Is a god who orders the killing of his children a monster?

[_Roger Morrison]

Mak, you said:

I see what you're saying, and I don't think of it as an adaptable God, but a God who adapts [i]our principles for our benefit. Gravity and the like I think have little to do with morality

A "God" who adapts our principles--like how without being an "adaptable God?" What about we 'adopt' "God's" principles? "Gravity et al" have to do with the workings of "God" and were introduced into the character of "God" by Jesus as he taught of "God's" unconditional gifts of all things essential to life. I think it demeans "God", and agrandizes man, to use the Daddy-Daughter humanoid relationship... However, a person choses as they will.

I think it's a little more involved than that, and I think his commandments keep his children ahead of the curve, which I believe is ultimately intended to influence society, either bringing them closer or bringing their iniquity to overflowing, as it were. I don't agree that this perspective contradicts the nature of God as outlined in the scriptures and the words of the prophets.

"I don't agree..." Are you willing to consider? It appears that You believe in a capricious, manipulative, end-justifies-means "God"?? Interesting that we are both familiar with scripture and stuff, yet come to different conclusions... That some think "God" uses "iniquity" to teach morality seems totally inconsistant with the teachings of Christ. I know some teach that to be the case. However, there i have to say they are teaching abominations that defile the nature of "God" and leads humanity into darkness, IMSCO.

There seems to be considerable disagreement with your "God" concept, as i understand your proclamation?? Maybe you could be more specific? A "God" of order, and unconditional grantor of consequences to all laws physical or spiritual; or a "God" of magic and favouritism?

I suggest our vision/understanding of "God" directly affects the spirit/'vibes' we emanate, and the activities that engage us:

Positive vibes lead to constructive justice, and advancing higher causes. With hope in the future and faith in our divine natures to meet successfully the challenges of reality, humanity advances. OTOH, with negative attitudes feeding our fears and insecurities we shrink from the responsibility of our stewardship and wait for Armagedon to bring what we did not use our "God" given capacities to achieve.

What you believe you achieve. As i understand THE guy, "Seek, ask and find!" Warm regards, Roger

[_Jason Bourne]

No. But all I have to go on is what I have in me now.

Do you feel that a better understanding of human history might change your perception of what their values were and what they could possibly have been?

This seems two edged. I understand you point about culture and God working within the moral maturity level of wherever a society is, but then this seems like God is awfully limited.

And let me premise everything by saying I believe there is a God. Just who He is and how he works is what I am wrangling with. I do not have many answers so I am just tossing out some thoughts.

So, if God expects me not to kill and to treat those around me a certain way, can I not expect for constancy He do the same?

I think this line of thinking is fallacious, and I think a metaphor may help illustrate. I will use the metaphor of a father and a child, not to frame our relationship with God necessarily in that light, but to illustrate in what kind of context rules for subordinates are created. Does a father tell an infant or toddler to not defecate in public, or to chew with its mouth shut? No, he does not. Why? Because the child has different capacities and whichever stage of development it might be in, it is only able to understand and fulfill so much. Does this mean those rules also do not hold true for the father? Of course not. Teenagers hate to hear "Do as I say and not as I do," but in certain circumstances it is perfectly appropriate and often necessary. Should a parent who instructs his pre-adolescent not to engage in sexual activity live by the same rule? Of course not. Different circumstances and different environments require different sets of rules that in no way reflect the personal ethical standards of the rule maker. Throughout all of this has the father changed morally? No.

The logic of most people here is to think that if God commands someone to kill then he must condone murder, but two things must be considered. One, the commandment not to kill utilizes a linguistically different verb than God's commandments to kill, and thos verbs had and still have very important distinctions that are not easily transmitted in English. Second, does a father ever tell a child to do something he himself would never do? Often. Bathe with a sibling, for instance. you can think of more on your own. What I hope this helps to illustrate is that you cannot derive God's personal ethical framework from observing his rules for his creations. To think that you can is fallacious.

I am sorry but your metaphors are weak and seem like cherry picking. I may not stop sex with me wife while I teach my teen not to have sex but I certainly am not condoning I have sex with whomever. I teach them not to smoke or drink, and I do neither. I teach them they will die if they run in front of a moving vehicle and so will I. I am sure if I gave it time I can find similar example. For me it till stands that God should act towards his creation at least as moral as he wants us to be. In many cases in scripture it does not seem he does this. OF course this is why the God of strict Calvinism is fits that God of the Old Testament. He is capricious and does whatever he really wants and since he is God, Holy and Sovereign we little pots of clay are blasphemous to question it.

I must here insert that I have of late wondered if the God of strict Calvinism really does make sense. We are not really God's children at all. But we are His creation. And because He is Holy, the First Cause, etc. as well as Sovereign, whatever He does is right. We as His little pitiful creations are really just pieces of clay that he can dash to bits on a whim. To God, we are no more then a small any that we may crush without a thought as it scurries across our table. Thus, any mercy he gives us we ought to be just so happy about it. If he uses Pharaoh to prove a point and hardens pharaoh's heart, well tough cookies for Pharaoh.

