Is God just?

[prisonchaplain]

In the past few strings about Elisha and the bears, about Bible interpretation, one of the charges levied against Bible literalists, and perhaps against conservative theology in general (both Protestant and LDS, I suppose) is that it presents God in a bad light. Examples

1. Elisha and the bears: God kills children

2. The Exodus & the Slaughter of Egypt's firstborn

3. The commands for the Israelites to slaugther men, women, children and animals when they went into Canaan.

But really...if we're to question God's justice, let's get down to the core issue: Is it just for God to allow the brutal slaughter of his only begotten son, one totally innocent, to pay for the sins of others? Is this moral? Ethical? Right? Why would a loving God require this?

Here's a Jewish response to the question: Jesus = perfect sacrifice?

I happen to believe it is all those things, but what say ye? If if the crucifixion can be justified, how does it differ from the other questionable stories? Or, does it?

Edited October 25, 2009 by prisonchaplain
provide link

[Moksha]

The sacrifice is what makes the story internally consistent. Jesus had his mission to let other know what could be gained by following Him. But then he was murdered.

What sense does this make? Why would God allow the act? The answer, is that the act of murder served the larger purpose of bringing salvation to Mankind. Couldn't this have been accomplished in a smoother less bloody fashion? The answer is that it happened more or less like it happened. Blame history and Jewish writers for not supplying alternate endings.

:)

[Moksha]

1. Elisha and the bears: God kills children

2. The Exodus & the Slaughter of Egypt's firstborn

3. The commands for the Israelites to slaugther men, women, children and animals when they went into Canaan.

The story of the murder of Jesus really does not make for a justification of murder. The three acts you mention here stand in direct opposition to the pathway Jesus described as leading to God. They even stand in opposition to the Mosaic code, which was superseded by the new covenants of Jesus, anyway.

:)

Edited October 25, 2009 by Moksha

[Snow]

3. The commands for the Israelites to slaugther men, women, children and animals when they went into Canaan.

Don't forget about the orders to rape, steal, kidnap and enslave.

... and you may want to include colluding with Satan to kill the family of his righteous servant Job to prove a point to Satan.

[Snow]

But really...if we're to question God's justice, let's get down to the core issue: Is it just for God to allow the brutal slaughter of his only begotten son, one totally innocent, to pay for the sins of others? Is this moral? Ethical? Right? Why would a loving God require this?

Completely separate issue.

In the other cases you mentioned God, supposedly was actively involved in the evil. In the case of Christ, He ALLOWED it to happen but didn't cause it or order it... besides which, The Son, God, freely chose to sacrifice Himself. God choosing to give up His life is quite different than God killing innocent people.

However, your the premise of you thread is flawed. The issue, says I, is not about God (whether He is immoral), rather the difficulty stems from all the evil things that the writers of the OT attributed to God.

[Snow]

Oh - and you know what would be great on this thread - if we could steer clear of attributing the whole conundrum to mystery - ie saying, yes, killing innocent people is bad but not when God does it - why? Don't know... God ways are not man's ways.

[BenRaines]

While we are mortals and value life is it not only a way to an end? Last I heard no one gets out alive. Some sooner than others.

Ben Raines

[Moksha]

While we are mortals and value life is it not only a way to an end? Last I heard no one gets out alive. Some sooner than others.

I would hate to hear Jeffery Dahmer's attorney intone these words as his opening statement for the defense.

[Moksha]

God did not kill Jesus, we did.

Most excellent point. Same with those other atrocities blamed on Him. Imagine, trying to excuse criminal acts by libeling God!

[WmLee]

Old Testament times required sacrifice and that sacrifice to be unblemished. My Savior, unblemished and having committed no sin, came to be the final d=sacrifice for all of us. In the garden of Gethsemane he took upon Himself all of our sins. He experienced every sin we could ever commit and so great was the burden that he bleed form every pore of his body. Then he was mocked, beaten, and then He gave his life, (not a murder) and on the third day he was resurrected. All so we, if we repent, can live again. This was all part of the plan. I think the problem here, Chaplain, is you over look or minimize the atonement.

