Morality, Floods And Genocide

[MaidservantX]

A little bit of Minority Report on God's part, eh, Snow? Although THAT was a parable for how things should not be done, hah.

Some points; not an anwer per say.

To the degree that God was directly responsible for opening the deluge, he did it in response to much more than someone lighting up a cigarette or sleeping in a missing church or even widespread homsexuality (for examples). Book of Moses ch 7 and 8 describe the conditions of society at that time; in my mind including the sacrifice of children in torture, murder and sexual rituals. The children were dying anyway. I also have always imagined that there was a possibility that all (?) other righteous or innocent were in the city of Enoch.

Killing a person is a neutral act. It can be good or it can be bad. HOWEVER . . . one must have the authority to do it; otherwise it is evil. But if you have the authority, it is righteousness. I am speaking of such things as self-defense, and the corollary to that the death penalty administered civilly. That is the only thing I can think of for the average person; no one on earth has the keys of death generally. But God holds the keys of life and death and he IS the one with the authority to make those decisions. The death-ness of the children or anyone is hardly the issue, as again, God has the keys. But it does seem awful to drown, right? So that -- God the torturer. I suppose you could ascribe the deaths of anyone on earth, tortuous or peaceful, to God, so that too, hm.

Abraham abandoning a wife and child is actually the story of Hagar and Ismael. However, there may be more to learn about that before concluding.

The bible stories to me are ALWAYS true, literal, and actual. They are not parables to me. HOWEVER --- there is always A LOT MISSING!!!! That is not the same thing as saying it is a parable. If you take the scaffolding of what is THERE and ask yourself, yes, the problems -- but in this manner: "Something is not quite right with this" one may say; but then you knock about the wood and pretty soon you find that something IS irregular since there is a SECRET PASSAGEWAY behind the wall. All of the things that are in Noah's, Enoch's, and Adam's stories are keys to what additionally actually happened and can be like a puzzle -- but an actual, true puzzle -- not a fake one. Another way to say this is, instead of concluding (I suggest) that two of every animal species could not have fit on an ark, I ask myself, "IF/SINCE that is true, WHAT WOULD HAVE TO HAVE BEEN THE CONDITIONS FOR THAT TO HAVE HAPPENED?" just for an example.

[the Ogre]

We all mature.... of course the canon but remain theoretically open, else when Christ returned, we'd have to not listen to him - or consider his words are meritorious as Paul's and Peter's...

PC,

Snow is pretty smart here (I've taken a long time with the maturing bit and I'm still deciding if it really something I want), but if the canon might be open, wouldn't it be one's responsibility to investigate it? Who knows?

There is a lot more that could be included in the canon beyond the LDS canon that is probably inspired as well, but Christianity has been fearful of that for some reason. There must have been one or two people in the last 2ooo years to receive revelation that is important and worth recording.

I do know, being branded heretical is a problem, but you're hanging out with us aren't cha? You're already guilty of heresy by association.

Aaron the Ogre

[Pelagius]

Let's assume for discussion's sake that the biblical account of the flood is 100% accurate. My point was, even then there was no atrocity. One person or 20 million. Innocent or guilty. The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. Life. Death. Health Sickness. He is sovereign. It's wrong for us to take life -- but not for Him. It's wrong for us to cause suffering -- but not for Him. It all belongs to Him. We belong to Him.

I believe we all agreed to those terms when we entered into this grand plan of salvation. Absolute trust. All our eggs in one basket -- His. Witness the facts that war rages on with his permission, as do disease, pestilence, famine, flood, earthquake, tornado, hurricane, forest fire, tsunami... We as mortals have very little to no control over those things. Do we rightly condemn God when innocents suffers by these acts of God?

Your setting up an emotionally charged scenario by emphasizing the distinction between innocent children and guilty adults. But none of that matters at all in terms of God's morality. Consider that as part of His plan, the most Innocent One suffered and died -- something Jesus in no way deserved. The atonement is the absolute example of injustice, where the Innocent One suffered horrible pain both physically and spiritually, followed by both physical and spiritual death. And it was God, our Father, that planned and executed this grand injustice. It was God's bitter cup that Jesus referred to and ultimately drank.

You might respond by noting that Jesus volunteered for it. But we all volunteered for our experiences here on earth. Like I said, the Lord giveth and he taketh away. It's all his.

And yes, it actually is all good. "Know thou, my son, that all these things shall give thee experience, and shall be for thy good. The Son of Man hath descended below them all. Art thou greater than he?" (Doctrine & Covenants 122:7-8)

[Pelagius]

<div class='quotemain'>

Dr. T., you do understand that Snow's point is that God is perfect, but that the Bible is not. I believe he is calling into question the veracity of the Flood account, and perhaps even of the value of the parable, since it puts God in the position of appearing to behave "ungodly."