So like the saw cannot complaint against that mover of the saw so we cannot complain against God. Now, this God still seems pretty capricious to me, but hey, if he is really out there and is really this awesome entity outside time and space and he feels like letting 250,000 of His sentient, feeling emotional creations be wiped out by a BIG WAVE, who am I to complain. I am just happy if he has mercy on littlie ole me.

I happen to feel very differently, but I know this was a common sentiment for centuries.

You feel very differently but many others still believe this. Why are you right and they wrong?

One would think that God could intervene in this not only to preserve such a people but to set and example to the others.

He could if his intentions and perspectives were the same as ours, but in that his perspective would be much larger and include the afterlife, would it be reasonable to think that he has reasons that perhaps we don't comprehend?

Is stating that we cannot comprehend a way out of things that really are not rational and may prove that the God of the Old Testament and even of Christianity may not be real?

Well first on Hitler's part, second on God's. God intervened to move the Smith Family, Why not intervene and take Adolf out?

That's a good question, but it also works for one person who was saved by a blessing and another who wasn't. We don't know God's reasons, but I think it presumptuous to weigh them and find them lacking based solely on our own ethical standards and world view.

Why? Is this not sticking our head in the sand?

Well God has intervened to heavily influence others agency. He killed many in a flood and took away their agency. He took away the children's agency as well. Why not Adolf's?

He ended their lives, which he never promised not to do. agency becomes moot at that point.

By killing them he took away their agency.

[_harmony]

By killing them he took away their agency.

Wow, Jason. I never thought of it like that before. That stands as a very profound statement, and foundation for why the god of the Old Testament cannot be God. The LDS church teaches that God sent his children to earth so we could choose. When the god of the Old Testament killed his children, he took away their ability to choose. And who was it that wanted to take away our agency? ... Hmmm... Satan, I believe.

[_Trinity]

Wow, Jason. I never thought of it like that before. That stands as a very profound statement, and foundation for why the god of the Old Testament cannot be God. The LDS church teaches that God sent his children to earth so we could choose. When the god of the Old Testament killed his children, he took away their ability to choose. And who was it that wanted to take away our agency? ... Hmmm... Satan, I believe.

Pre earthlife stories tell us we had the ability to choose before coming to earth. I'm not sure how your status of death or birth discounts that agency. In other words: God - "I'm going to kill you because you are a dastardly wretched creature incapable of reforming. You can choose to be happy with that or sad. But you still get a choice."

LOL!

[_grayskull]

Mak,

I don't think it was ok to kill everyone else in a preemptive strike. You do. I was just entertaining your logic and pointing out that it didn't answer some of the most troubling aspects of the account. Thank you for filling in that blank. After preemptively gutting a possible enemy, the women and children were left. Since they'd have no ideal family life - let's not even consider taking them in and making reparations (though the virgins might due for forced sexual servitude) - Moses got angry and ordered them executed for their own good. It's hard not to laugh, Mak, but really I'm trying.

You ask if there is ever a time when death is better than life. It's a question humanists have often reflected on. It's a question that makes the decision for doctors and family members difficult - when to let a family member go who is suffering greatly and will die of natural causes anyway. It's a matter of severe controversy even among godless, consequentialist liberals whether proactive mercy killing should be allowed under any circumstances. To appreciate the difference, I'd encourage you to read something on the subject of ethics, Something Bob Bennett, who was really unqualified to review most of Anderson's book, obviously hasn't done ( Doctrine of Double Effect.

The above makes this line especially interesting,

While moral relativists generally try to push the envelope as far as society lets them, God pulls the envelope in the other direction as far as is practical

Can you give me an example? The godless liberals, those who the Christian right acuse of being moral relativists, have argued under great condemnation from the morally guided Jesus crowd that it just might be the best thing to pull the plug on a brain dead woman. Sometimes they've been known to support Dr. Kevorkian's assisted suicides. There are cases where they've made a case for abortion on quality of life grounds where the fetus is badly damaged. These cases do in fact push the envelope as far as society lets them. But, your argument doesn't pit God as pulling the envelope in the other direction, he's taking things far, far, far beyond what even the most entrenched femminist society would ever dream of allowing. Proactively killing children who's parents we've just bombed for their own good?

[_Jason Bourne]

Wow, Jason. I never thought of it like that before. That stands as a very profound statement, and foundation for why the god of the Old Testament cannot be God. The LDS church teaches that God sent his children to earth so we could choose. When the god of the Old Testament killed his children, he took away their ability to choose. And who was it that wanted to take away our agency? ... Hmmm... Satan, I believe.

