is insane.

Why on earth would I complain to the moderators? I have not, and don't intend to. I'm perfectly comfortable letting the readers of this forum judge your ad hominems and logical fallacies--in all their glory--for themselves.

Don't try and change the subject.

The question of what limitations exist on God's authority is the subject. When faced with a serious discussion about divine law, all you seem to be able to do is repeat your "baby killer" mantra--which has no basis in anything except your own emotions. And then, as icing on the cake, you run to other threads and condemn all those other rubes in Sacrament Meeting whose emotions and "dogma" lead them to believe that they can "know" God exists, or that He routinely answers prayers--when you yourself are demanding the right to rewrite scripture based on the exact same bases.

You claimed it was a fact that BoM authors approved of God killing people. Facts are demonstrable.

I said they "approvingly record" God's killing people "or ordering their deaths", which I think I have more than adequately shown to anyone who is willing to accept the text of scripture as evidence.

But then, I should have remembered that you are not such an individual. My bad.

Edited September 6, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[Snow]

The fact that you refuse to quote me in full--just make misleading paraphrases of my position--comes off as pretty dishonest.

Really - I like to see you a show how I have dishonesty represented your position. That you merely claim instead of showing it indicates that you probably can't.

Why on earth would I complain to the moderators? I have not, and don't intend to. I'm perfectly comfortable letting the readers of this forum judge your ad hominems and logical fallacies--in all their glory--for themselves.

ad hominens... okay. When you claim that God giving voluntary giving his life to redeem mankind is analogous to killing babies and claiming that babies don't want to die requires proof, and I call that insane = it is an ad hominen - an accurate one, but an ad hominen. Since you mention logical fallacies separately, you are saying that I am committing some in addition to calling your thinking insane. I'd like to see you show what logical fallacies I am using - that you also aren't using, and whether or not they make my point incorrect.

Since you have repeatedly made claims in this thread and repeatedly refused to support them, even when challenged, shall I assume that you cannot support this claim either?

The question of what limitations exist on God's authority is the subject.

Wrong. That is not the subject. That issue is not in discussion. This is not about whether or not God rules the universe. This IS about whether or not the behaviors attributed to God by anonymous authors thousands of years ago can be reconciled with the characteristics we assign to God - namely being just and benevolent.

When faced with a serious discussion about divine law, all you seem to be able to do is repeat your "baby killer" mantra--which has no basis in anything except your own emotions.

Wrong. That babies and innocents were killed is not based in my emotion as you falsely claim. It is based on the claims of you and others in this thread that maintain that God killed babies and other innocents.

Please don't make stuff up.

And then, as icing on the cake, you run to other threads and condemn all those other rubes in Sacrament Meeting whose emotions and "dogma" lead them to believe that they can "know" God exists, or that He routinely answers prayers--when you yourself are demanding the right to rewrite scripture based on the exact same bases.

Wrong - false. I have already corrected you twice. I am not rewriting scripture. Please stop making that up.

Nice try by changing to change this discussion into an issue of answering prayers. You must not have much left of offer.

I said they "approvingly record" God's killing people "or ordering their deaths", which I think I have more than adequately shown to anyone who is willing to accept the text of scripture as evidence.

You claimed that it was a FACT that the BoM authors approved of God killing people - babies for example.

Facts can be demonstrated. Obviously that is not a fact.

But then, I should have remembered that you are not such an individual. My bad.

Do you really not understand the difference between facts and dogma?

[Just_A_Guy]

Really - I like to see you a show how I have dishonesty represented your position. That you merely claim instead of showing it indicates that you probably can't.

I did not say you have dishonestly represented my position; I said you have "misrepresented" my position and that it "comes off" as dishonest. See my Post #61. It was intended as a semi-friendly warning, not an accusation. My apologies if it came off wrong.

But the fact is, it is misleading to say that I'm forcing you to prove that killing babies is bad; because I have said (repeatedly) that your burden is much more limited. I have already agreed with you that it is bad for humans, of themselves, to take it upon themselves to end life. See my Post #36. Your burden is only to show that it is inherently wrong for God to end an innocent life.

Since you mention logical fallacies separately, you are saying that I am committing some in addition to calling your thinking insane. I'd like to see you show what logical fallacies I am using - that you also aren't using, and whether or not they make my point incorrect.