Well - I don't believe the Bible is perfect but that is not the point I am making here. The flood story could be a parable of sorts without having to worry about whether or not it is completely moral or completely true.

BTW, I believe the deluge actually happened, although the account is obviously incomplete. Too much happening there to be recorded in just a few pages of one book. Not a parable, but it was a type. It was a type of the great flood of the last days where righteousness and truth would flood the earth.

Enoch and Noah both knew that, as evidenced by Moses (Moses 7:50-52, 60-62 and JST Genesis 9:17-25). The rainbow was given as a token of not only God's promise to never again destroy all flesh with a flood, but also of God's promise to remember the children of Noah and to visit them in the last days with the restoration of the Gospel. Every rainbow reminds us of God's mercy in sending prophets, priesthood, and The Book of Mormom in the latter days!

[shanstress70]

Shan, that's why I'm grateful for latter-day scriptures and revelations. We don't have to rely solely on the Bible. It's like we used to teach on the mission:

If you have one dot on a piece of paper, you can draw an infinite number of lines through it from an infinite number of directions. However, if you have two dots on a piece of paper, you can only draw one line between the two.

Similarly, if you have only one book of scripture (the Bible) then the number of interpretations are nearly infinite. However, if you have two or more books of scriptures, there is usually only one clear doctrine that emerges from consulting both of them, much like drawing a line between two dots.

Would you rather hang a door from one hinge or two?

I understand your point, but I don't believe LDS scriptures are anything but fiction, so that leaves me with little to base my beliefs upon. Don't get me wrong, I do believe the Bible is inspired, but I'm pretty sure there are parts of it that are incorrect... and I'm not sure how much of it is.

[BenRaines]

Shantress, I hope you don't mind me using you as a positive example of a good post.

In her post just prior to mine she states that she believes LDS scripture to be fiction. She is entitled to that belief and should offend no one in stating it.

My response is: "I have read the LDS scriptures and studied them. Read and studied. I came to a conclusion that they are true and the word of God and that they help be become more Christlike. I have prayed to God and received confirmation that they are God's word to his children as clearly as if He had come himself and told me they were.

While I believe differently I respect your right to believe as you wish.

Shantress, do you believe that God intended for you to have so little to base your beliefs on? If he didn't then where has it gone wrong?

Ben Raines

[shanstress70]

If Noah's flood literally happened--and I believe it did (so does Romney, btw)--then God whisked the innocents to an immediate and eternal reward. If it's parable, then there is much truth to be learned from it. And, btw, figuring out what God wants to teach me may be more important than whether the many of the accounts are historical or morality fables.

I totally agree with this paragraph. :)

Shantress, do you believe that God intended for you to have so little to base your beliefs on? If he didn't then where has it gone wrong?

I absolutely do! If He didn't, then He wouldn't leave so much open for debate. He would be asking a lot for me to believe some man who claimed to be a prophet. Other people claim (and have claimed throughout history) to be a prophet. What's different about yours? And what's to stop people from believing all of them?

I think your answer will be that you have prayed and have been told by God that your church is true. However I did the same and got the opposite answer. So no, I on't believe that God wanted us to know the answers or He would have made it clearer. Maybe it's all about one's individual jouney to find the truth... and to care enough to TRY to find the truth.

Hey... thanks for the comment about the post! :)

[Snow]

If Noah's flood literally happened--and I believe it did (so does Romney, btw)--then God whisked the innocents to an immediate and eternal reward. If it's parable, then there is much truth to be learned from it. And, btw, figuring out what God wants to teach me may be more important than whether the many of the accounts are historical or morality fables.

The Bible says that ALL FLESH had become corrupt - so there would be no innocents and it says that ALL FLESH was destroyed.

So - my question is: Since you believe some things that contradict the bible why do you believe other parts that seem obviously fantasitcal?

The rainbow was given as a token of not only God's promise to never again destroy all flesh with a flood, but also of God's promise to remember the children of Noah and to visit them in the last days with the restoration of the Gospel. Every rainbow reminds us of God's mercy in sending prophets, priesthood, and The Book of Mormom in the latter days!

Seriously?

A rainbow is a simple matter of light refraction as it passes through water droplets. Do you believe that prior to the flood there was no light? Or no water droplets? Or no light refraction?

Rainbows occur when light passes through the mist of a waterfall? What does that signify?

