Snow Posted October 29, 2009 Author Report Posted October 29, 2009 I take it from this discussion, Snow, if you were in Abraham's shoes, you would tell God, "no, I am not going to take my only (innocent) son and kill him!"Then God would say, " I didn't use the word 'kill,' why do you use the word 'kill' to describe my command to offer a sacrifice?"(clarification: I am not saying the definition of what happened with the passover is sacrifice. With Abraham was that not a command to 'kill' under your definition of kill? And Abraham knowing God didn't even question the command.)Snow, what is your definition of killing?Think about it. If you claimed, today, that God wanted you to kill your son and tried to follow through, you would go to jail (or the mental ward) and lose your temple recommend and be excommunicated... even if you said that God told you to do it. If the prophet tried to murder his son today, the same thing would happen.Put it in a story 3000 years old and people say - okay, that's sounds right.
Snow Posted October 29, 2009 Author Report Posted October 29, 2009 Hello, Snow,You seem quite bitter....I don't mean this as a cut, I'm just noticing a pattern.....Could you be specific? Exactly what I am bitter about? Why would I be bitter about whatever you think that I am bitter about? I've heard your ideaology before, on another thread. Something about God allowing evil in the world, remember? I was going off on how he doesn't rescue anyone from evil....etc, and you and I exchanged ideas about it a little....What gives? Oh, yeah, I was going on about how there's not much difference between God causing evil and stepping back to allow it to happen.I have my own thoughts on this topic; but, right now, I'm more concerned about your come from.....(oh, right, I was "concerned about your come from on the other thread as well, LOL)Yeah, there are plenty of instances in the Bible/Book of Mormon where God has either allowed children/innocents to die, or has directly caused their death....How do you reconcile that with a just and loving God? I believe that one of your arguments with the Bible was that it was either a metaphor or allegory, and did not actually occur...How would you feel if God actually did take the life of one of us? I think he does take our lives every day, when we all die, personally. This is where I become grateful for the atonement and that we all will be resurrected at some point...What I'm trying to get down to is this, are you thinking/pondering that God really is not who he claims to be; just, perfect, loving, etc., with all the evil in the world?Sorry - can't help you. I don't have any problems, except for philosophical curiosity, with why God allows evil to exist.To the extent that God actually killed or caused to be killed innocent people without reason, then I simply say I am doubtful of the stories. Granted, I can live with the idea of unintended collateral damage - innocent people get hurt in war, even just war. What is problematic is the specific targeting of innocent life that is portrayed from God in the OT.Ever wonder why there are not such historical accounts in the NT or D&C?
Seminarysnoozer Posted October 29, 2009 Report Posted October 29, 2009 Think about it. If you claimed, today, that God wanted you to kill your son and tried to follow through, you would go to jail (or the mental ward) and lose your temple recommend and be excommunicated... even if you said that God told you to do it. If the prophet tried to murder his son today, the same thing would happen.Put it in a story 3000 years old and people say - okay, that's sounds right.I realize that, that's why I said "in Abraham's shoes ..." but I am curious what your definition of "killing" is. Can a life be taken without it being "killing"?How about when someone is translated? Is that killing in your view since their life here was taken?
Snow Posted October 29, 2009 Author Report Posted October 29, 2009 I realize that, that's why I said "in Abraham's shoes ..." but I am curious what your definition of "killing" is. Can a life be taken without it being "killing"?How about when someone is translated? Is that killing in your view since their life here was taken?Not sure where you are going with that but no, I wouldn't say that is killing nor would I say that dying of natural causes - what some in the Church say is being "called home" or "God must of needed him in heaven" - is killing. I wouldn't necessarily agree that God required the dead saints services in heaven but I wouldn't call natural causes, killing.
Seminarysnoozer Posted October 29, 2009 Report Posted October 29, 2009 Not sure where you are going with that but no, I wouldn't say that is killing nor would I say that dying of natural causes - what some in the Church say is being "called home" or "God must of needed him in heaven" - is killing. I wouldn't necessarily agree that God required the dead saints services in heaven but I wouldn't call natural causes, killing.Where I am going is exactly what you said, "called home." I think God can call anyone home, good or bad, it is still home. Why can't God say this person needs a body but doesn't need to take the test? Why are natural causes separated in your reasoning? That's interesting, sincerely. I am trying to understand your reasoning. I thought God often acts through natural means. What if it turns out all the "first born" got a certain portion of food that had a greater amount of bacteria or exposed to some rapid viral meningitis that the others weren't exposed to, would you still call it killing? or some virus carried by mosquito that is killed by certain components of blood spread on the wall? Is it still killing as it is 'natural'?Some would call 'killing'; an act of an attempt to take God's power in their own hands without the authority to do so. But still, I don't see what your definition of "killing" is. I'm trying to understand what is the definition of "killing" because I am having a hard time using that word in describing God's behavior. Please don't respond with another question like "what do you think it is?" I am saying, I am not sure. But you seem pretty sure of the definition. So, again, what is your definition of "killing" (without saying just a few things its not)?
