I don't know Syn. Has God changed or has our perception of God changed?
Depending on your point of view and which interpretation you hold to, there may or may not be anything wrong with God taking a pro-active stance on smiting and damning.
For example: If God is indeed Good and all things proper and He decides to smite someone, obviously it must be right because God Himself is the source of Good and since we cannot understand His designs, we cannot question the validity of his actions.
posted
Bear in mind Syn, your question is the root of more than a few doubters.
It seems designed to coerce people created with free will to choose God or be damned to Hell. Might makes right, after all.
Another school of thought suggests that God is working within a given framework and is bound by law and regulation, whether self-imposed or not. While we do not understand the true purpose of God or the role of the Devil in this struggle, it is the way things are and fair does not enter into it.
Or Damnation is an inevitable consequence of Nature, like Death and the only means to escape this inevitable consequence is to love and worship our Creator (who apparently made a flawed creation, one might argue).
quote: I still don't understand that though... Sending people to hell for not being Christian... it doesn't seem right and moral and fair to me...
In my head I always think of God's will as an ultimate force that can't be fought against, the difference that God can think and choose.
But I liken his will to the law of gravity. You can fight against it and refuse to follow it, but if you jump off a building you will still hit the ground. God could make the ground soft and fluffy, but it's not like he hasn't put giant signs up that say "Do not jump, death immenent."
When you follow the law of gravity you will be firmly attached to the ground, (or swimming in the air using currents for uplift ) which is the optimal setting for leading a constructive life. You have the choice to jump, despite the fact that he warns you that jumping will kill you.
Letting you die when you hit isn't cruelty. It's only our own ego that encourages us to do what God has lovingly warned us against.
posted
"God's authority comes from love and omniscience."
Which part of that includes killing all the firstborn of Egypt? I mean, I know what you're saying, Katie, but "He's entitled to kill you because He loves you" seems like a non-starter to me.
---------
Dag, if you MUST extend that analogy, let's pop over to "A.I." -- where the robot is designed with something akin to a soul. Does the designer, who after all intended to create a robot with some autonomy, have the right to recall and/or destroy that robot when it displays that autonomy?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
One belief held in particular by the LDS is that where greater light and knowledge is given there is greater condemnation. It may have been that the people smitten for "seemingly small" things were people who knew and understood God far better than the average person, sinning against a greater knowledge and therefore held to a higher standard than others were. There are many other possibilities also. But there is no way a "God of Love" delights in the shedding of blood.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure anyone has managed to make clear why a "God of Love" feels the need to smite, much less smite people who are closer to him MORE.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is hard for me to follow that analogy. You still have the problem that the creator of the AI kid was an imperfect being that isn't omniscient, as God is.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, some of us believe that our free will does continue after death--for quite awhile in fact, before our "final judgement". Passing from this life to the next does not erase our free will.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Smiting is required for the betterment of the whole. And since we don't know if the person smited actually existed, it's possible God didn't actually kill anyone but rather put on a very convincing show.
Actually, Tom could be God - challenging the strength of our Faith in defiance of all challenges and tests.
quote:Dag, if you MUST extend that analogy, let's pop over to "A.I." -- where the robot is designed with something akin to a soul. Does the designer, who after all intended to create a robot with some autonomy, have the right to recall and/or destroy that robot when it displays that autonomy?
In my worldview, the soul, if it was created, wasn't created by the humans, so they have no authority over it.
posted
Of course, if we are so concerned about death, and God is master over all, people of all ages die every day, all sorts of circumstances. I propose that death is not horrendous.
OK, Tom. I am left wondering, though, if I should bow out of the conversation or not. I speak for the benefit of others also.
If I could assign a reading assingment for this topic, it would be the very, very long Jacob chapter 5 found in The Book of Mormon. It is an allegory that compares the world to a grove of olive trees and the master of the grove as God. It details how he deals with the trees in an effort to get them to live and thrive and produce good fruit rather than wild fruit. Some pruning and destruction is involved.
quote:Dana, I think a more important question is "should I reconsider my membership if my GOD does something I find reprehensible, like kill everyone on the planet?"
Ah. Well, since I think the whole point of the flood story was God’s promise not to destroy the earth and everyone on it, I guess I’m not a fundamentalist/fanatic by your definition.
