quote:If the scriptures you hold to are holy, then why do you feel so free to disrespect them?
You ommitted a rather important premise there when leaping your. Why do you presume that our attempts to analyze Scripture with the reason God gave us is disrespect?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Newsflash: Some parts of all writings and speaking are literal and some are metaphorical and some are figurative. Except maybe highly technical user-manual type writing.
If I say, “I left my heart in San Francisco,” do you assume that I had a heart transplant while visiting California, that I fell in love and had to leave my lover, or that I really like the city?
If I meant one of the latter, and you assumed the first, does that mean I’m lying? If I meant the first, and you (being familiar with the song) assume a more metaphorical interpretation, does that mean you're "disrespecting" me?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jesus used many illustrations to teach people. He didn't intend for the people to take the examples literally, but rather to understand the idea behind the illustration.
For example, "if you have faith like a mustard seed, you can move mountains"
Obviously faith doesn't have volume and so can't be measured against the volume of a seed, and Jesus surely didn't expect his disciples to go around moving mountains. He used symbols to create a mental image that his listeners would be better able to understand. So symbolism is very important in teaching. Likewise, I don't think it's unreasonable to think that the rest of the Bible contains other uses of symbolism.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have always wondered about the Christian belief that suicide is bad (or sinful). While I can certainly understand that choosing to thor away the gift of life given you by God to be a serious error in judgement, I've not been able to understand if that is indeed enough for one to go to "hell". Personally, I think that God is the one best equipped to understand a suicidal person's thoughts, feelings, and intention and, therefore, to pass judgement upon them.
Now, aside from all of this I had an "aha!" moment about suicide one day listening to the radio as I drove home. One possible reason for suicide being so abhorant to God is that it is a mockery of Christ's atonement. Christ willingly gave up his life (I guess you could consider it a kind of suicide) for the benefit of all of humanity. He possessed powers making it possible through his sacrifice for all people to be resurrected and also for all people to be forgiven of their sins. When a human being commits suicide, they are giving up the gift that is their life, but they have no power to save themselves or others through this action. That being said, I have no idea if that makes sense to anyone else, but to me it made a sort of sense. Whether God actually agrees is another matter entirely. [Oh - and the song that inspired this little "aha!" - Chop Suey by System of a Down ]
Posts: 5879 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bev, I'm reasoning like this : Either the Bible is a reliable guide, or it isn't. If it is not, then the miracles performed by Jesus, the basis of your whole faith, suddenly look rather less amazing.
Now, I think we agree that the killing and rape of children, as described in Numbers 31, is an evil act. If it didn't actually happen, then the Bible is unreliable in this specific instance. If it happened but was not ordered by your god, then Moses - a major source, if not the actual writer - is unreliable; this weakens the whole initial part of the Bible. And if it did happen, and was ordered by Yahweh, then you are serving an entity of really deep evil. So yes, I do think you should be losing sleep over this; in particular, the last possibility would worry me deeply.
Further, I would like to point out that you are being a little inconsistent here. You do not believe, if I understood your remarks correctly, that Yahweh ordered the massacre of the Midians, because it's not an act that makes sense. But you do believe, I seem to recall, that homosexuality is a sin. Well, why should it be? It doesn't do any harm. You can't argue that your god has the right to define sins, because that's exactly the excuse Moses is using for the massacre of the Midians. It seems to me that if you approve the one, you have no choice but to approve the other.
As for the bit about allegory : That's fine when talking about ethics and moral rules. But Numbers reads to me like straight history. "Yahweh (or Moses) ordered such-and-such a war, thus-and-so an order of battle was sent out, and this, that, and the other was taken as booty." There just doesn't seem to be much room for interpreting this part.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:So that, I think, is why he views this sort of thing as something worth losing sleep over, whereas you're comfortable with accepting that your understanding of scripture is limited and incomplete and/or that the scripture itself contains interpretation/translation artifacts/errors.
Twinky, it has a lot to do with my perspecitve as a Mormon.
1) We believe the Bible is *not* perfect. We believe in it inasmuch as it is "translated correctly". That is why we have the Book of Mormon, and why we rely on it so heavily. It is why if something in the OT doesn't make sense to me, I dismiss it as really not that important.