Snow Posted October 29, 2009 Author Report Posted October 29, 2009 Where I am going is exactly what you said, "called home." I think God can call anyone home, good or bad, it is still home. Why can't God say this person needs a body but doesn't need to take the test? Why are natural causes separated in your reasoning? That's interesting, sincerely. I am trying to understand your reasoning. I thought God often acts through natural means. What if it turns out all the "first born" got a certain portion of food that had a greater amount of bacteria or exposed to some rapid viral meningitis that the others weren't exposed to, would you still call it killing? or some virus carried by mosquito that is killed by certain components of blood spread on the wall? Is it still killing as it is 'natural'?Some would call 'killing'; an act of an attempt to take God's power in their own hands without the authority to do so. But still, I don't see what your definition of "killing" is. I'm trying to understand what is the definition of "killing" because I am having a hard time using that word in describing God's behavior. Please don't respond with another question like "what do you think it is?" I am saying, I am not sure. But you seem pretty sure of the definition. So, again, what is your definition of "killing" (without saying just a few things its not)?Here's the definition. Killing = when you kill someone. It's not rocket science. It's not a mystery. It's when you kill someone. That's it.To your first point - God wasn't "calling home" anyone. He was, according to the OT, turning up the heat on Pharaoh, one ill upon another, escalating the violence, up to and including killing innocent people. We know from modern revelation how God operates: No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;To be clear, the scripture says NO power. It's all-incusive. So ask yourself - is sending horrific plagues and killing innocent children (because the king is bad) an act of gentleness. meekness and love unfeigned?No, no it's not. It's an act of violence and horror. These days we call it terrorism.
pam Posted October 29, 2009 Report Posted October 29, 2009 Snow how do you explain the stories in the Book of Mormon where entire civilizations were wiped out due to the evilness and unrighteousness? I'm sure there were innocent babies and children that were part of those being killed. Were the people not warned that they needed to repent of their sins or risk being wiped out?
Snow Posted October 29, 2009 Author Report Posted October 29, 2009 Snow how do you explain the stories in the Book of Mormon where entire civilizations were wiped out due to the evilness and unrighteousness? I'm sure there were innocent babies and children that were part of those being killed. Were the people not warned that they needed to repent of their sins or risk being wiped out?I don't really explain it. I know there are some theoretical difficulties given my perspective but I've, to date, not made a point of analyzing the BoM in that way - except for a brief foray on the Laban killing and I came to no satisfactory conclusion on that.
Gatorman Posted October 29, 2009 Report Posted October 29, 2009 So, let's look at the Book of Mormon...When Christ was killed on the cross, the Earth was made to rent and twain in the BoM area. Upheavels and massive geological occurances. Many many people were killed in this time. Others were essentially terrorized by their survival. How could God do this? Based on your answer to bible stories, it is allegorical. It did not really happen. Or, it is mistranslated. However, we are told the Book of Mormon is the most correct and properly translated scriptures. How is it possible for us to not apply the same standard of explaining Heavenly Father to the BoM? Remember, one of the great heros of the BoM snuck into an enemy camp and murdered the opposing general in his sleep. He did not kill him in battle. Do these stories cause the same problems for you as the same types of stories in the bible?
