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

[_harmony]

God letting someone die: Ruth 1:3

You don't even know the nature of that death. For all you know he could have been smitten by a thunderbolt from heaven. I meant a death that you can actually evaluate. Please try again.

You asked for a death. I gave you a death.

God killing someone(s): Gen 7:21-23 and Exodus 14-28

Gen. 7:21-23 - As has already been pointed out, God gave the people 200 years to accept his invitation to not die. He said a flood was coming and he offered salvation to all who wanted it, so those who rejected him he merely let die.

Exodus 14-28 - Would you mind be a little more specific please?

[/quote]

Sorry, typo. Exodus 14:28.

It makes no difference how long God has to wait. He waits. Those people were not 200 years old. There were children there, innocents, ordinary people whose lives were cut short, unable to repent, unable to fulfill their time on earth. God doesn't get to make anyone's decisions. That's what agency is all about.

I've never believed that Christ was the God of the Old Testament. That simply does not track. The only "god" that the God of the Old Testament fits is Satan.

[_maklelan]

You asked for a death. I gave you a death.

No, I asked for a death you thought was allowed by God rather than caused by God. What in this verse leads you to conclude that it was allowed and not caused by God?

Sorry, typo. Exodus 14:28.

That says Moses killed them.

It makes no difference how long God has to wait. He waits. Those people were not 200 years old. There were children there, innocents, ordinary people whose lives were cut short, unable to repent, unable to fulfill their time on earth. God doesn't get to make anyone's decisions. That's what agency is all about.

So we get to decide when we die? Was that in the contract?

I've never believed that Christ was the God of the Old Testament. That simply does not track. The only "god" that the God of the Old Testament fits is Satan.

Based on the box from which you view the Old Testament I understand why you think that.

[_harmony]

You asked for a death. I gave you a death.

No, I asked for a death you thought was allowed by God rather than caused by God. What in this verse leads you to conclude that it was allowed and not caused by God?

Where does it say God caused him to die?

Sorry, typo. Exodus 14:28.

That says Moses killed them.

It says water killed them. In the previous verse (27) it says "The Lord" overthrew them, not Moses.

It makes no difference how long God has to wait. He waits. Those people were not 200 years old. There were children there, innocents, ordinary people whose lives were cut short, unable to repent, unable to fulfill their time on earth. God doesn't get to make anyone's decisions. That's what agency is all about.

So we get to decide when we die? Was that in the contract?

To a certain extent, yes. Otherwise, we're just puppets on a string.

I've never believed that Christ was the God of the Old Testament. That simply does not track. The only "god" that the God of the Old Testament fits is Satan.

Based on the box from which you view the Old Testament I understand why you think that.

*blink*

[_maklelan]

Where does it say God caused him to die?

It doesn't say he caused it or let it. I'm looking for an example that at least gives the cause of death.

It says water killed them. In the previous verse (27) it says "The Lord" overthrew them, not Moses.

So what does it mean the Lord "overthrew them"?

To a certain extent, yes. Otherwise, we're just puppets on a string.

That analogy doesn't work at all. We can do whatever we want while we're alive. How does that make us puppets?

[_guy sajer]

God letting someone die: Ruth 1:3

You don't even know the nature of that death. For all you know he could have been smitten by a thunderbolt from heaven. I meant a death that you can actually evaluate. Please try again.

God killing someone(s): Gen 7:21-23 and Exodus 14-28

Gen. 7:21-23 - As has already been pointed out, God gave the people 200 years to accept his invitation to not die. He said a flood was coming and he offered salvation to all who wanted it, so those who rejected him he merely let die.

Exodus 14-28 - Would you mind be a little more specific please?

Makelan, may I kindly remind you that the flood in the Bible was "global." I see nothing saying that God warned the people in Africa, China, Europe, Asia, etc. that they'd better repent or God would kill them. (Oh, and official Mormon doctrine is that it was a 'global" flood not a limited flood, see Donald W. Parry, Ensign, Jan. 1998.) Are you aware of some missing scriptures that detail Noah's administrations among the Chinese?

Also, what about little children? I thought little children were innocent and could not sin. (I recall Jesus in the New Testament saying something like "woe be unto him" that hurts the little ones and it be better than "a millstone be hung around their neck and they cast into the seas.") Were they merely collateral damage?