[jadams_4040]

In the past few strings about Elisha and the bears, about Bible interpretation, one of the charges levied against Bible literalists, and perhaps against conservative theology in general (both Protestant and LDS, I suppose) is that it presents God in a bad light. Examples

1. Elisha and the bears: God kills children

2. The Exodus & the Slaughter of Egypt's firstborn

3. The commands for the Israelites to slaugther men, women, children and animals when they went into Canaan.

But really...if we're to question God's justice, let's get down to the core issue: Is it just for God to allow the brutal slaughter of his only begotten son, one totally innocent, to pay for the sins of others? Is this moral? Ethical? Right? Why would a loving God require this?

Here's a Jewish response to the question: Jesus = perfect sacrifice?

I happen to believe it is all those things, but what say ye? If if the crucifixion can be justified, how does it differ from the other questionable stories? Or, does it?

The atonement allowed righteousness to be fullfilled; What gain for us would it be if God simply made us to come to him if only we beleive and nothing else? he has a wonderfull and perfect plan of salvation and eternal happiness for all of us; and for this plan to be, it requires righteousness, sanctification, justification; not simply omnipotence of God.:)

[prisonchaplain]

Completely separate issue.

In the other cases you mentioned God, supposedly was actively involved in the evil. In the case of Christ, He ALLOWED it to happen but didn't cause it or order it... besides which, The Son, God, freely chose to sacrifice Himself. God choosing to give up His life is quite different than God killing innocent people.

However, your the premise of you thread is flawed. The issue, says I, is not about God (whether He is immoral), rather the difficulty stems from all the evil things that the writers of the OT attributed to God.

You still need to help me see, then. The Father asked the Son to submit to a brutal murder, after a mostly thankless life of disappointments. And this sacrifice is meant to wipe the slain clean on some pretty graphic sinners. So how is it that God is more moral for asking his own Son to become a human sacrifice then He is for ordering the execution of his enemies?

And let me repeat--I believe in Jesus' atonement--but I ask how these are so different? It's one thing that Jesus agreed--but how is it okay for Father to ask his Son to do that...and why did it have to be that?

My own bottom line is that they both follow: God has the authority and moral right to kill evildoers that he created. Likewise, he has jurisdiction to determine that a sacrifice of his one and only Son can lead to atonement. Both are based on his authority and inherent morality.

[prisonchaplain]

Oh - and you know what would be great on this thread - if we could steer clear of attributing the whole conundrum to mystery - ie saying, yes, killing innocent people is bad but not when God does it - why? Don't know... God ways are not man's ways.

You can paint us in an even darker corner--we believe that God ordered the Israelites to completely destroy some of their enemies--including women, children--even animals. So, not only does God's angel kill the Egyptian firstborn, but He orders his followers to carry out equally graphic judgment.

[Snow]

first of all, God has only done that which is good.

25 ...there is nothing which is good save it comes from the Lord; and that which is evil cometh from the devil.

(Book of Mormon | Omni 1:25)

There are many translational errors introduced over the dark ages which wrongfully twist words to put the blame into God's hands... see for example:

JST, EXODUS 4:21 (compare Exodus 4:21; 7:3, 13; 9:12; 10:1, 20, 27; 11:10; 14:4, 8, 17; Deuteronomy 2:30)

(The Lord was not responsible for Pharaoh's hardness of heart. See also, JST, Exodus 7:3, 13; 9:12; 10:1, 20, 27; 11:10; 14:4, 8, 17; each reference, when correctly translated, shows that Pharaoh hardened his own heart.)

21. And the Lord said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: and I will prosper thee; but Pharaoh will harden his heart, and he will not let the people go.

(JST | Exodus 4:Entry - 21)

Pharaoh hardens his own heart...

You have missed the point. This isn't whether or not Pharaoh had a hard heart or how it got it. It IS about God killing innocent children because of Pharaoh.

another example - God does not kill the first born, destroying angels of Satan kill them.

21 And I, the Lord, give unto them a promise, that the destroying angel shall pass by them, as the children of Israel, and not slay them. Amen.

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 89:21)

No - it's not the destroying angels OF SATAN, it's God that is behind it - according to the Bible anyway:

"For the LORD will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the LORD will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you." Exodus 12:23

God did not kill Jesus, we did.

Oh brother.