• Appeal to Emotion (Repeated use of loaded terms, notably "baby" and "killing".)
• Appeal to Common Practice/Popularity ([Paraphrasing here]: "The common practice of the Church is to not allow such behavior/other people would despise anyone who engaged in it; therefore God would never do it.")
• Begging the Question ([Paraphrasing again:] "It's wrong for God to kill innocents. How do I know this? Because killing innocents is wrong!")
• Guilt by Association ([subtle implication]: "Rapists, looters, and murderers think like you do!")
• Hasty Generalization/Straw Man (Your repeated over-simplification of my position, as explained earlier in this post.)

Such antics, in and of themselves, don't make your point incorrect because they are logical fallacies and your argument is not a logical one (indeed, one might reasonably infer that you yourself conceded in your Post #38 that your argument is emotionally based; though if you think I'm misinterpreting you I'm sure you'll correct me). But they do reinforce--quite clearly--the logical bankruptcy of your arguments thus far.

Since you have repeatedly made claims in this thread and repeatedly refused to support them, even when challenged,

You are welcome to provide quotes--or a link to a post--where I made a material claim I have not since supported. But I'd really appreciate it if you'd first lay a proper foundation for your assertion that it is immoral for God to end the life of one of His creations even though we may deem that life "innocent".

Wrong. That is not the subject. That issue is not in discussion. This is not about whether or not God rules the universe. This IS about whether or not the behaviors attributed to God by anonymous authors thousands of years ago can be reconciled with the characteristics we assign to God - namely being just and benevolent.

It's not in discussion (currently) because you don't want it to be in discussion, and you try to change the subject. But it's the elephant in the room. The simple fact is, if you want to rewrite the scriptures because they allegedly impute immoral behavior to God, you have to demonstrate that the behavior is in fact immoral. This, you have utterly failed--even refused--to do.

Wrong. That babies and innocents were killed is not based in my emotion as you falsely claim. It is based on the claims of you and others in this thread that maintain that God killed babies and other innocents.

Please don't make stuff up.

That was not my argument. Please try reading it again in context.

Wrong - false. I have already corrected you twice. I am not rewriting scripture. Please stop making that up.

I don't recall you addressing the topic after I responded to your "correction", in Post #40, as follows:

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.

Nice try by changing to change this discussion into an issue of answering prayers. You must not have much left of offer.

It was an attempt to make you see how completely you've abandoned those virtues--logic and reason--you purport to hold in such esteem.

You claimed that it was a FACT that the BoM authors approved of God killing people - babies for example.

No, I didn't. Look it up--Post #51. I said,

. . . the authors of the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, the New Testament., and of the Doctrine and Covenants all approvingly record (or cite to other references of) God's killing people, or ordering their deaths[.]

On your demand for evidence I referred to 1 Nephi Chapter 4 and 3 Nephi Chapter 9. However, on a closer review of the post I see that, before throwing the question back at me, you changed my original verbiage from Post 51 into the following:

You think that it is a "fact" that the authors of the Book of Mormon approve of God killing people?

I probably should have caught that and responded accordingly, but I did not. I frankly still don't think it's a material difference; but if you do then I can only extend my apologies.

Do you really not understand the difference between facts and dogma?

Of course. If we're trying to determine whether the Book of Mormon relates a particular event and its authors attitudes towards that event, "facts" are Snow's abstract, emotion-based arguments about the character of God in conjunction with Snow's wholly unsubstantiated interpretation of the code of morality that binds Beings like God. "Dogma", by contrast, is what we call Just_A_Guy's insane attempts to actually look at the text of the document. :)

Edited September 6, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[Grandmakabipbip]

I believe Righteousness is more than just being celestial kind of person. I believe righteousness comes only through Christ and rebirth.

Edited September 9, 2009 by Grandmakabipbip

[Grandmakabipbip]

I hate when someone comes along and uses twists and turns to try and make a poster look bad, and the doctrine of the LDS church look corrupt...

The simplicity of the pure gospel must endure on light, truth, and LOVE. Otherwise the twisted minds darkened with apostasy and hate will make it very difficult for those who Love Christ and His gospel and His church to enjoy what they have.

[Snow]

I hate when someone comes along and uses twists and turns to try and make a poster look bad, and the doctrine of the LDS church look corrupt...

What, precisely are you referring to?