I think that people tend to underestimate just how much the things in the Book of Mormon effect the perspective of the LDS. It clarifies and solidifies a lot of things in our minds. You have to be intimately familiar with LDS scripture to really understand that. When people ask questions with only a knowledge of the Bible, they are often going to misunderstand the LDS viewpoint.
For instance: On the suicide to get to heaven issue: We believe that all of us will find being away from our bodies a sort of bondage, that we will long to have them back. True "Heaven" won't happen until we are ressurrected. And ressurrection may be a thousand years after our death, for all we know. For us, Judgement and Ressurrection are simultaneous, and both life and after death are time to prepare for that. Life is far more effective a place to prepare, though, for reasons we do not fully understand.
So suicide to stop physical pain might make sense, but we believe that Hell is all about emotional/spiritual pain and that that is far, far worse. (In this life we can delude ourselves, in the next we can't.) We don't believe that suicide will end depression--which is the most common cause for suicide. Pretty much how we feel in life is how we will feel in death. So why do it?
2) I can conceive of times when it is appropriate and good for God to instruct someone to kill another. After all, it happens within the first few chapters of the Book of Mormon. So, in the OT when God tells someone to kill someone, I figure I may not understand the whole situation. God knows far more than I, and he is in charge of the beginning and ending of life. I shrug and don't let it bother me that much.
I know that KoM doesn't understand these things about how I believe. That is why I don't get overly frustrated with his conclusions. (Except when he is being intentionally obtuse.) I just expect that he actually listen and try to understand my perspective when I do explain it.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:then the Bible is unreliable in this specific instance.
We rely on Latter-day revelation, The Book of Mormon (which we believe to have started during the time of the OT) and others, to tell us what parts of the Bible are reliable and what parts aren't.
quote:But you do believe, I seem to recall, that homosexuality is a sin. Well, why should it be? It doesn't do any harm.
Again, you wouldn't say this if you *really* understood LDS doctrine. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
twinky - I'm sure if it's "what the song's about" as much as it's what it made me think about that day. It seems to me that the song is about someone who's depressed and considering (or attempting) suicide. The usage of the phrasology from Christ's death ("Father into your hands, I commend my spirit", "Why have you forsaken me") was what made me think about the relationship between it and suicide.
Posts: 5879 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, okay. So new revelations supplant old ones. Does the BoM allow for future revelations to supplant it as well?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Absolutely twinky, though all revelation is not necessarily "supplanting" older revelations, but better clarifying doctrine. From an LDS perspective revalation is pretty much an on-going thing. That's why it is so important to have modern prophets (who are privaledged to receive revelation on behalf of the church). There have been many revelations received since the codification of the Book of Mormon that have helped to clarify doctrine (for example the book of scripture known as the Doctrine and Covenants).
Posts: 5879 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not talking about things that are obviously symbolic and that are understood by nearly everyone who hears them to be symbolism.
But there are groups of Christians who say that real Christians ought to be able to handle snakes and drink poison without fear. Some (the majority) don't seem to believe that. But is the verse in question being obviously symbolic? Let's see Mark 16:17-19.
quote:And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
That doesn't sound like symbolism to me (except possibly the last part).
And I remember sitting through a sermon about how if we only had enough faith in Christ we could literally move mountains (as Enoch did). In fact, the figurative about moving mountains came from the Bible, it's not as if it were a proverb that everyone would've understood as symbolic at the time it was written.