Not that I really ever thought I was.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
So you think this whole "let's destroy Al Qaeda" thing is pointless?
-----
Dag, if you're going to conclude that all human worth -- which you're pretty much defining as soul, here -- comes from God, then we're going to run into another definitional issue as a consequence of that "fanaticism."
It is, of course, a consequence of my belief that I am worth something independent of my connection to God that I believe human life -- and morality -- possesses and value at all. I submit that a belief to the contrary is exactly what makes fanaticism dangerous.
------
Dana, leaving aside your rejection of a literal interpretation of the Tribulation, wouldn't your acceptance of the Flood story suggest that you believed God had already killed almost everyone on the planet ONCE?
quote: PSI: So what really gives God the right to kill anyone He wants is omniscience, rather than the act of creation?
No, that wasn't my point. I just wouldn't lay that right in the hands of a human "creator" (still trying to follow the analogy although I agree with Dag about God being the creator of the soul) because a human can't know what's best in the long run.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"because a human can't know what's best in the long run"
So, again, is this "know(ing) what's best in the long run" the determining factor? If a human knew the consequences of allowing someone to live, should that human be allowed to kill with impunity if he knew it was best for the world?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Assuming that he also knew it was part of God's will, then probably yeah. But so far no human has existed with those qualities, and never will. A human with omniscience cannot exist. Only God has that quality.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"A human with omniscience cannot exist. Only God has that quality."
Why do you make that claim? Do you have any proof, or are you making (as many Mormons would) a definitional argument: that anyone with omniscience would be God?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: It is, of course, a consequence of my belief that I am worth something independent of my connection to God that I believe human life -- and morality -- possesses and value at all. I submit that a belief to the contrary is exactly what makes fanaticism dangerous.
What, specifically, is dangerous about believing that you have worth to your creator, as opposed to worth that exists in your mind?
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The danger is this: if people have no worth other than to their Creator, and I believe that there are people out here working to defeat that Creator, there is no legitimate reason for me to respect these individuals or recognize that they possess any intrinsic worth. This is, in fact, exactly the logic that permits me to fly an airplane into a building to kill 3000 people who are not worth anything to my Creator.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: 8"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," says the LORD. 9"For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts.
My only proof regarding God comes from the Bible, which I'm sure you already knew.
But then, your only proof for your particular belief is that you've decided that it's true.
edit to add: ISA 55:7-9 NKJV
and,
Re: worth: You assume that I believe that only believers have worth to God.
posted
"For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts."
I guarantee you, PSI, that if a gunman were to shoot me down in a KMart and give this as his reason, it would come as cold comfort.
-----
"You assume that I believe that only believers have worth to God."
Nope. But I assume that you COULD come to believe that.
There are fanatical Muslims out here who already believe that. There are fanatical Christians who believe that AIDS is a plague sent to kill gays, and that the Twin Towers thing was a deliberate sign from God to remind us of our failings.
Once you admit that human beings have no intrinsic worth, and that their worth exists only in the perception of a being that exists based entirely upon your subjective interpretation, you are one step away from blowing somebody up at a sidewalk cafe.
quote:It is, of course, a consequence of my belief that I am worth something independent of my connection to God that I believe human life -- and morality -- possesses and value at all. I submit that a belief to the contrary is exactly what makes fanaticism dangerous.
And I propose that any attempt to define human worth while ignoring the most basic elements of human existence are futile and ultimately harmful.
posted
I mean, I already said that I don't believe that any person has the omniscience that God possesses, and therefore doesn't have the right to shoot you down in KMart.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see I have some catching up to do after my lunch hour.... and probably half of dozen more replies will post as I write this <grin>
Just as someone above used the example of gravity -- a law that just is -- you jump off the building you die -- so it is with the fact that you can NOT be in God's presence if there is evil. Basically he said, "If you sin, you die" just as we would say, "If you jump off the building, gravity is going to make you go downward"
So there is nothing we can do, of ourselves, to make us worthy to be in God's presence. That is WHY He gave us a way to overcome that barrier -- by having Jesus die to cover all of our sins, so that we AREN'T evil when we come before His presence, and He CAN deal with us.