[Snow]

I did not say you have dishonestly represented my position; I said you have "misrepresented" my position and that it "comes off" as dishonest. See my Post #61. It was intended as a semi-friendly warning, not an accusation. My apologies if it came off wrong.

What kind of distinction is that? That I am not dishonest, but seem dishonest. Same difference.

But the fact is, it is misleading to say that I'm forcing you to prove that killing babies is bad; because I have said (repeatedly) that your burden is much more limited. I have already agreed with you that it is bad for humans, of themselves, to take it upon themselves to end life. See my Post #36. Your burden is only to show that it is inherently wrong for God to end an innocent life.

My position is that deliberate killing of innocent life is wrong. Period. That's it. You maintain that while it is wrong for humans to kill innocent life, it is good for some other life form(s) to shed innocent blood and you think it is my burden to prove you wrong. That is, you claim that situational ethics or relative morality applies and that is the way it is unless I can show otherwise.

I think that nuts, but lack the sophistication or motivation to prove it.

I think that simply lining up our two positions side by side shows the absurdity of your position:

Snow: Innocent life is sacred. Killing it is bad.

Just A Guy: Killing innocent life can be good.

• Appeal to Emotion (Repeated use of loaded terms, notably "baby" and "killing".)

Wong: You are arguing, specifically, for baby killing. You maintain that all adults were evil ergo the only innocent life left was children and babies. That is your position. You may not like me to refer to your position because it comes across as immoral but that is your position... killing babies and children.

Appeal to Common Practice/Popularity ([Paraphrasing here]: "The common practice of the Church is to not allow such behavior/other people would despise anyone who engaged in it; therefore God would never do it.")

Interesting that you think that referencing official Church policy and doctrine is a logical fallacy. Perhaps you do not think that doctrine and policy are a standard that applies to you.

Begging the Question ([Paraphrasing again:] "It's wrong for God to kill innocents. How do I know this? Because killing innocents is wrong!")

Nope. It is not only not a fallacy, it is a matter of pure logic - mathematics

If A = B and C=A, then A-B.

If killing innocents is bad then God killing innocents is bad.

Guilt by Association ([subtle implication]: "Rapists, looters, and murderers think like you do!")

Well you have a point there. I do believe that situational ethics is what allowed for OT authors to blame their rape, murder, stealing, kidnapping and slavery on God.

Hasty Generalization/Straw Man (Your repeated over-simplification of my position, as explained earlier in this post.)

You say it hasty. I say it is the essence of your point.

Such antics, in and of themselves, don't make your point incorrect because they are logical fallacies and your argument is not a logical one (indeed, one might reasonably infer that you yourself conceded in your Post #38 that your argument is emotionally based; though if you think I'm misinterpreting you I'm sure you'll correct me). But they do reinforce--quite clearly--the logical bankruptcy of your arguments thus far.

It is had for me to fathom how you can claim that my position that shedding innocent life is wrong is based on emotion and logically bankrupt. By that I think you mean that your position that killing children and babies can be a good think is both logical and not based on emotion.

Welcome to religion: up is down and down is up.

You are welcome to provide quotes--or a link to a post--where I made a material claim I have not since supported.

Gee, how about this one to start: You maintain that killing children and babies can to good and moral.

But I'd really appreciate it if you'd first lay a proper foundation for your assertion that it is immoral for God to end the life of one of His creations even though we may deem that life "innocent".

I see that you are trying to imply - by use of the word "deem" and quotations around the word "innocent" that babies may not really be innocent. Fine - name their sins.

I am beginning to suspect that you are just jerking me around. You can't really think that way - can you?

It's not in discussion (currently) because you don't want it to be in discussion, and you try to change the subject. But it's the elephant in the room.

Wrong again. I have authority to fire people at work. That I have such a authority is irrelevant as to whether any such action I take is good or bad. Just stay on topic.

The simple fact is, if you want to rewrite the scriptures because they allegedly impute immoral behavior to God, you have to demonstrate that the behavior is in fact immoral. This, you have utterly failed--even refused--to do.

I have corrected you three times now. This is the fourth. I call on you to be honest your posting. I am rewriting nothing.

I note that you continually harp that I have not proved that killing babies is wrong but equally note that you, the one that claims that killing babies can be good, have not supported your position. Frankly I understand why... after all, how can you prove that baby killing is good???

That was not my argument. Please try reading it again in context.