But that's not even what I really mean. I mean when the Bible says,
quote:31:7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males. 31:8 And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword. 31:9 And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods. 31:10 And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire. 31:11 And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts. 31:12 And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near Jericho. 31:13 And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp. 31:14 And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle. 31:15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? 31:16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. 31:19 And do ye abide without the camp seven days: whosoever hath killed any person, and whosoever hath touched any slain, purify both yourselves and your captives on the third day, and on the seventh day. 31:20 And purify all your raiment, and all that is made of skins, and all work of goats' hair, and all things made of wood. 31:21 And Eleazar the priest said unto the men of war which went to the battle, This is the ordinance of the law which the LORD commanded Moses; 31:22 Only the gold, and the silver, the brass, the iron, the tin, and the lead, 31:23 Every thing that may abide the fire, ye shall make it go through the fire, and it shall be clean: nevertheless it shall be purified with the water of separation: and all that abideth not the fire ye shall make go through the water. 31:24 And ye shall wash your clothes on the seventh day, and ye shall be clean, and afterward ye shall come into the camp. 31:25 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 31:26 Take the sum of the prey that was taken, both of man and of beast, thou, and Eleazar the priest, and the chief fathers of the congregation: 31:27 And divide the prey into two parts; between them that took the war upon them, who went out to battle, and between all the congregation: 31:28 And levy a tribute unto the Lord of the men of war which went out to battle: one soul of five hundred, both of the persons, and of the beeves, and of the asses, and of the sheep: 31:29 Take it of their half, and give it unto Eleazar the priest, for an heave offering of the LORD. 31:30 And of the children of Israel's half, thou shalt take one portion of fifty, of the persons, of the beeves, of the asses, and of the flocks, of all manner of beasts, and give them unto the Levites, which keep the charge of the tabernacle of the LORD. 31:31 And Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the LORD commanded Moses. 31:32 And the booty, being the rest of the prey which the men of war had caught, was six hundred thousand and seventy thousand and five thousand sheep. 31:33 And threescore and twelve thousand beeves, 31:34 And threescore and one thousand asses, 31:35 And thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him. 31:36 And the half, which was the portion of them that went out to war, was in number three hundred thousand and seven and thirty thousand and five hundred sheep: 31:37 And the LORD's tribute of the sheep was six hundred and threescore and fifteen. 31:38 And the beeves were thirty and six thousand; of which the LORD's tribute was threescore and twelve. 31:39 And the asses were thirty thousand and five hundred; of which the LORD's tribute was threescore and one. 31:40 And the persons were sixteen thousand; of which the LORD's tribute was thirty and two persons.
When the Bible say this, I'm going to conclude that it's not speaking symbolically. It does not sound at all symbolic. If we take it symbolically, what are we to learn from it? What does it really mean?
If this did not happen, why did g0d not do something (possibly quite subtle) to prevent it from going into the Bible?
And if it did happen, and g0d disapproved, why didn't he make himself clear that this was not what he expected out of his chosen people instead of explaining how to divide the spoils and how much he should get?
There are enough of a multiplicity of views that one person on this thread said that since this didn't mesh with her view of g0d, so she's not going to try to understand it, why it's in the Bible, or what it means about g0d, etc.
Someone else said that g0d clearly meant for those people to die, and the problem was that the Israelites didn't kill them.
As abhorent as I find the latter view, I find it more intellectually honest in connection with the view that the Bible is the sacred Word.
Posts: 1751 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, it's nice that you think it's ridiculous, but I happen to believe that God is perfectly capable of protecting the Bible.
It's a little early to bring out the big guns, isn't it. Of course God's capable of protecting the bible, but why should he? He didn't write it.
If he didn't want it open to interpretation, he would have sent it down from Heaven fully formed, rather than speaking through the prophets.
And by the way, it's easy to respond to any argument by saying, "Because God wanted to." That's more circular logic.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So if some people interpret that the Bible means you ought to kill people, some other interpret the Bible means you ought to be nice to people, and some other people interpret that it's incoherent, it's all the same to g0d and he's equally happy with all of their interpretations?
If the Bible is the only way back to g0d, I don't see why he wouldn't protect it, if it were going to say things that would lead people to the wrong conclusions.
Posts: 1751 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: It reminds me of something rivka said on another thread -- she doesn't have a problem holding two mutually contradictory bits of scripture to be true because she doesn't have god's understanding of scripture, she has a human's (limited) understanding.
Actually, I hope I'm not misrepresenting anyone here. I'm going on my understanding of their posts, so if I'm wrong I'm certainly happy to be corrected.
Well, thanks for the permission.
That's not what I said. What I said was that I can accept two mutually-exclusive interpretations to both contain Truth (although obviously both cannot be literally true). For instance, there is some debate of the age of the Matriarch Rivka (Rebecca) at the time she married Yitzchak (Isaac). Obviously only one (at most!) can be literally true. But they can all be metaphorically true, especially since each claim of her age comes with a story. Perhaps some or all are metaphorical; that's fine.
(Who knows. Maybe she had done some FTL travel, and really was both 3 and 13. )
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If it is not, then the miracles performed by Jesus, the basis of your whole faith, suddenly look rather less amazing.
I'm not sure that the miracles recounted in the Bible are the basis of a Christian's faith. As I understand it, most active Christians (as opposed to those who are "Christians of Inertia" because they were raised this way and everybody in their family is Christian) feel that they have had a personal spiritual experience of some sort.
