The distance between Christianity and the 4 Gospels

[malkie]

Subjectively, your argument would hold water among those that believe killing innocent people indiscriminately is fine and dandy. You’re always going to have some loonies. So yes, suicide bombers could say the same thing as you suggest. Although, truth be told, they seemed rather adamant that their intentions and understandings were very clear. [snip]
Objectively, however, killing innocents is JUST WRONG. By any objective standard.

This is an interesting statement.

In Christianity and in Mormonism, God is the creator of moral standards. Therefore, God could (and in fact did) say there are circumstances in which killing innocent people is good.

The Bible is filled with such stories, including divine commands to Israelites to murder innocent children of their fellow Canaanites, simply because their parents held to the authentic Jewish polytheism. Adults who refused to go along with the erasure of the elohim of El, Baal, and Asherah into the fabricated monotheism of the Yahweh cult were killed and so were their children, by the direct order of El/Yahweh.

And of course, God himself murdered thousands of babies and children in the Global Flood, as declared in Genesis and in the Book of Moses.

In the New Testament, God literally murders a man and his wife (See Acts 5 for the tale of Ananias and Sapphira) for not keeping the communistic practices of the early Christians. Instead of turning over all of their property for redistribution by the church, they withheld some of it and lied. Obviously, not paying a full tithe should not be a capital offense.

These stories are a real problem for the idea that Biblical God is good. I think are only three declarations you can make in response:

1) The stories about Yahweh/Elohim/El/Jehovah/Baal are not all true.
2) Yahweh/Elohim/El/Jehovah/Baal is not infinitely just.
3) Yahweh/Elohim/El/Jehovah/Baal's acts and commands to murder innocent people were just.

I personally believe the first two conclusions. What do you say?

I've been waiting for MG to explain that these parts of the Bible are some of the ones that were not translated correctly.

[MG 2.0]

Subjectively, your argument would hold water among those that believe killing innocent people indiscriminately is fine and dandy. You’re always going to have some loonies. So yes, suicide bombers could say the same thing as you suggest. Although, truth be told, they seemed rather adamant that their intentions and understandings were very clear. [snip]
Objectively, however, killing innocents is JUST WRONG. By any objective standard.

This is an interesting statement.

In Christianity and in Mormonism, God is the creator of moral standards. Therefore, God could (and in fact did) say there are circumstances in which killing innocent people is good.

The Bible is filled with such stories, including divine commands to Israelites to murder innocent children of their fellow Canaanites, simply because their parents held to the authentic Jewish polytheism. Adults who refused to go along with the erasure of the elohim of El, Baal, and Asherah into the fabricated monotheism of the Yahweh cult were killed and so were their children, by the direct order of El/Yahweh.

And of course, God himself murdered thousands of babies and children in the Global Flood, as declared in Genesis and in the Book of Moses.

In the New Testament, God literally murders a man and his wife (See Acts 5 for the tale of Ananias and Sapphira) for not keeping the communistic practices of the early Christians. Instead of turning over all of their property for redistribution by the church, they withheld some of it and lied. Obviously, not paying a full tithe should not be a capital offense.

These stories are a real problem for the idea that Biblical God is good. I think are only three declarations you can make in response:

1) The stories about Yahweh/Elohim/El/Jehovah/Baal are not all true.
2) Yahweh/Elohim/El/Jehovah/Baal is not infinitely just.
3) Yahweh/Elohim/El/Jehovah/Baal's acts and commands to murder innocent people were just.

I personally believe the first two conclusions. What do you say?

As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways.
Ezekiel 33:11

The whole of this chapter in Ezekiel outlines Jehovah’s response to lives that are taken through iniquity/wickedness. Certain principles are taught which allow us to see the mind of God when it comes to lives lived and lives lost. We will ALL die at the hand of God. If we are His creations, He is sovereign and ultimately requires that we transition from life into death and beyond. Reading this chapter carefully helps us to AT LEAST understand that God is the giver and taker of life, that His ways are not always our ways, and that He is the judge of whether or not the doings of man are resulting in an irredeemable corruption of a group of His children.

The principle of “better that one man should die than a whole nation perish” comes into play. John 11:50 and the story of Laban in the Book of Mormon.

I trust that God knows the end from the beginning. He takes no joy in the loss of innocent life. The fact is, however, that in a certain sense we are ALL innocent at one time or another and not innocent at others. We all have sinned. In the Old Testament we have instances where God, as Sovereign, carries out the dictums described in Ezekiel 33.

Keep in mind that we are looking through a glass darkly at what might be considered to be prehistory. Those times in which if we were to go back in a time machine we would see a VERY different world.

Are the stories we have in the Old Testament troublesome? Sure.

In an earlier post upthread in response to Gadianton I said, “ your argument would hold water among those that believe killing innocent people indiscriminately is fine and dandy.”