Huh? That doesn't even make sense. You are either claiming that you do not now believe that God kills babies or you are claiming that me saying that killing babies is wrong is based on nothing but emotion.

Are you posting for real? Do you believe what you are saying?

[quoteI don't recall you addressing the topic after I responded to your "correction", in Post #40, as follows:

You not remembering doesn't matter. The fact is that I have now four times corrected you that I am not rewriting scripture. The scripture says what it says and nothing I do changes it. I am not trying to change the meaning of anything. I am saying that killing innocent is bad. Period. That's it.

It was an attempt to make you see how completely you've abandoned those virtues--logic and reason--you purport to hold in such esteem.

Yet another example of the insanity that religion drives people to... claiming that shedding innocent life is wrong is illogical.

No, I didn't. Look it up--Post #51. I said,...

On your demand for evidence I referred to 1 Nephi Chapter 4 and 3 Nephi Chapter 9. However, on a closer review of the post I see that, before throwing the question back at me, you changed my original verbiage from Post 51 into the following:

I probably should have caught that and responded accordingly, but I did not. I frankly still don't think it's a material difference; but if you do then I can only extend my apologies.

Seriously dude. Honesty or at least accuracy required here. Here is your exact quote: "And what do you make of the fact that the authors of the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, the New Testament., and of the Doctrine and Covenants all approvingly record (or cite to other references of) God's killing people, or ordering their deaths?"

That is another example of a challenge that you have avoided. I challenged you to demonstrate the "fact" that BoM author approved of such killing or approvingly accord or cite reference approvingly, or whatever, and you have not done so.

Of course. If we're trying to determine whether the Book of Mormon relates a particular event and its authors attitudes towards that event, "facts" are Snow's abstract, emotion-based arguments about the character of God in conjunction with Snow's wholly unsubstantiated interpretation of the code of morality that binds Beings like God. "Dogma", by contrast, is what we call Just_A_Guy's insane attempts to actually look at the text of the document. :)

My position relies only on one point. Killing innocent life is wrong. True I haven't supported it very well but I can offer an attempt at it now:

Will you agree to be killed today?

If you have a young child today, will you offer him/her up to be killed?

If someone else, an innocent child, is going to be killed today, would you do the killing

Why not?

I won't bother to explain why. It is self-evident.

You bristle that I label your argument dogmatic but look at some of the key components.

- The is a hidden supernatural being.

- That hidden being has super supernatural powers to kill people and wreak destruction.

- The killing in question was the result of a worldwide flood up to the tops of the mountains and 2 two (or seven, depending on which bible story you believe) animals of every kind were miraculously saved on a giant boat.

- That supernatural being has a hidden or mysterious morality that we cannot comprehend.

- Non-historical authors approving record that supernatural entity shedding innocent blood.

- It is up to others to prove that killing innocent life is immoral.

- The killed children may have agreed to be killed in another life time.

Your entire argument is based on dogma.

Care to explain why I have the burden of proof that killing innocent life is bad but you don't have the burden to show that killing innocent life can be good?

Edited September 7, 2009 by Snow

[Just_A_Guy]

My position is that deliberate killing of innocent life is wrong. Period. That's it. You maintain that while it is wrong for humans to kill innocent life, it is good for some other life form(s) to shed innocent blood and you think it is my burden to prove you wrong.

I note that you continually harp that I have not proved that killing babies is wrong but equally note that you, the one that claims that killing babies can be good, have not supported your position. Frankly I understand why... after all, how can you prove that baby killing is good???

Let me be very clear: I’m not consciously trying to advance any particular argument at this point. I’m simply putting you to your proof, because yes—what you’re doing is the functional equivalent of rewriting scripture; and if you want to get me to go along with that you’re going to have to prove every element of your argument. Including the assumption that God is bound by the same moral code as man.

I am not rewriting scripture. The scripture says what it says and nothing I do changes it. I am not trying to change the meaning of anything

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: sophistry. At the end of the day, you’re trying to get your readers to reject something that has been accepted and sustained as canon by the body of the Church—even if you purport to be willing to leave it “on the books”.

I think that nuts, but lack the sophistication or motivation to prove it.

I appreciate that concession

Yet another example of the insanity that religion drives people to... claiming that shedding innocent life is wrong is illogical.