For that matter, when I was Catholic, I wasn't bothered by contradictory stuff in the bible, or unsavory stuff, because the bible was not the basis of my faith. What dkw said sums up my feelings on the issue quite well. I believed it was useful as a jumping-off point for prayer or thought or meditation, but that it was written by humans who inserted their own prejudices or political agendas into it--much as I believe religious figures continue to insert their prejudices and agendas into their modern religious writings. In the case in question, maybe Moses didn't give that order, but the writer felt it necessary to attribute it to him to give it (or some prejudice) legitimacy. Or maybe Moses really did it, but that wouldn't invalidate the whole religion. Moses is not considered to have been God or to have been perfect. So if he did something truly atrocious (but probably typical for tribal chieftains of his time) I see no reason why it should invalidate the whole religion.
-o-
FG, I find it fascinating that you found my thread too disrespectful to post in, but you post in KoM's.
-o-
I realize my take on scriptural accuracy may be offensive to many, certainly including literal fundamentalists. It's not my intent to offend, but to describe how I see things. In my case, as I said, the bible was never at the center of my faith (as it tends to be for Protestants). What I felt to be my relationship to God was. So I'm a bit bemused when I see people trying to poke holes in the bible, because it really seems pretty irrelevant to me.
(I do personally consider those all good arguments against literal fundamentalism, though.) But in my experience, fundamentalists are not generally as fundamentalist as they claim to be.)
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you really want this thread to die, or are you just joking on the suicide theme? Because I think it's a pretty interesting thread.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've got a good story for this. One of my religious teachers once told me a story that a priest walks in on god talking to satan, in where god gives satan control of earth and tells him even when you make hate and suffering to pin the world against me, they will still worship me and whats good, because they know not to bow down to one like yourself. Even if god does have a giant plan for everyone in which there is a death date, marriage date, etc etc, in my eyes god just gives us many many different paths to choose from, and death is always an option, so when someone dies, it was just the path that they took.
Posts: 262 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess I'll jump in here with my take on the Bible.
I believe that it is the inspired Word of God. I believe what's in it completely. I acknowledge that some things are allegorical, like the parables of Jesus, for instance. But I definitely believe that the Old Testament stories are true. I believe that it is Big Idea Inspired, but the words themselves are written by men. What I mean is, I believe that God (through his Angels) inspired men to write the Bible, but they chose the actual words to use to express the thoughts and ideas. So, if there's a discrepency here and there, the ideas are the same and that doesn't bother me.
I'm talking small discrepencies. For instance, I was taught the story of Joseph and his coat of many colors since I was a child. I found out many years later that it could also be translated as a coat with long sleeves. When I heard that I thought---WHAT? What in the world is special about a coat with long sleeves? The youth pastor I was studying with explained that Joseph's brothers all worked in the field and long sleeves would get in the way of their work. So when Jacob gave Joseph a coat with long sleeves, it was a clear indication that Joseph was above his younger brothers, not having to work the fields. I could understand why that would anger them much more than a colorful coat. Maybe it was colorful AND had long sleeves. Or maybe it really was just a colorful coat. It doesn't really matter, the story works either way.
But that is a small thing. When I read something like Numbers 31, I read it carefully to see what parts God commanded and what parts Moses or others "editorialized" on. My impression is that Yes, God told them to kill all the midionites including the women and the children and that saving out the virgins was Moses's idea of mercy after the men failed to kill everyone like God had commanded. Or maybe it was God's command. It makes a sort of sense to me. Kill the young boys who will grow up to be a threat, and show mercy to the young girls. I don't know. I can only surmise about God's reasons. I do not think it was an evil act. I accept that God is the ultimate judge and has the power and the right to end life or to command an end of life. I assume that He knew that these people would never repent and that the children would grow up to make war with the Israelites. I expect Him to know these things because He is God. If a human took it upon himself to commit mass genocide, then yes, that is an evil act. But God knows hearts and the end from the beginning.
But He invites us to reason these things out. I believe that with study, the Bible proves to be an amazingly comprehensive book. The answer to His actions in Numbers 31 can become clear with study. I came home with a migraine last night, so I wasn't able to do any study on the subject, and I'm afraid my memory isn't good enough to remember what I learned the last time I asked myself this question.