To answer Syn -- in the old testament, they had not yet had the covering of Christ's blood to be intercessor for them. They still had to deal with the penalty of sin in their lives.
So now we have a choice to say, "let the blood of Christ cover my sin so I can stand before you, God" or we can choose NOT to ask for that (He doesn't force us to accept it). If we choose to not accept, then it is the same as saying "I'm choosing to step off this building, even though I know the penalty of gravity, because I don't want to take the gift that will KEEP it from happening."
So you think this whole "let's destroy Al Qaeda" thing is pointless?
Tom, that is an awfully big leap. I believe the wrongful taking of life is horrendous.
But we all die, and I believe that God does have the right to decide when. That is because I believe that He is not only omniscient, but completely trustworthy. I trust Him to love all of His children and act in both the individual best interest and the best interest of the whole, I trust Him to be the balancing force between justice and mercy, a perfect judge.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The danger is this: if people have no worth other than to their Creator, and I believe that there are people out here working to defeat that Creator, there is no legitimate reason for me to respect these individuals or recognize that they possess any intrinsic worth.
Unless that Creator has given explicit instructions that you are to love others as yourself.
quote: Once you admit that human beings have no intrinsic worth, and that their worth exists only in the perception of a being that exists based entirely upon your subjective interpretation, you are one step away from blowing somebody up at a sidewalk cafe.
That's a huge jump, Tom. I could just as easily say that, because you believe that it's harmful for me to believe and teach that worth comes from God, that you are one step away from taking my kids away from me because I might "harm" them.
In fact, you're probably a lot closer to acting on that than I am to blowing someone up on the sidewalk, because I believe that God has ordered me not to kill.
That's the consequence of believing that YOU are the one deciding how to define morality, when, in fact, you are just as flawed as every other human on this planet.
posted
"so it is with the fact that you can NOT be in God's presence if there is evil"
Farmgirl: why did God make it that way?
-----
Dag: that's cold comfort to all the people that God ordered other people to kill, isn't it? If the message is really "love your neighbor until I tell you otherwise," then the only thing lacking is the follow-up command to start the massacre.
-----
"I could just as easily say that, because you believe that it's harmful for me to believe and teach that worth comes from God, that you are one step away from taking my kids away from me because I might 'harm' them."
This is a perfectly reasonable belief, although I should point out that you know me considerably better than you know God and therefore have more reason to believe that this is unlikely.
posted
Aside: While I'm pretty sure that there are instances of it, I can't think of any. Can you give me examples from the Bible where God ordered someone to kill? Honest question, I can't remember.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, I don't know -- and I don't know that I CAN know with this present, human mind. God is just so pure that He cannot be associated with the presence of evil.
Oh, and PSI...
quote: My mother-in-law always says that there are a million ways to Christ, but that Christ is the only way to God.
quote:Which part of that includes killing all the firstborn of Egypt? I mean, I know what you're saying, Katie, but "He's entitled to kill you because He loves you" seems like a non-starter to me.
Hmm...so you're saying that even if you granted that God did create us
"He's right to kill you because of his love and ominiscience." That statement is acceptable - the true love guarantees a non-self motive, and the omniscience prevents the "good intentions, crappy execution" problem with a lot of good intentions. There may still be results that may seem to have crappy execution, but once we've granted omniscience, unless we claim for ourselves, we can say we are missing some pieces.
He's entitled to kill you because because he loves you. I think this is like the (ha!) Good Samaritan laws, or the second law of robotics - a good being will not let another come to harm through inaction. If it is better, in the long run, for ourselves, to have something happen that's horrid in the short run, to NOT do it would be an act of aggression and violence. It's allowing a patient to die because a doctor refuses to give the pain of an antiobiotic shot.
He's not entitled by love. He's required to.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I asked a question on page 3 that, while tangential, is still, I think, relevant. Is belief a matter of choice? Do people really choose to believe or not to believe?
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
edit: at least after a certain point you do. When you are a child, you just believe what you are taught. But you get to a point where you consider that you might have been taugh wrong.
quote:It is, of course, a consequence of my belief that I am worth something independent of my connection to God that I believe human life -- and morality -- possesses and value at all. I submit that a belief to the contrary is exactly what makes fanaticism dangerous.