So can I safely infer from your argument that you have no moral difficulties with killing someone as a just/moral wages of "sin?"

According to the standard of the Old Testament, I am a sinner (I have rejected God and his prophets.) Would it be just/moral to kill me as punishment for sin?

Makelen, in all honesty, your arguments strike me as indicative of someone who sees humanity as little more than a theoretical abstraction, or at least ancient humanity. Going back to my earlier comment, I am quite certain that as you gain more experience, meet more people, have the opportuinity to observe the world, you will realize that everyone everywhere else are little different than you. They love, hate, have hopes, dreams, desires, feel pain, pleasure, etc. They are real, not theoretical abstractions.

Realizing and accepting this truth is a necesary condition for empathy, and empathy is the foundation of human morality. An empathetic person does not so blithely explain away mass murder as you appear to willing and anxious to do.

You are yet immature, and your views will change. I don't say this as a criticism, but as a statement of what my years have taught me about the course of human experience. You appear to smart and too reflective to lock yourself into such a narrow and, frankly, rather cold-hearted perspective for the long term.

[_maklelan]

Makelan, may I kindly remind you that the flood in the Bible was "global." I see nothing saying that God warned the people in Africa, China, Europe, Asia, etc. that they'd better repent or God would kill them. (Oh, and official Mormon doctrine is that it was a 'global" flood not a limited flood, see Donald W. Parry, Ensign, Jan. 1998.) Are you aware of some missing scriptures that detail Noah's administrations among the Chinese?

I know Don Parry very well and know exactly how he feels about the flood. There's no need to try t ofill me in. Actually, the Chinese have several stories about a universal flood. Two hundred years is a long time to preach, mind you.

Also, what about little children? I thought little children were innocent and could not sin. (I recall Jesus in the New Testament saying something like "woe be unto him" that hurts the little ones and it be better than "a millstone be hung around their neck and they cast into the seas.") Were they merely collateral damage?

If a parent is warned of danger and ignores it they are responsible for their children should harm come upon them. Rather than save whatever children may have been present, he let them die.

So can I safely infer from your argument that you have no moral difficulties with killing someone as a just/moral wages of "sin?"

Not at all. Only God has that prerogative, but you're mixing a consequence and a punishment.

According to the standard of the Old Testament, I am a sinner (I have rejected God and his prophets.) Would it be just/moral to kill me as punishment for sin?

Again, you're mixing the consequence of Adam's transgression with some crazy idea that death only comes to those who sin, and it comes as a result of that sin. You're way off base.

Makelen, in all honesty, your arguments strike me as indicative of someone who sees humanity as little more than a theoretical abstraction, or at least ancient humanity. Going back to my earlier comment, I am quite certain that as you gain more experience, meet more people, have the opportuinity to observe the world, you will realize that everyone everywhere else are little different than you. They love, hate, have hopes, dreams, desires, feel pain, pleasure, etc. They are real, not theoretical abstractions.

Don't speak down to me as if I've never seen the many different sides of humanity. You have no idea what I've seen.

Realizing and accepting this truth is a necesary condition for empathy, and empathy is the foundation of human morality. An empathetic person does not so blithely explain away mass murder as you appear to willing and anxious to do.

That's an appeal to emotion, and scholarship is not about determining the truth via empathy. I am able to decouple my scholarship from my own personal emotions. That you preach the opposite may be an indicator of why your conclusions are so predictable and weak.

You are yet immature, and your views will change. I don't say this as a criticism, but as a statement of what my years have taught me about the course of human experience. You appear to smart and too reflective to lock yourself into such a narrow and, frankly, rather cold-hearted perspective for the long term.

But emotion has nothing to do with objectively analyzing the facts of human history. Emotion and logic have nothing to do with each other. See above.

[_guy sajer]

Makelan, may I kindly remind you that the flood in the Bible was "global." I see nothing saying that God warned the people in Africa, China, Europe, Asia, etc. that they'd better repent or God would kill them. (Oh, and official Mormon doctrine is that it was a 'global" flood not a limited flood, see Donald W. Parry, Ensign, Jan. 1998.) Are you aware of some missing scriptures that detail Noah's administrations among the Chinese?