I don't know about you but I wasn't even in the area on the day in question. We know, at least from the scriptures who killed Jesus, and it wasn't anyone on this message board.

[Elphaba]

I think the problem here, Chaplain, is you over look or minimize the atonement.

Having known PC for a couple of years now, I can guarantee this is not true.

Elphaba

[Snow]

You still need to help me see, then. The Father asked the Son to submit to a brutal murder, after a mostly thankless life of disappointments. And this sacrifice is meant to wipe the slain clean on some pretty graphic sinners. So how is it that God is more moral for asking his own Son to become a human sacrifice then He is for ordering the execution of his enemies?

And let me repeat--I believe in Jesus' atonement--but I ask how these are so different? It's one thing that Jesus agreed--but how is it okay for Father to ask his Son to do that...and why did it have to be that?

For one thing, according to your belief - there is ONE God. The Father, in your scenario, simply asked Himself - they being but one ontological entity. Even in the LDS view where there two 3 ontological entities that comprise ONE God, the Father and the Son, being omniscient, knew what needed to be done and where completely unified in thought and purpose that it hardly be characterized as one asking the other and the other thinking about it and then having pondered it, acquiesced.

My own bottom line is that they both follow: God has the authority and moral right to kill evildoers that he created. Likewise, he has jurisdiction to determine that a sacrifice of his one and only Son can lead to atonement. Both are based on his authority and inherent morality.

That is completely extraneous to this discussion. No one is talking about killing evil doers - though there is no evidence that God has ever done so. The question here is about killing innocents.

[prisonchaplain]

God did not kill Jesus, we did.

Just as the death of this little mother's 5 sons and husband paid the price for the 19yo who fell asleep... so to does the death of our older brother Jesus pay the price for us.

The only way for salvation to come is through the death of Jesus. Make no doubt though, God did not kill His son, we did.

Again, I believe in the Atonement. But, if it's wrong to accept that God ordered the literal destruction of women and children, or that God's prophet cursed adolescents, and God sent two bears to maul them, etc.--then how is it okay that the Father asked his Son to go and become a human sacrifice? He is the first set immoral and the 2nd moral. My contention is that all of those acts are moral because God has an inherent moral right to deal with his creation as he sees fit. Additionally, by definition, God is just and moral. If I can't trust the Bible's account of a prophet's encounter with a group of youngsters, how can I trust it about the atonement?

[prisonchaplain]

Most excellent point. Same with those other atrocities blamed on Him. Imagine, trying to excuse criminal acts by libeling God!

Jesus was sent to become a human sacrifice. The Father asked him to come and do this. Heavenly Father's signature is on the Atonement. My point is that He's no more blameable for that than for the executions of wicked nations and peoples.

[prisonchaplain]

Old Testament times required sacrifice and that sacrifice to be unblemished. My Savior, unblemished and having committed no sin, came to be the final d=sacrifice for all of us. In the garden of Gethsemane he took upon Himself all of our sins. He experienced every sin we could ever commit and so great was the burden that he bleed form every pore of his body. Then he was mocked, beaten, and then He gave his life, (not a murder) and on the third day he was resurrected. All so we, if we repent, can live again. This was all part of the plan. I think the problem here, Chaplain, is you over look or minimize the atonement.

You miss my point and the context. Reread the OP. the crucifixion is no more "wrong" then any of God's judgments. Some have suggested that certain Old Testament accounts are wrong, because they paint God as doing bad things. I say if we can't trust those Old Testament prophetic accounts, and if we can feel free to pick and choose which ones we find reasonable, how can we defend even the Atonement?

[prisonchaplain]

For one thing, according to your belief - there is ONE God. The Father, in your scenario, simply asked Himself - they being but one ontological entity.

One God three persons...Father asked Son to be a human sacrifice. You're also aware that we believe Jesus was fully God and fully human at the same time.

Even in the LDS view where there two 3 ontological entities that comprise ONE God, the Father and the Son, being omniscient, knew what needed to be done and where completely unified in thought and purpose that it hardly be characterized as one asking the other and the other thinking about it and then having pondered it, acquiesced.