So, you’re expecting me to believe your conclusion is logical even though you’ve put forth no logical argument. So . . . I’m apparently supposed to take it on faith that your argument is logical. But I’m the insane one?

That is another example of a challenge that you have avoided. I challenged you to demonstrate the "fact" that BoM author approved of such killing or approvingly accord or cite reference approvingly, or whatever, and you have not done so.

I have given you the same two examples in two different posts. Your failure to respond to them, in conjunction with your baseless allegations that I have provided no support, would seem to indicate that either you aren’t paying attention, or you’re hoping this thread’s readers aren’t.

Wrong again. I have authority to fire people at work. That I have such a authority is irrelevant as to whether any such action I take is good or bad. Just stay on topic.

But again, you’re assuming that there’s a moral code that transcends your authority; and that that moral code may place limitations on your right to fire anyone. Which, within the scope of your anecdote, I will grant you.

But I will not grant it to you on a cosmic scale. If you think there’s a moral code that transcends God’s authority as Creator and Savior, and if you think that moral code prohibits God from ending an innocent life in all situations, then prove it.

Interesting that you think that referencing official Church policy and doctrine is a logical fallacy. Perhaps you do not think that doctrine and policy are a standard that applies to you.

Oh, of course they apply to me. It’s God I’m not convinced they apply to.

And in point of fact, wasn't it you who just recently argued in a recent thread on LDS leadership succession that

Had Brigham Young not been the President of the Twelve and the dominant personality in the Church at the time, it is quite possible that someone else, other than the presiding apostle would have succeed Joseph.

What would current Church policy say to that?

I see that you are trying to imply - by use of the word "deem" and quotations around the word "innocent" that babies may not really be innocent. Fine - name their sins.

This is a minor point and I don’t think it’s worth haggling over. By way of clarification, though: I’m not saying they have “sinned”; I was just suggesting that if we take “innocent” as some kind of synonym for “unconditionally protected from God’s power to kill” – we have no idea what goes on in God’s mind, or what kind of criteria He uses in determining whose time on this earth ought now to end. As long as you limit the definition of "innocent" to "blameless", I have no quibbles.

Will you agree to be killed today?

If I have been positively convinced that it is the Lord’s will? Yes. I consecrated my life to Him in the temple; and I presumably made similar covenants in the pre-mortal life.

If you have a young child today, will you offer him/her up to be killed?

If someone else, an innocent child, is going to be killed today, would you do the killing

I don’t know. I hope that’s never required of me; and if I did decide to do it I’m quite sure would shrink from it—just as Nephi did; just as Abraham did; just as we are told Elohim Himself did.

But I do not claim that that aversion is “logical”, and more to the point: I cannot and will not presume to tell the Lord what He can or can’t ask of me. All I can do is to strengthen my relationship with Him as best I can, continue my efforts to reconcile the scriptures with the Spirit and the Lord's anointed leaders; and trust that I won’t be deceived by a LeBaron or a Koresh.

[Moksha]

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.

Literalness does seem to create dilemmas and pretzel-like justifications. Sort of like that story of Jonah swallowing the whale. He would later have a lot of explaining to do at the hospital.

:)

Edited September 7, 2009 by Moksha
NRA target practice

[Snow]

I note that yet again you challenged me to prove it is wrong to shed innocent life and you yet again fail to support your contention that killing innocent children can be a good thing.

Hypocritical don't you think?

Why do I bear some burden of proof but your contention that killing can be moral has no such burden.... and why do you avoid the question?

Let me be very clear: I’m not consciously trying to advance any particular argument at this point. I’m simply putting you to your proof, because yes—what you’re doing is the functional equivalent of rewriting scripture; and if you want to get me to go along with that you’re going to have to prove every element of your argument. Including the assumption that God is bound by the same moral code as man.

So now you have backed away from your argument that God killed children and that such action was good? Why the change of heart?

At this point you have been correct four times and persist is claiming, falsely, that I am rewriting scripture. Once might have been a mistake, twice, sloppiness. Now I can only assume that your intentions are dishonest. It is amusing that you claim deliberately shedding of innocent blood can be moral that that you, apparently, think nothing of dishonesty in arguing for it.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: sophistry. At the end of the day, you’re trying to get your readers to reject something that has been accepted and sustained as canon by the body of the Church—even if you purport to be willing to leave it “on the books”.

Think about it. You believe that saying killing is bad nothing more than "the practice of using arguments which seem clever but are actually false and misleading."