rameumptom Posted October 29, 2009 Report Posted October 29, 2009 I thought that maybe this discussion does not have enough dimensions yet so I thought I would add a new one. One of the interesting pieces to the story of Moses in Egypt is that the meaning of “firstborn” has been changed somewhat in modern society. We think it is the “oldest” in every family. That was not the meaning to the ancients.Firstborn was a class similar to first class on an airplane. First class on a plane is not the oldest class (seats and food and stuff). It is the “best”. In essence what the L-rd did in Egypt was to end the ruling dynasty in control of Egypt at the time. The justice of death was answered upon all the heads that supported and controlled the rule of Egypt at that time. We should not interpret this to understand that innocent children that had no clue that what was happening were being “killed” off. One of the things that we learn is that to have power to rule over a people there must be some complicity with G-d – who according to his will (based in law and justice) can execute the maledictions associated with the covenants to rule on earth. A primary covenant malediction is to end one’s posterity because of covenant disobedience to rule with justice. Because this is an epoch in the Bible it all has symbolic implications with individual salvation. But because many, even on this forum, do not know or care about such covenants with G-d insomuch that they have neither eyes to see nor ears capable of hearing. As to the blood of the lamb over the doors of the Israelites – well that is a whole other concept and discussion about covenants.The TravelerTraveler,Could you cite this information for us, please? I always like to have citations when possible.As it is, this event was considered symbolic of the massacre of infants in Moses' childhood and in the childhood of Christ. Are we to believe they didn't kill children in those events, either?
Seminarysnoozer Posted October 29, 2009 Report Posted October 29, 2009 (edited) Here's the definition. Killing = when you kill someone. It's not rocket science. It's not a mystery. It's when you kill someone. That's it.To your first point - God wasn't "calling home" anyone. He was, according to the OT, turning up the heat on Pharaoh, one ill upon another, escalating the violence, up to and including killing innocent people. We know from modern revelation how God operates: No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;To be clear, the scripture says NO power. It's all-incusive. So ask yourself - is sending horrific plagues and killing innocent children (because the king is bad) an act of gentleness. meekness and love unfeigned?No, no it's not. It's an act of violence and horror. These days we call it terrorism.Joseph F. Smith said: "It is a very difficult matter to say anything at a time of sorrow and bereavement like the present that will give immediate relief to the sorrowing hearts of those who mourn. Such griefs can only be fully relieved by the lapse of time and the influence of the good spirit upon the hearts of those that mourn, by which they can obtain comfort and satisfaction in their hopes of the future. … I have learned that there are a great many things which are far worse than death. With my present feelings and views and the understanding that I have of life and death I would far rather follow every child I have to the grave in their innocence and purity, than to see them grow up to man and womanhood and degrade themselves by the pernicious practices of the world, forget the Gospel, forget God and the plan of life and salvation, and turn away from the only hope of eternal reward and exaltation in the world to come."Bringing a child back home who is innocent and fully grown spiritually, God knowing that individual does not need to be exposed to the railings of Satan here, is an act of love. I don't know why you don't see it that way, Joseph F. Smith saw a child's death as a compassionate thing. And, Why are you trying to apply rules pertaining to the priesthood authority given to men on God. How much of Gods power you think is bestowed to priesthood holders here? 10%?, 5%?, 0.00000001%? It certainly isn't 100%. It has that potential sure, but the authority given to men is a small portion of Gods. As when men are responsible with small areas of dominion, later they can be responsible for greater things. The quote you give about the nature of the priesthood pertains to the authority of the priesthood given to men and is preceded by the concern about unrighteous dominion. It is the rules given to users of a small portion of Gods power and therefore cannot be related to one who has all the authority. What portion of Gods righteous dominion are you trying to police? The priesthood power given to men is but a subset of all of Gods priesthood power. Or are you trying to equate earthly priesthood dominion to God's dominion? I hope not. That is like saying the Sheriff has to follow the rules given to the Deputy. The priesthood is to act righteously in the name of God, it is not to act like a God. There is a difference! and that is why those rules are given to men (not God), to not claim dominion over that which was not given. I don't understand this reverse reasoning. What dominion did God claim that was not His? I hope you are not saying that God does not have claim to my life, your life or anyone's life or anything in this world for that matter. Everything in this world is His dominion including life and death. I wouldn't want to try to limit God's dominion or apply rules given to a subset of His power to the whole, even in rhetoric. Edited October 29, 2009 by Seminarysnoozer
Snow Posted October 29, 2009 Author Report Posted October 29, 2009 So, let's look at the Book of Mormon...When Christ was killed on the cross, the Earth was made to rent and twain in the BoM area. Upheavels and massive geological occurances. Many many people were killed in this time. Others were essentially terrorized by their survival. How could God do this?Based on your answer to bible stories, it is allegorical. It did not really happen. Or, it is mistranslated. However, we are told the Book of Mormon is the most correct and properly translated scriptures. How is it possible for us to not apply the same standard of explaining Heavenly Father to the BoM?1. You aren't being very creative. One could argue that the natural evil (earthquakes and such) was a natural outcome of the forces of nature when you kill God and interrupt the animating force of his omnipotence intertwined with all matter.Remember, one of the great heros of the BoM snuck into an enemy camp and murdered the opposing general in his sleep. He did not kill him in battle. Do these stories cause the same problems for you as the same types of stories in the bible?Doesn't cause me much heartburn. The opposing general was part and parcel of the conflict and supposedly had guilt that made his fate a just one. I'm not a pacifist.