This is, I think, one of our fundamental definitional differences. I not only believe that you have no worth apart from your connection to God, I believe you have no existence apart from your connection to God. And I don’t mean by that just “if God hadn’t created you you wouldn’t even be here.” I mean that God is the continual sustaining of all existence, the ground of all being, ultimate reality, however you want to phrase it. God goes on strike = the universe poofs out of existence.
Edit: The universe, and any other universes that may or may not exist, and anything else that exists.
quote: This is a perfectly reasonable belief, although I should point out that you know me considerably better than you know God and therefore have more reason to believe that this is unlikely.
Oh, I didn't think I knew you very well at all. Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Can you give me examples from the Bible where God ordered someone to kill?"
Sure. Check out Samuel and his conversation with Saul on the godly demand for genocide.
----
"If it is better, in the long run, for ourselves, to have something happen that's horrid in the short run, to NOT do it would be an act of aggression and violence."
Now grant, for a moment, that the person involved is either not omniscient or not benevolent. What checks and balances are in place to ensure that justice is done?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I asked a question on page 3 that, while tangential, is still, I think, relevant. Is belief a matter of choice? Do people really choose to believe or not to believe?
Yes, but..it's not a choice between a rousing testimony and a complete absense of belief. It's a choice, but it's a choice that is made constantly, in a thousand tiny steps. Faith is a gift, but it starts with a desire to know and believe, and acting on that desire and not stifling belief if it starts to grow.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Saxon -- I felt like I answered that question in my post ABOVE where you posted the question (when I talked about Tom's choice)
By the way to everyone: Good to have Hatrack back in full force on this thread! After KamaCon everything seemsed so "dead" for awhile I was afraid we were never going to hit the tough subjects again for fear of offending all our newfound friends.
posted
Actually, after thinking about it, I don't agree. I know God a good deal better than I know you, if I assume that everything God has told me is true, and everything you have said is true as well.
edit: at PSI. Knoew, indeed. I just couldn't decide on a verb tense so I went with both.
quote:Yes, I believe so. Sorry it didn't get answered before.
Interesting. Why do you think so?
Let me put it this way. Being who I am, I cannot imagine any way that I could believe in God short of something like Him appearing to me. I could say that I believed. I could go to church and live my life by the Bible and act in all other ways for His glory. But no matter what my actions were, inside I still wouldn't believe. I don't think I have any choice in the matter. I don't choose not to believe, I just don't. Sometimes I would like to believe in God. I think it would be comforting. Sometimes I even try to believe. But it's not something I have any control over. I don't think anybody chooses whether or not they have that fundamental faith. In my opinion, you don't believe in God or not believe in God because of things like love or hate or the good or bad things that have come out of religion. You just do.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now grant, for a moment, that the person involved is either not omniscient or not benevolent. What checks and balances are in place to ensure that justice is done?
The power of God is the priesthood. No power or influence can be maintained or weilded except by persuasion, patience, long-suffering, gentleness, meekness, love-unfeigned, kindness, and pure knowledge.
If God wasn't benevolent, the priesthood wouldn't work.
quote: Now grant, for a moment, that the person involved is either not omniscient or not benevolent. What checks and balances are in place to ensure that justice is done?
I understand that this is a possibility in the minds of many. And if it were so, there would be no checks or balances, since God is supreme. Who can stop someone who has absolute power and authority? I understand, because I think you have said it before, that if the God of the Bible exists, this is how you view Him to be--Evil.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dana, I've got no argument with your logic there, although (leaving aside our obvious difference in premises) I do have two theological quibbles: a god of that sort seems to be dramatically and somewhat pathetically reduced in scale by the Bible, and furthermore would seem to have no particular reason to do much of anything like, say, the creation of universes. I understand the appeal of that kind of cosmology, but it would seem to reduce human lives to far, far less than toy soldiers; we're not even created as learning exercises or experiments, if you grant your premise, and serve less purpose than either.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
) which is the optimal setting for leading a constructive life. You have the choice to jump, despite the fact that he warns you that jumping will kill you.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
at PSI. Knoew, indeed. I just couldn't decide on a verb tense so I went with both.