It seems to me that at some point our agency in this life will end. The Book of Mormon teaches this is a probationary state and how ling that state is nobody knows. The argument I have heard against claiming that the great fllod took away the agency of those who died was that they were beyond ever exercising their agency for righteousness, this the spirit would no longer strive with them. This might work for the adults but not for the children. The other argument I have heard is that this was an act of mercy for the Children in that they would be saved and not end up sinning because of unrightoues parents. Neither really works for the Children. Children over 8, in LDS theology would be accountable but they still may not have total understanding or maturity to choose. Also, supposedly if the child is not taught the sin is upon the parent.

But in general, I think that the idea that God ends ones agency when he deliberatly takes their life.

[_Trinity]

It seems to me that at some point our agency in this life will end. The Book of Mormon teaches this is a probationary state and how ling that state is nobody knows. The argument I have heard against claiming that the great fllod took away the agency of those who died was that they were beyond ever exercising their agency for righteousness, this the spirit would no longer strive with them. This might work for the adults but not for the children. The other argument I have heard is that this was an act of mercy for the Children in that they would be saved and not end up sinning because of unrightoues parents. Neither really works for the Children. Children over 8, in LDS theology would be accountable but they still may not have total understanding or maturity to choose. Also, supposedly if the child is not taught the sin is upon the parent.

But in general, I think that the idea that God ends ones agency when he deliberatly takes their life.

Jason,

Wouldn't a state of no agency conflict with the concept of eternal progression?

[_Jason Bourne]

Pre earthlife stories tell us we had the ability to choose before coming to earth. I'm not sure how your status of death or birth discounts that agency. In other words: God - "I'm going to kill you because you are a dastardly wretched creature incapable of reforming. You can choose to be happy with that or sad. But you still get a choice."

LOL!

LDS doctrine teaches the this life is the time to prepare to meet God. One of the reasons murder is considered so bad is becasue it cuts short a persons earthly probation or time to repent. Thus killing someone prematurely, even if God does is, stops their abilty to repent in this life.

[_Jason Bourne]

Jason,

Wouldn't a state of no agency conflict with the concept of eternal progression?

Could you clarify the questions please?

[_maklelan]

Hi Maklelan,

I appreciate reading your post on this topic, so thank you for starting it. I have noticed a particular phenomenon that exbelieving Mormon (that have never been in another christian religion previous to their Mormonism) tend to have a harsher viewpoint of God, and also have a greater tendency to completely abandon a belief in God altogether when they go through the process of disbelieving Mormonism.

I'd like to explore a theory that it is the King Follett concept of man progressing towards God and that God was once a man that contributes greatly to this phenomenon. I think that when humans mentally bridge the God/Man gap they essentially "mortalize" God in a manner that makes it unavoidable for them to mentally project man-like traits, behaviors, etc onto God. The whole notion that God is our father and we are God embryos creates such a setting. God doesn't get a pass because God is/was just like us. The same rules apply.

Do you think being raised in such an embryo mentality skews the concept of God for Mormons dealing with challenges or loss of faith? I know people who were converts to Mormonism from another christian religion, and they appeared to more easily transition out of Mormon theology without throwing God out with the bathwater. God, for them, is a presence untouchable, unknowable, all divine and protected.

Maybe I am up in the night, but as a long-time Mormon turned agnostic I have had ample time to ponder about why I am not inclined to give this God of my upbringing a pass for seemingly poor behavior. Like so many who have posted on this board, viewing God as a father figure sours my perception of him.

Preconceived notions can do that. The project undertaken by Elisha in As a Driven Leaf makes a lot of sense in an issue like this (although it was just copying Descartes). Whatever preconceived notions you have are going to influence how well you recognize and accept truth when it comes at you. If you reject truth just because it rubs your preconceived notions the wrong way then they do you a disservice. On the other hand, if you accept error because it agrees with your preconceived notions it does the same. A good idea is to drop all of your assumptions and start from the beginning. Don't let what other people will sya or think affect your decision making and find the things that are absolutely true. Descartes decided it was cogito ergo sum. Others have even rejected that. Elisha doesn't go that far back, but he doesn't really arrive at anything, really. Build your understanding from there. I did this when I was twenty and looking for truth. The doctrines that fit perfectly with what I felt was the only option for me were the doctrines of the LDS church. I can't imagine worshiping a God who is unknowable and completely unrelated and unrelatable to me. I think that's sterile and cold, and when I read the Bible I don't see a tendency in that direction in any way. I see this sterility being assimilated into the doctrines of Christ in a specific point in space and time, and the event, along with the reasons why, makes perfect sense to me. When I hear people tell me they think that's the way it should be that outside influence (which I never perceived in Christianity or Judaism prior to the apostasy) is always present. I have never found someone who fels that way as a result of independent investigation. If you feel that way you're never gonna consider why it could be wrong, so I'm not gonna waste my time, but I hope you can recognize that your predispositions are not instinctual, they're learned.