I think that, as we read in Ezekiel 33, God takes absolutely no joy in the indiscriminate annihilation of human life. But there MAY be circumstances that in order for His purposes to be fulfilled adjustments need to be made along the way. God is SUBJECT to respecting and allowing the agency of man…and this comes into the mix also.

Anyway, I think you ask some hard questions which deserve something more than a gloss over. I struggle also with these issues, but I honestly try to look at the various upsides and downsides of arguments pro and con for these conundrums that we experience/see in the world around us.

As with Nephi in the Book of Mormon, concerning the prejudices which he may have had towards his brethren and those that were called Lamanites, and how this may have impacted the historical record we have in that book, I think that we would obviously have somewhat of a skewed and biased view of thing going on in the Old Testament also. I’m sure that there were internecine conflicts already at play before ‘God’ became involved.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I've been waiting for MG to explain that these parts of the Bible are some of the ones that were not translated correctly.

That may come into play, but I think we also need to take a hard look at what the record contains, as it is.

Regards,
MG

[Alphus and Omegus]

The whole of this chapter in Ezekiel outlines Jehovah’s response to lives that are taken through iniquity/wickedness. Certain principles are taught which allow us to see the mind of God when it comes to lives lived and lives lost. We will ALL die at the hand of God. If we are His creations, He is sovereign and ultimately requires that we transition from life into death and beyond. Reading this chapter carefully helps us to AT LEAST understand that God is the giver and taker of life, that His ways are not always our ways, and that He is the judge of whether or not the doings of man are resulting in an irredeemable corruption of a group of His children.

The principle of “better that one man should die than a whole nation perish” comes into play. John 11:50 and the story of Laban in the Book of Mormon.

I trust that God knows the end from the beginning. He takes no joy in the loss of innocent life. The fact is, however, that in a certain sense we are ALL innocent at one time or another and not innocent at others. We all have sinned. In the Old Testament we have instances where God, as Sovereign, carries out the dictums described in Ezekiel 33.

I would hope that you really don't mean to say that infant sons and daughters of Jewish pagans or the babies that were killed in the Noahic Flood were somehow guilty of something. Obviously, they did not deserve to be killed simply because of who their parents were.

Are the stories we have in the Old Testament troublesome? Sure.

In an earlier post upthread in response to Gadianton I said, “ your argument would hold water among those that believe killing innocent people indiscriminately is fine and dandy.”

I think that, as we read in Ezekiel 33, God takes absolutely no joy in the indiscriminate annihilation of human life. But there MAY be circumstances that in order for His purposes to be fulfilled adjustments need to be made along the way.

Drowning millions of babies and children seems pretty indiscriminate to me. And please note also that the divinely committed or ordered violence is not limited to the Old Testament. Ananias and Sapphira didn't deserve to be killed because they didn't want to be Christian communists.

As with Nephi in the Book of Mormon, concerning the prejudices which he may have had towards his brethren and those that were called Lamanites, and how this may have impacted the historical record we have in that book, I think that we would obviously have somewhat of a skewed and biased view of thing going on in the Old Testament also. I’m sure that there were internecine conflicts already at play before ‘God’ became involved.

Yes, good point.

[malkie]

I've been waiting for MG to explain that these parts of the Bible are some of the ones that were not translated correctly.

That may come into play, but I think we also need to take a hard look at what the record contains, as it is.

Regards,
MG

I know you've spread yourself pretty thin here, but you are leaving a lot of unanswered points behind - partly by not addressing complete comments, and partly by addressing only small sections of comments.

It's difficult to tell if this is deliberate or simply a function of the time you care to spend here.

But it does give the impression that, by default, you are not challenging a lot of points that you would be expected to disagree with.

OTOH, if your response is going to be "believe what you like", then it doesn't really matter.

Even in this case, where you respond to a small part of a comment, and ignore the rest, your answer is anemic - to paraphrase: "Maybe - needs more study".

[MG 2.0]

That may come into play, but I think we also need to take a hard look at what the record contains, as it is.

Regards,
MG

I know you've spread yourself pretty thin here, but you are leaving a lot of unanswered points behind - partly by not addressing complete comments, and partly by addressing only small sections of comments.

It's difficult to tell if this is deliberate or simply a function of the time you care to spend here.

But it does give the impression that, by default, you are not challenging a lot of points that you would be expected to disagree with.

OTOH, if your response is going to be "believe what you like", then it doesn't really matter.

Even in this case, where you respond to a small part of a comment, and ignore the rest, your answer is anemic - to paraphrase: "Maybe - needs more study".

I think that Ezekiel 33 answers many questions that can be asked in the main/conglomerate. You may not like where the scriptures lead in that chapter, but nonetheless, they put things into place. I realize that using scripture to explain why God may or may not do this or that doesn't meet your expectations of a thorough/rational answer to the thrust of the questions/doubts/concerns that you have. And if I'm not mistaken you are either agnostic or atheist in your leanings...a doubter...so using 'God's word' to give voice to why certain atrocities occur in the Old Testament is, to you, like using any of the fairy tale gods/rulers/wizards as an authoritative source to narrate the goings on of a tale.