I know Don Parry very well and know exactly how he feels about the flood. There's no need to try t ofill me in. Actually, the Chinese have several stories about a universal flood. Two hundred years is a long time to preach, mind you.

Well, many an apologist tries to deny that Mormons believe in the global flood. Didn't know if you were in that group.

This, however, doesn't answer the question. What about Africa, Asia, Europe, etc.? Where are the records that God sent Noah or his prophets there too? Without such a record, you're entering into the realm of pure and, IMHO, rather "grasping at straws, speculation.

Also, what about little children? I thought little children were innocent and could not sin. (I recall Jesus in the New Testament saying something like "woe be unto him" that hurts the little ones and it be better than "a millstone be hung around their neck and they cast into the seas.") Were they merely collateral damage?

If a parent is warned of danger and ignores it they are responsible for their children should harm come upon them. Rather than save whatever children may have been present, he let them die.

Gosh, what a guy! Where do I sign up to worship this wonderful being?

So can I safely infer from your argument that you have no moral difficulties with killing someone as a just/moral wages of "sin?"

Not at all. Only God has that prerogative, but you're mixing a consequence and a punishment.

I understand what you're trying to say here, but this is one of those instances in which I have to scratch my head in wonderment in how your thought process works. You're trying so hard to demonstrate your argumentation skills, that you are straining at gnats and swallowing camels.

The cause was that they sinned against God, the effect was that God killed them for it. Punishment or consequence, God still killed them, and they still died. Your splitting of hairs doesn't obscure this fact (actually not fact, since it is myth, but fact if one buys into the Old Testament as actual history).

Punishment or consequence, God still killed them, and they still died. According to the standard of the Old Testament, I am a sinner (I have rejected God and his prophets.) Would it be just/moral to kill me as punishment for sin?

Again, you're mixing the consequence of Adam's transgression with some crazy idea that death only comes to those who sin, and it comes as a result of that sin. You're way off base.

I have no clue from where you gleaned this from what I've said. I've not said anything about Adam, and I see him as totally irrelevant to this debate.

Makelen, in all honesty, your arguments strike me as indicative of someone who sees humanity as little more than a theoretical abstraction, or at least ancient humanity. Going back to my earlier comment, I am quite certain that as you gain more experience, meet more people, have the opportuinity to observe the world, you will realize that everyone everywhere else are little different than you. They love, hate, have hopes, dreams, desires, feel pain, pleasure, etc. They are real, not theoretical abstractions.

Don't speak down to me as if I've never seen the many different sides of humanity. You have no idea what I've seen.

Well, I can infer it from what you've said. You give absolutely no evidence that you see humanity as anything other than some abstraction. Someone with substantial experience in the world, who has observed and reflected on the human experience, wouldn't, by and large, be making the kind of morally vacuous and cold-hearted arguments you're making.

You give absolutely no evidence that you see humanity as anything other than some abstraction. Realizing and accepting this truth is a necessary condition for empathy, and empathy is the foundation of human morality. An empathetic person does not so blithely explain away mass murder as you appear to willing and anxious to do

That's an appeal to emotion, and scholarship is not about determining the truth via empathy. I am able to decouple my scholarship from my own personal emotions. That you preach the opposite may be an indicator of why your conclusions are so predictable and weak.

It’s hardly an appeal to emotion. That human morality stems in large part from the human capacity for empathy (itself a function of the human’s capacity for abstract reasoning, due probably to their larger brain size) is a theory, and one expressed by many others. That people who demonstrate capacity and inclination for empathy tend less to abstract away human suffering is an general empirical observation. How the hell is this injecting emotion into my arguments?

My arguments are predictable because they follow logically and consistently from the moral framework underlying them. Whether they are weak, that’s up for debate (most respondents to this thread appear to sympathize much more with my arguments than with yours, are we all your intellectual inferiors?), but I’m confident that they are quite strong. No surprise, I find your conclusions ludicrous and morally abhorrent. We’ll have to agree to disagree on this point.

You are yet immature, and your views will change. I don't say this as a criticism, but as a statement of what my years have taught me about the course of human experience. You appear to smart and too reflective to lock yourself into such a narrow and, frankly, rather cold-hearted perspective for the long term.