So, you’re expecting me to believe your conclusion is logical even though you’ve put forth no logical argument. So . . . I’m apparently supposed to take it on faith that your argument is logical. But I’m the insane one?

Yep - that's it. Arguing that killing babies can be good is insane.

I have given you the same two examples in two different posts. Your failure to respond to them, in conjunction with your baseless allegations that I have provided no support, would seem to indicate that either you aren’t paying attention, or you’re hoping this thread’s readers aren’t.

That's is so absurd that it is laughable. You expect me to accept as proved fact that BoM authors referenced innocent killing as good because you posted some scriptures from the BoM?????????????????????????????????????

You can't even show that such authors ever existed, let alone wrote approvingly of anything... for crying out loud. If I showed you a book called Lord of the Dammed that portrayed Lord Byron as a vampire, would you accept that as proof that he actually was a vampire?

But again, you’re assuming that there’s a moral code that transcends your authority; and that that moral code may place limitations on your right to fire anyone. Which, within the scope of your anecdote, I will grant you.

But I will not grant it to you on a cosmic scale. If you think there’s a moral code that transcends God’s authority as Creator and Savior, and if you think that moral code prohibits God from ending an innocent life in all situations, then prove it.

I do not assume that there is a moral code that transcends some other moral code. Innocent killing is bad. There is ONE morality. You assume that morality is situational, relative.

And in point of fact, wasn't it you who just recently argued in a recent thread on LDS leadership succession that

What would current Church policy say to that?

1. The Church does not have a policy about whether Brigham Young should have automatically become president and if it did at the time, their would have been no succession crisis.

2. If you want to stipulate that your arguments do not have to be in alignment with Church doctrine and policy, okay - you might have a point. Is that what you are saying - that your beliefs are not in alignment?

This is a minor point and I don’t think it’s worth haggling over. By way of clarification, though: I’m not saying they have “sinned”; I was just suggesting that if we take “innocent” as some kind of synonym for “unconditionally protected from God’s power to kill” – we have no idea what goes on in God’s mind, or what kind of criteria He uses in determining whose time on this earth ought now to end. As long as you limit the definition of "innocent" to "blameless", I have no quibbles.

Yeah - how about this: we just use the definition of the word: Uncorrupted by evil, malice, or wrongdoing; sinless: an innocent child. Not guilty of a specific crime or offense; legally blameless.

If I have been positively convinced that it is the Lord’s will? Yes. I consecrated my life to Him in the temple; and I presumably made similar covenants in the pre-mortal life.

So do you still expect me to buy that the children in question consented to their deaths?

I don’t know. I hope that’s never required of me; and if I did decide to do it I’m quite sure would shrink from it—just as Nephi did; just as Abraham did; just as we are told Elohim Himself did.

But I do not claim that that aversion is “logical”, and more to the point: I cannot and will not presume to tell the Lord what He can or can’t ask of me. All I can do is to strengthen my relationship with Him as best I can, continue my efforts to reconcile the scriptures with the Spirit and the Lord's anointed leaders; and trust that I won’t be deceived by a LeBaron or a Koresh.

But if you did kill someone and got caught, several things would happen:

1. You would go to prison.

2. You would lose your temple recommend.

3. You would be excommunicated.

Why? Because we believe that killing is wrong and just because you are (would be) positively convinced that God wanted you to kill, we (Church and society) still think it is wrong.

Edited September 7, 2009 by Snow

[Snow]

Literalness does seem to create dilemmas and pretzel-like justifications. Sort of like that story of Jonah swallowing the whale. He would later have a lot of explaining to do at the hospital.

:)

Well - I'd eat that pretzel if someone actually could justify it but appealing to some mystery that we can't comprehend hardly makes the pretzel palatable.

[Just_A_Guy]

Why do I bear some burden of proof but your contention that killing can be moral has no such burden.... and why do you avoid the question?

Because mine is not a "contention" as such; it is a possibility which you must deal with in your effort to have me reject the plain text of the scripture as well as the orthodox interpretation thereof.

So now you have backed away from your argument that God killed children and that such action was good? Why the change of heart?

I think the record speaks for itself.

Think about it. You believe that saying killing is bad nothing more than "the practice of using arguments which seem clever but are actually false and misleading."