But God isn't a wizard or fairy tale character. He is real. He is sovereign. Ezekiel 33 has REAL meaning. Unless, of course, you truly see it as some kind of fairy tale with made up characters.

You asked me to comment. I used the Bible itself as a resource to answer your questions, in the main, and yet you KNOW you can't go down that path. If you do, you seem to think that you then are obligated to see God as a monster of some sort. My argument is that no, you don't.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I would hope that you really don't mean to say that infant sons and daughters of Jewish pagans or the babies that were killed in the Noahic Flood were somehow guilty of something.

No. But I think that there is a line between indiscriminate killing and that which is not. We observe large scale death and destruction throughout history. Many innocents are killed. One would assume that God could have somehow alleviated and/or stopped the carnage and destruction from happening. Does that make God a monster?

I don't think that one necessarily has to go down that path.

I think the important question to be asked is, "What is God's intent?" when we see the terrible evil and death and destruction of innocents along with those that might better deserve God's wrath, etc.

The answer to that question makes all the difference.

And we, as mere mortals, are left to think about that and come to our own conclusions.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Drowning millions of babies and children seems pretty indiscriminate to me.

One minor quibble. We don’t know what those numbers may have been relative to the number of ‘wicked’ that were killed. It depends on the size and scope of the flood described in the Old Testament. Admittedly, anytime innocents are lost in any type of catastrophe, it is unfortunate and sad.

It comes back to ‘indiscriminate’ and the judgement/intent of God during these times of calamity.

This life compared to eternity is pretty darn short. He knows the end from the beginning.

But then again, if there is no God, then well…

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

Drowning millions of babies and children seems pretty indiscriminate to me.

One minor quibble. We don’t know what those numbers may have been relative to the number of ‘wicked’ that were killed. It depends on the size and scope of the flood described in the Old Testament. Admittedly, anytime innocents are lost in any type of catastrophe, it is unfortunate and sad.

It comes back to ‘indiscriminate’ and the judgement/intent of God during these times of calamity.

This life compared to eternity is pretty darn short. He knows the end from the beginning.

But then again, if there is no God, then well…

Regards,
MG

It's really sad when an all-powerful god's hands are so tied that he has to kill innocents.

What do you mean "It depends on the size and scope of the flood described in the Old Testament."? Do you have a choice in what to believe?

Those of us who read and believe the scriptures are aware of the warnings of prophets concerning catastrophes that have come to pass and are yet to come to pass. There was the great Flood, when waters covered the earth and when, as Peter says, only “eight souls were saved” (1 Pet. 3:20).

Is not today much like Noah’s day, when the population of the earth was wiped out in the Flood and but eight souls were saved? (see Genesis 7; 1 Peter 3:20).

Is not today much like Noah’s day when the population of the earth was wiped out in the flood and but eight righteous souls were spared? Some doubt that there was a flood, but by modern revelation we know that it did take place. By modern revelation we know that for more than a century, Noah pleaded with the people to repent, but in their willful stubbornness they would not listen.

[MG 2.0]

What do you mean "It depends on the size and scope of the flood described in the Old Testament."? Do you have a choice in what to believe?

I’ve never thought otherwise.

Here’s a good place to start:

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/article ... d-story-2/

And we have an apostle who gave us this:

Many of the scientific world having discovered that the earth is round and not flat as the people of the Old Testament evidently believed it to be have ungenerously . . . thrown the good book into the discard. . . . They point out with glowing satisfaction that the God of the Hebrews is a capricious, jealous, tribal God, fighting the battles of his favored people and reveling in the defeat of their enemies. And then in . . . triumph they point to the so-called miracles of the Bible: the standing still of the sun, the incarceration of Jonah in the belly of the fish . . . and tell you that all these accounts are manifestly untrue because they contravene the known laws of nature.

[So] what if Hebrew prophets, conversant with only a small fraction of the surface of the earth, thinking and writing in terms of their own limited geography and tribal relations did interpret [God] in terms of a tribal king and so limit His personality and the laws of the universe under His control to the dominion with which they were familiar? Can any interpreter even though he be inspired present his interpretation and conception in terms other than those with which he has had experience and acquaintance? Even under the assumption that Divinity may manifest to the prophet higher and more exalted truths than he has ever before known and unfold to his spiritual eyes visions of the past, forecasts of the future, and circumstances of the ut- most novelty, how will the inspired man interpret? Manifestly, I think, in the language he knows and in the terms of expression with which his knowledge and experience have made him familiar. So is it not therefore ungenerous, unfair and unreasonable to impugn the validity and the whole worth of the Bible merely because of the limited knowledge of astronomy and geography that its writers possessed[?].”

Stephen L. Richards

https://sunstone.org/wp-content/uploads ... -27-45.pdf

Yes, we have a choice of what to believe as active and believing members of the CofJCofLDS.

It’s interesting, at least to me, that the critics and disaffected don’t seem to understand this.

Regards,
MG