But emotion has nothing to do with objectively analyzing the facts of human history. Emotion and logic have nothing to do with each other. See above.

Ok, so now the Old Testament represents the “facts of human history.” Your entire argument assumes that a work of transparent mythology represents actual history. Yowza, and you call my arguments weak?

Again, I’m not injecting emotions into my arguments. I am merely making an observation based on inferences I have made of you from the voluminous posts you have made on this topic and based on my own life’s experiences.

[_The Dude]

Ok, so now the Old Testament represents the “facts of human history.” Your entire argument assumes that a work of transparent mythology represents actual history. Yowza, and you call my arguments weak?

Mr. Sajer, if you think outside the box of Maklelan's proscribed assumptions for this thread, he's going to ignore you like he ignored me. I tried to make this point already but got no response from him.

[_maklelan]

Ok, so now the Old Testament represents the “facts of human history.” Your entire argument assumes that a work of transparent mythology represents actual history. Yowza, and you call my arguments weak?

Mr. Sajer, if you think outside the box of Maklelan's proscribed assumptions for this thread, he's going to ignore you like he ignored me. I tried to make this point already but got no response from him.

I'm not ignoring you. You bring in an issue to undermine the premise upon which I would like to discuss this issue. I want to discuss it within a certain context, not see who can propose their own context.

[_Roger Morrison]

A "God" who adapts our principles--like how without being an "adaptable God?"

I've explained this several times and no one has bothered to respond. If I have a child and I change its bedtime, is my ethical framework changing? Am I adapting?

RM: You may have explained it, to your satisfaction. However, as i've said before, "...using parent & child analogies impresses my only with the thought--the person doing so seems stuck in childhood with no maturity of their own to draw from. Or they are talking down to someone who they think could not understand a more reasoned answer." Which is it with you Bro?

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.

Jesus used those exact metaphors. RM: Yes, Jesus did. Under different circumstances and conditions. He was "teaching" to those who quite possibly were illiterate. His used parables to bring things into their daily reference experiences. You are not doing that. Ya gotta do better than that--as a "scholar" :-)

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?

If someone were to introduce an argument free from false inference and assumption I sure would.

RM: "...false inferences and assumptions..."??? As you judge them? Come-on Mak, you believe (i think you do?) in a "God" who pulls-the-plug and set fires to cleanse the world of evil... And to hell, or heaven, with the human lives lost. Men, women, children, stock and real estate; its all for their own good... That is "IF" i undrstand you correctly???

It appears that You believe in a capricious, manipulative, end-justifies-means "God"??

No, not at all, but you are examining my argument from an etic standpoint and using eisegesis to fill in what you perceive to be holes with ideas that make you feel good about rejecting my premise. I don't feel that way at all.

RM: Mak, i cannot do otherwise but come to MY conclusions as I understand YOUR 'comments'. (I don't like the word "arguements";-) And, as you--i imagine--i try to "Feel Good" (James Brown:-) with every thing i do. BUT, not at someone elses expense; in this case yours.

Interesting that we are both familiar with scripture and stuff, yet come to different conclusions...

And you don't think educated people have disagreed before?

RM: Why the snide remark? (As it seems? Maybe i'm wrong in reading it that way?)

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.

And I believe that people who would call all death "iniquity" or "abominations" are being a little reductionist.

RM: You misunderstood my meaning; sorry for my inadequacy. I'm having difficulty understanding your abstraction here "...all death "iniquity" or "abominations..."??? What i object to is the doctrine put forth by many Fundamentalist types, that "God" colludes with "Satan" to bring punishments--death, suffering, calamities etc. onto humanity. OR, that "God" of His?Her?Its? own volition brings natural disasters as punishment or warning to Earth's inhabitants.

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?

A God of order who gave people their agency. Simple enough.

RM: On first reading, maybe. However, i sense something covert here? Sort-of not full-disclosure? Do you mean, "IF" a person, using "their agency" chooses to not become a Mormon, then they are/might-be out of "God's" favour and, consequently damned in their spiritual progress?? Or, somthing like that???

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

I have done just that and am perfectly happy with my conclusions, and with life.

RM: Can't ask for more than that, Bro! Welcome to the Club! Warm regards, Roger