Basically, I believe that if we have a problem with His commands in Numbers 31, then we have a problem with any judgement from God at all. If He had no right then, then He has no right at the judgement. And that, I think, is a bigger issue.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
another take is that we have, in the bible, a progressively better understanding of what God wants, and, while this is not a popular view, I think you will find very few people trying to develop a Christian theology of mass genocide. On this view point, the story in question might be considered an accretion to explain, ex post facto, why the indigenous people of Canaan grew to be such a problem... as Icarus said, political and personal slants entering in to the picture.
On the other hand, one could argue that the story is in there to show that there may indeed be a time and place for *everything*... that maybe there are times when you just have to say "Carthage must be destroyed" and roll with it.
I am far from understanding the reason this story is included, BTW, so take what I have to say with a grain of salt.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I do not think it was an evil act. I accept that God is the ultimate judge and has the power and the right to end life or to command an end of life. I assume that He knew that these people would never repent and that the children would grow up to make war with the Israelites....If a human took it upon himself to commit mass genocide, then yes, that is an evil act. But God knows hearts and the end from the beginning.
This, in case you were wondering, is why so many of us non-believers are occasionally really frightened of you believers. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, based on what you quoted, I'm not sure why that scares you. It's not like we are a separate distinct people with a pillar of fire by night and a cloud by day representing God following us around the wilderness. It's not the same time, and I would think that anybody who claimed to have God's say-so to kill a bunch of people is a wacko who needs to be eliminated himself.
Gotta run. Back laterish.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Basically, I believe that if we have a problem with His commands in Numbers 31, then we have a problem with any judgement from God at all.
Well, I think having moral problems with some of what is done in god's name in the Old Testament is a valid reason to not worship Yahweh. I don't want to worship a god who ordered these atrocities to take place. "Who am I to judge god?" you ask... well, as far as my own beliefs are concerned, I'm the only one qualified to do so. To believe I'd have to accept god with my heart and mind, and I can't accept a god whose claimed actions have at times been morally repugnant to me.
quote:It's not the same time, and I would think that anybody who claimed to have God's say-so to kill a bunch of people is a wacko who needs to be eliminated himself.
But Moses made exactly that claim. Yes, in a different time, but nonetheless Yahweh has, through personal revelation, ordered mass slaughter. There's no reason to assume he might not issue similar orders again.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's not the same time, and I would think that anybody who claimed to have God's say-so to kill a bunch of people is a wacko who needs to be eliminated himself.
But Moses made exactly that claim. Yes, in a different time, but nonetheless Yahweh has, through personal revelation, ordered mass slaughter. There's no reason to assume he might not issue similar orders again.
Exactly. When a believer says something like that, i.e. It would be wrong now, but it wasn't then, because it happened in the bible and nothing God orders can be wrong, it just assures me that I'm alright in my beliefs.
How is that not a hypocritical statement?
I just remember being about 5 and in Sunday School, talking about something, who knows, maybe the flood, and I thought to myself, "That can't be literally true, can it?" (I've looked at life in a rational and logical manner since forever). I mean, is there enough water to cover the entire world? Even before I learned to write in cursive I took the bible to be a long story with a lot of important lessons, and ever since, I've never been convinced that it should anything more. In fact, people who take the bible literally, cover to cover, are normally so fanatical they scare the crap out of me.
[ August 20, 2005, 12:00 PM: Message edited by: El JT de Spang ]
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have never met a single person who succeeded in taking the Bible literally. I have encountered hundreds who claim they do.
I think there's a role for human reason in understanding God and Scripture. I think the literalist technique downplays the role of reason to an unacceptable degree.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Absolutely twinky, though all revelation is not necessarily "supplanting" older revelations, but better clarifying doctrine. From an LDS perspective revalation is pretty much an on-going thing. That's why it is so important to have modern prophets (who are privaledged to receive revelation on behalf of the church). There have been many revelations received since the codification of the Book of Mormon that have helped to clarify doctrine (for example the book of scripture known as the Doctrine and Covenants).
I'm reading this to mean that Mormons believe that only officially recognized people high in the heierarchy of the church can recieve revelation?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Keep in mind that God had many provisions that allowed repentant ones to be saved, so it's not like God had ordered genocide or anything like it.
Examples: Jonah was to commissioned to tell the Ninevites that they were going to be destroyed for their sins. They repented, thus they were spared, much to the dismay of Jonah.
Rahab was spared even though her entire city was destroyed.