[Pelagius]

<div class='quotemain'>

If Noah's flood literally happened--and I believe it did (so does Romney, btw)--then God whisked the innocents to an immediate and eternal reward. If it's parable, then there is much truth to be learned from it. And, btw, figuring out what God wants to teach me may be more important than whether the many of the accounts are historical or morality fables.

The Bible says that ALL FLESH had become corrupt - so there would be no innocents and it says that ALL FLESH was destroyed.

So - my question is: Since you believe some things that contradict the bible why do you believe other parts that seem obviously fantasitcal?

The rainbow was given as a token of not only God's promise to never again destroy all flesh with a flood, but also of God's promise to remember the children of Noah and to visit them in the last days with the restoration of the Gospel. Every rainbow reminds us of God's mercy in sending prophets, priesthood, and The Book of Mormom in the latter days!

Seriously?

A rainbow is a simple matter of light refraction as it passes through water droplets. Do you believe that prior to the flood there was no light? Or no water droplets? Or no light refraction?

Rainbows occur when light passes through the mist of a waterfall? What does that signify?

Picky picky.

It doesn't mean there was no rainbow prior to the covenant -- but at that point, the bow in the cloud was specified as the token of the covenant. Fitting since the bow is the result of light refraction through airborn water -- and they had recently witnessed quite a bit of that!

BTW, thanks for the topic. It's very interesting.

[Snow]

Picky picky.

It doesn't mean there was no rainbow prior to the covenant -- but at that point, the bow in the cloud was specified as the token of the covenant. Fitting since the bow is the result of light refraction through airborn water -- and they had recently witnessed quite a bit of that!

BTW, thanks for the topic. It's very interesting.

The Bible describes setting the rainbow in the clouds after the flood, not just designating as a sign after the flood.

[prisonchaplain]

...but if the canon might be open, wouldn't it be one's responsibility to investigate it? Who knows?

But how? The OT and NT were canonized by committees religious authorities, whom we believe were anointed of the Holy Spirit, and ordained of God. The only such group that has made a change since then, included the deutercanonicals in the Catholic Bible. The books in question were of Jewish origin, and no Jewish authorities have approved them, nor has the non-Catholic Christian community.

So, when Christians are challenged to consider the claims of the BOM, PoGP, and the D&C, we are being asked to go outside of our faith traditions, and to investigate a whole lot more than whether a few writings could be added to the Scriptures. These new writings, if true, mean that our current church authorities must be put aside, in favor of the new revelations and new interpretations.

There is a lot more that could be included in the canon beyond the LDS canon that is probably inspired as well, but Christianity has been fearful of that for some reason. There must have been one or two people in the last 2ooo years to receive revelation that is important and worth recording.

Speaking to my own tradition, we have many revelations that are from God, but they tend to be localized and specific to the occasion. Some are powerfully important, but none have risen to the level of needing to be included in holy Scripture.

I do know, being branded heretical is a problem, but you're hanging out with us aren't cha? You're already guilty of heresy by association.

Aaron the Ogre

I'm safe, so long as I can sign my annual doctrinal affirmation.

[Pelagius]

<div class='quotemain'>

Picky picky.

It doesn't mean there was no rainbow prior to the covenant -- but at that point, the bow in the cloud was specified as the token of the covenant. Fitting since the bow is the result of light refraction through airborn water -- and they had recently witnessed quite a bit of that!

BTW, thanks for the topic. It's very interesting.

The Bible describes setting the rainbow in the clouds after the flood, not just designating as a sign after the flood.

Looks like interest is starting to wane for this line. It was great while it lasted.

Actually Snow, the Bible doesn't say that the the rainbow was a new development after the flood. Here's the scripture:

"And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth."

"And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud: And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh."

"And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth."

The belief that the rainbow was not pre-existent is simply a continuation of assumptions from childhood -- from the child's version of this story. Consider the same language while viewing this as a real-time conversation and interaction between God and Noah.

As God speaks, Noah looks upward and sees the rainbow. God says, "I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant." Doesn't mean it's never been there before.

"I do set my bow in the cloud .., the bow shall be seen in the cloud . . , And the bow shall be in the cloud..."

All of these statements could equally apply to phenomena or actions that had also occurred in the past.

Nevertheless, if God did limit rainbows to after the flood, that's okay with me.

You stated that for such a scenario to exist, that prior to the flood either light, refraction, or rain droplets would necessarily be non-existent. Not necessarily. Walking on water, healing the sick, calming the storm, reading the heart and thoughts of another, all require metaphysical realities with which you and I are probably not familiar.