No; I say that you arguing that "the text is what it is" while similarly trying to get us to reject the claims made within that text, is "the practice of using arguments which seem clever but are actually false and misleading."

That's is so absurd that it is laughable. You expect me to accept as proved fact that BoM authors referenced innocent killing as good because you posted some scriptures from the BoM?????????????????????????????????????

You can't even show that such authors ever existed, let alone wrote approvingly of anything... for crying out loud. If I showed you a book called Lord of the Dammed that portrayed Lord Byron as a vampire, would you accept that as proof that he actually was a vampire?

Hmm. Apparently, you're right--I am insane. I came into this discussion with the idea that you and I could at least agree that "we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God."

But I now understand that the text of the Book of Mormon is not an authoritative guide as to what is or is not contained within the text of the Book of Mormon. Got it.

I do not assume that there is a moral code that transcends some other moral code. Innocent killing is bad. There is ONE morality.

More circular reasoning.

If you want to stipulate that your arguments do not have to be in alignment with Church doctrine and policy, okay - you might have a point. Is that what you are saying - that your beliefs are not in alignment?

What part of

Oh, of course they* apply to me. It’s God I’m not convinced they apply to.

was not sufficiently clear?

*[referring primarily to Church policy, though perhaps I was not sufficiently clear in the original]

Yeah - how about this: we just use the definition of the word: Uncorrupted by evil, malice, or wrongdoing; sinless: an innocent child. Not guilty of a specific crime or offense; legally blameless.

OK, I'm with you there.

So do you still expect me to buy that the children in question consented to their deaths?

I expect you to address and convincingly rule out the possibilities that a) such consent may have been given in the pre-existence; b) infants may in fact have sufficient capacity to give such consent and in fact give it; and c) that if infants indeed lack such capacity, their heavenly Father has no legitimate right to make that decision on their behalf.

But if you did kill someone and got caught, several things would happen:

1. You would go to prison.

2. You would lose your temple recommend.

3. You would be excommunicated.

Why? Because we believe that killing is wrong and just because you are (would be) positively convinced that God wanted you to kill, we (Church and society) still think it is wrong.

None of that matters in the long run, if the action was truly God's will.

[Maxel]

Well - I'd eat that pretzel if someone actually could justify it but appealing to some mystery that we can't comprehend hardly makes the pretzel palatable.

I like what C.S. Lewis once said about Christ's commandments to us (he was talking about the Trinity, but the principle can be extrapolated to this issue as well). "The commandment is to take, and eat; not take, and understand".

I think we all run into doctrine that we don't like, or are commanded to do things we don't want to. Even Christ would have preferred not to have died in order to fulfill the Atonement, but He still partook of His own bitter cup and drank it all, dow to the dregs.

[Grandmakabipbip]

I was referring to Just a guy dancing around your comments...

[Snow]

Because mine is not a "contention" as such; it is a possibility which you must deal with in your effort to have me reject the plain text of the scripture as well as the orthodox interpretation thereof.

I think the record speaks for itself.

No; I say that you arguing that "the text is what it is" while similarly trying to get us to reject the claims made within that text, is "the practice of using arguments which seem clever but are actually false and misleading."

Hmm. Apparently, you're right--I am insane. I came into this discussion with the idea that you and I could at least agree that "we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God."

But I now understand that the text of the Book of Mormon is not an authoritative guide as to what is or is not contained within the text of the Book of Mormon. Got it.

More circular reasoning.

What part of

was not sufficiently clear?

*[referring primarily to Church policy, though perhaps I was not sufficiently clear in the original]

OK, I'm with you there.

I expect you to address and convincingly rule out the possibilities that a) such consent may have been given in the pre-existence; b) infants may in fact have sufficient capacity to give such consent and in fact give it; and c) that if infants indeed lack such capacity, their heavenly Father has no legitimate right to make that decision on their behalf.

None of that matters in the long run, if the action was truly God's will.

I'm about done with you.

You refuse to support your own contention while demanding proof of my and now you claim that you aren't contending anything, despite having done just that over pages and pages of this thread.

You repeatedly refuse to back up other of your assertions when challenged.

You demand that I prove that babies didn't consent to be killed while in another life.

You claim that saying that killing is bad is circular reasoning.

I believe you have confirmed my earlier suspicion - you are a joke poster who couldn't possibly believe what they claim they do. Shame on me for taking so long to see it.