Some Egyptians went with the Israelites because they believed in the God of Israel.
There were laws and regulations that dealt with alien residences, many of which were Canaanites that joined Israel.
So God was very willing to spare the lives of those that were righteous, something that we humans are not able to determine for ourselves.
quote:I'm reading this to mean that Mormons believe that only officially recognized people high in the heierarchy of the church can recieve revelation?
In the LDS church, revelation comes through the prophet and the council of the twelve apostles. Usually in unanimous agreement with eachother.
We believe this follows the pattern in which revelation has always come. Before Christ, through prophets. After Christ, there were the apostles who worked together as a single unit to head the church. Today we have somewhat a combination of both. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Keep in mind that God had many provisions that allowed repentant ones to be saved, so it's not like God had ordered genocide or anything like it.
Um. No, it IS like that. Or is it only genocide if every last person is killed?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm reading this to mean that Mormons believe that only officially recognized people high in the heierarchy of the church can recieve revelation?
We believe that only those people are able to receive revelation for the entire church/world. But we believe that every person in the world is able to receive revelation for themselves and their stewardship.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm reading this to mean that Mormons believe that only officially recognized people high in the heierarchy of the church can recieve revelation?
Not exactly. We believe that anyone can receive revelation from God concerning their own lives and for specific responsibilities they have been given. Parents can receive revelation to help guide their families, for example. Leaders of congregations can receive revelation pertinent to the needs of the congregation. General leaders over the whole church can receive revelation pertinent to their responsibilities.
Because the Church leaders are called and recognized in an orderly fashion, Church members always can know who actually might be inspired on their behalf and who is full of it.
We believe that God continues to reveal important truths and give strength and comfort to his children. We also believe that such revelation, especially when it pertains to the Church in general, is given and broadcast to the Church in an orderly manner.
Edit: Not bad, I came in third! And first and second place are a tag team.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Um. No, it IS like that. Or is it only genocide if every last person is killed?
God was not trying to exterminate an entire national, ethnic, racial, or political group. He spared the lives of the righteous and he did not exclude the Israelites from punishment, even though they were his chosen nation. It was essentially a war against sinners.
I suppose you could consider all sinners as a group that was being exterminated, thus they would be facing a type of genocide. It's also possible that out of an entire nation no righteous people could be found. The nation would then be exterminated, even though that wasn't the main intention. You could maybe call that Incidental Genocide.
So I guess I can't say that it could not in any way be considered genocide. However, it was never God's purpose to exterminate an entire national group because of nationality.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
camus, God ordered the deaths of infants and the wiping out of entire groups of people without regard to individual "righteousness" as the Jews entered the promised land. God had to be talked into considering the righteousness of even a few in Sodom and Gemorrah. When Herod ordered the deaths of newborns, we view him as a monster. I think there's at least room for non-believers to want to have that kind of thing explained before they'd sign on to God's team.
Your assertion that God always offered a way out for the righteous and repentant doesn't quite seem to be true if the stories are accurate.
Maybe God sometimes offered a way out, but sometimes God knew that the supposedly innocent were damned already anyway?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: "Who am I to judge god?" you ask... well, as far as my own beliefs are concerned, I'm the only one qualified to do so.
I think this is very well put, twink. (I don't reject the entire notion of God based on it, but I do reject the fundamentalist interpretation of Him.
quote: I think there's a role for human reason in understanding God and Scripture. I think the literalist technique downplays the role of reason to an unacceptable degree.
Again, very well put. I completely agree.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to say, when we're talking about the killing of women and children, 'unrighteous' or none, the discussion of whether it is genocide or not is really rather beside the point. Mass murder is quite sufficiently evil.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: "Who am I to judge god?" you ask... well, as far as my own beliefs are concerned, I'm the only one qualified to do so.
I think this is very well put, twink. (I don't reject the entire notion of God based on it, but I do reject the fundamentalist interpretation of Him.
Indeed. This isn't why I don't believe in god at all, but it is part of why I don't believe in Yahweh.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: However, it was never God's purpose to exterminate an entire national group because of nationality.
So, to clarify: it is okay for someone to claim that God has told him to exterminate all the sinners, and that all the members of a given group happen -- with perhaps an exception or two -- to be sinners?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
[Oh - and the song that inspired this little "aha!" - Chop Suey by System of a Down ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
]
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