Gatorman Posted October 30, 2009 Report Posted October 30, 2009 Doesn't cause me much heartburn. The opposing general was part and parcel of the conflict and supposedly had guilt that made his fate a just one. I'm not a pacifist.So, as long as they are guilty, it is okay. Well, Pharoah and his people were guilty of persecuting God's chosen people. Laban was guilty of trying to kill Nephi and his brothers, of stealing from them, and of refusing to hand over the books containing genealogies and the word of God, when it was Heavenly Fathers will. I could continue, but, the point is, the people in most of these stories were guilty as a people. So, guilt...Check.
Snow Posted October 30, 2009 Author Report Posted October 30, 2009 (edited) Well, Pharoah and his people were guilty of persecuting God's chosen people.Why the nerve of those infernal infants and toddlers. The got what they had coming. Why not dig em up and kill em 2nd time just so they know it's serious. Edited October 30, 2009 by Snow
Gatorman Posted October 30, 2009 Report Posted October 30, 2009 Why the nerve of those infernal infants and toddlers. The got what they had coming. Why not dig em up and kill em 2nd time just so they know it's serious.Other than the movie with Charleton Heston, can you please provide proof that infants and toddlers were killed? I believe someone has already suggested that First Born did not refer to them, but rather to the 'ritz' class of citizens.
Snow Posted October 30, 2009 Author Report Posted October 30, 2009 (edited) Other than the movie with Charleton Heston, can you please provide proof that infants and toddlers were killed? I believe someone has already suggested that First Born did not refer to them, but rather to the 'ritz' class of citizens.Now you just sound defeated and dejected Gatorman. Am I supposed to take that as a serious challenge? Someone suggested that "firstborn" (original word = rwkb, transliterated word = B@kowr; definition = firstborn, of men and women, of animals) and therefore you expect me to bear the burden to prove that the word means something other than what it is? Surely you can put on a brave face and do better than that.btw, have you read the Book of Exodus and seen how the Torah author uses the word "rwkb?" Are you suggesting that he is also referring to the 'ritz' class of cattle, instead of the firstborn as the text says? Edited October 30, 2009 by Snow
Gatorman Posted October 30, 2009 Report Posted October 30, 2009 Now you just sound defeated and dejected Gatorman. Am I supposed to take that as a serious challenge? Someone suggested that "firstborn" (original word = rwkb, transliterated word = B@kowr; definition = firstborn, of men and women) and therefore you expect me to bear the burden to prove that the word means something other than what it is? Surely you can put on a brave face and do better than that.No Snow. You can take it however you want. I understand your position, I disagree with it, and I know where I am. I am comfortable with where I am and I know I have the faith necessary to get where I need to be.
Maxel Posted October 30, 2009 Report Posted October 30, 2009 One could argue that the natural evil (earthquakes and such) was a natural outcome of the forces of nature when you kill God and interrupt the animating force of his omnipotence intertwined with all matter.If Christ's death was enough to create massive natural disasters on the other side of the globe, why wasn't the Old World utterly destroyed?Besides that, this explanation seems to imply that Christ lost some degree of control, as it were, over the elements when He died. If that's the case, why were the righteous the ones who were spared? 3 Nephi 9:13 clearly states that those who survived the calamities were spared because they were more righteous than the ones who were killed. So, did God lose all control, or just part? If He didn't lose all control, why would He allow innocent infants to be killed along with the wicked (we can assume that there were children under the age of accountability in the destroyed cities)?Also, if Christ were the animating force of the Earth, what about when He was an infant Himself, still growing and maturing? Did His intellectual and physical maturity have no bearing on the "animating force of his omnipotence intertwined with all matter", but His death did?This explanation seems to have too many holes.
rameumptom Posted October 30, 2009 Report Posted October 30, 2009 I'm closing this thread. I'm getting tired of the tension on such discussions, which are no longer discussions but attacks.
Recommended Posts