Jesus took the hit. Did it pain the Father? Of course. All the more so because He asked his Son to take the hit. But, if it's wrong to slay entire nations bent to rebellion, how is it okay to ask an innocent human to become a sacrifice? Father either has the authority in these matters, or he doesn't.

That is completely extraneous to this discussion. No one is talking about killing evil doers - though there is no evidence that God has ever done so. The question here is about killing innocents.

Like Jesus? He was the only one that was truly innocent. It's supposed to be easier to pick and choose which texts I like, but this thing of analyzing God's morality, or the descriptions of such that prophets give...the whole thing gives me the spiritual willies. I find it easier to struggle with difficult Bible passages, than to try to sift through a somewhat inspired, but deeply flawed, set of spiritual writings, so that I can determine for myself which sections can teach me what I've already decided I know about God.

FOR WHAT IS LIKELY A TYPICAL APOLOGETIC AGAINST THE ACCUSATION OF GOD AS KILLER SEE: Did God Commit Atrocities by Ordering the Killing of Entire Cities of People?

Edited October 26, 2009 by prisonchaplain

[Snow]

One God three persons...Father asked Son to be a human sacrifice. You're also aware that we believe Jesus was fully God and fully human at the same time.

Jesus took the hit. Did it pain the Father? Of course. All the more so because He asked his Son to take the hit. But, if it's wrong to slay entire nations bent to rebellion, how is it okay to ask an innocent human to become a sacrifice? Father either has the authority in these matters, or he doesn't.

Like Jesus? He was the only one that was truly innocent. It's supposed to be easier to pick and choose which texts I like, but this thing of analyzing God's morality, or the descriptions of such that prophets give...the whole thing gives me the spiritual willies. I find it easier to struggle with difficult Bible passages, than to try to sift through a somewhat inspired, but deeply flawed, set of spiritual writings, so that I can determine for myself which sections can teach me what I've already decided I know about God.

One God PC. God asked Himself, regardless of the number hypostases. And obviously it wasn't at the time that the Son was mortal... unless you think it was just decided on the fly.

God, omnipotent, omniscient God, choosing to lay down his own life to save mankind is so far removed from killing innocent babies because Pharaoh has a hard heart that I just can't fathom what trying to get at.

Think of the differences:

Voluntary vs non-volutary.

Supreme Being vs mortal babies.

In order to redeem mankind vs being mad at Pharaoh.

[Snow]

FOR WHAT IS LIKELY A TYPICAL APOLOGETIC AGAINST THE ACCUSATION OF GOD AS KILLER SEE: Did God Commit Atrocities by Ordering the Killing of Entire Cities of People?

Did you even read that?

The arguments are:

1. They were all evil so they deserved to be killed (which doesn't quite explain how it was okay to take the virgins as booty and steal their cows).

2. If you think killing Israel's enemies was bad, just wait until God kills billions of people in the future.

3. The babies were sinners and deserved what they got.

4. Even though the babies deserved to be killed, killing them was a favor.

Are you sure that website wasn't written by a bunch of atheists trying to make Christians look like dangerous nuts?

[Dr T]

I didn't read it but I agree that humans are not innocent. We are all evil and deserving of death.

[Snow]

I didn't read it but I agree that humans are not innocent. We are all evil and deserving of death.

Name the specific sin that makes an 3 minute old infant so monstrously evil that they deserve to be killed.

[ozzy]

I think that all of the events mentioned by prisonchaplain are connected in some way. I think they are connected on the eternal level. In other words, while we as humans contemplate the meaning and motive of these things simply in terms of mans life, God contemplates them in terms of the earths life and even longer. A reason for some of the happenings of the old testament could be found in the Book of Mormon. If we look at 1 Nephi 4:13, it states this, " 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." Indeed in the Bible we see the result of Israels disobedience by not slaying all of the nations. They dwindled in unbelief and left God for idols, thus bringing God's judgment upon themselves today. Even today there is a war that rages on as a result of the Israelites not destroying the Palestinians. Beyond this reasoning, I couldn't say why God does other things that are similar. Christ certainly doesn't qualify as wicked in any sense of the word. I am not entirely certain why the atonement had to happen the way it did, but I know this. The atonement, like all of God's other commandments, happened for a reason that God knows. That reason, and all other similar reasons satisfy me in believing that yes, God is just.