DiscussMormonism.com

One of the Sunday treats I looked forward to when I was a kid was to go to my grandparents house after church and watch TV. After we fought over who got dibs on the easy chair in grandpa’s den, my sister and I would settle into enjoying Mutual of Omaha’s Wild Kingdom. Marlin Perkins and his sidekick would take us to exotic places to watch the lions, tigers, bears and other ferocious and dangerous creatures. As I look back on the experience, my sis and I kind of thought the old guy (Marlin) was kind of a wimp. He’d always be in the jeep, shark cage or otherwise peeking behind some tree. Besides, the lions seemed kind of cuddly.

Fast forward to last night.

I was flipping through the channels and tossed my anchor out on the National Geographic Channel (NGCHD). There were those big kittys again chasing around a wilderbeast. But something different happened.. Instead of cutting to a commercial about the importance of life insurance due to an untimely death (interesting connection now that I think of it) they kept the cameras rolling. These cute and fluffy animals began to eat the wilderbeast while it struggled and cried out. In fact, I think it mooed for about 5 or 10 minutes as the cats disemboweled, tearing out and chewing the less vital organs till they were finally able to enjoy the meal without all the heaving and screaming their dinner made.

This, of course isn’t the first time I’ve seen this. But I saw a troubling parallel for the first time. No doubt because I now question the veracity of things that I previously perceived as rock solid.

What is God really like? Many today emphasize his unconditional love for all mankind, the need for charity, mercy and forgiveness. Some denominations teach that He is no respecter of persons and that children are not responsible for sin until the age of accountability. He even lets the sun shine upon my enemies in this life. I guess I like that God. He reminds me of the father I would like to be.

Then there are times when enough is enough. When men have been ripe with iniquity, he has made a point to send fire and even water down upon them. For most of my life I could see how I could justify His behavior. The society had gone well beyond it’s redemption and would even corrupt it’s children to perpetuate it’s abominations.

But He has fulfilled His purposes in one other way. And this is what caught me for the first time: He has required the peaceable followers of Christ to destroy the “wicked” as well.

So we look at a righteous man of God that emulates Christ in his countenance. I can see him defending his family and country from the enemies of agency - in all of it’s awful violence. But can I imagine this man in the act of stabbing and hacking mothers, daughters, the feeble, and even innocent children as they choked up their last breaths?

I have difficulty with this image. It does not sit true with me.

So is this God? Has He sent His Born Again true followers to act out such horrific scenes?

After running a search on the word “destroy, women, children, little ones” through the scriptures, it is painfully clear that perhaps it is.

I am not at peace with this at all. Thoughts?

ps - please do not quote my entire post when commenting

I too am having problems reconsiling the words found in the Bible about how loving HE is and then on the other hand ordering the destruction of entire cities, man, women, and children.

In fact I've discontinued my reading of the Old Testimate altogether.

Another problem I have is the doctrine protestants teach about there being a "hell" where supposedly God casts the wicked and / or those who confess not HIS soverenty. I mean, either HE is the imbodiment of Love or HE isn't. Make a choice people.

I'm thinking of being a Buddist.

The scriptures are a collection of stories written by men, men with agendas that sometimes conflicted with each other. Times change; cultures change; men change; men's needs change so men's interactions with God change. Explanations for natural events emerge from the fog as science advances and "God did it" no longer is necessary or believed.

The Old Testament is useful in that it gives us a snapshot of what life was like then. It's an ancient book that survived annihilation, even though the people that wrote it didn't. That doesn't mean the stories are true accounts of historical events. That simply means the stories illustrate a particular aspect of life within that culture that bothered the man who wrote it. A harsh life? Of course. Communication and diplomacy were not exactly valued then, but then certain annihilation wasn't possible for entire blocks of land through nuclear holocaust weren't possible then either. Respect is given based on who has the biggest weapon; back then, the biggest weapon wasn't nuclear. King David might have looked mighty and courageous to someone who lived under his thumb. The same king probably looked quite different to a mightier enemy with his fancy set on David's kingdom. Perspective is everything. I imagine when Lake Missoula broke, the resulting flood looked like it covered the whole earth... to those primitives who lived in its path.

The ancients knew less than we do now, both scientifically and spiritually. There is no reason to keep ahold of their foolishness in a vain attempt to restore that which deserves to stay lost. The Old Testament is as useful as Aesop's Fables. It teaches some correct principles, but it's not God-breathed anymore than the D&C is.

Sometimes only the cattle and spoils have intrinsic value:

33 And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people.
34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:
35 Only the cattle we took for a prey unto ourselves, and the spoil of the cities which we took.

(Old Testament | Deuteronomy 2:33 - 35)

2 And the LORD said unto me, Fear him not: for I will deliver him, and all his people, and his land, into thy hand; and thou shalt do unto him as thou didst unto Sihon king of the Amorites, which dwelt at Heshbon.
3 So the LORD our God delivered into our hands Og also, the king of Bashan, and all his people: and we smote him until none was left to him remaining.
6 And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city.
7 But all the cattle, and the spoil of the cities, we took for a prey to ourselves.

(Old Testament | Deuteronomy 3:1 - 7)

Then sometimes it all goes:

15 Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword.
16 And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, for the LORD thy God: and it shall be an heap for ever; it shall not be built again.

(Old Testament | Deuteronomy 13:14 - 18)

Then again we see that women, children, cattle, food and TREES were on the short list:

12 And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it:
13 And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:
14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.
19 ¶ When thou shalt besiege a city a long time, in making war against it to take it, thou shalt not destroy the trees thereof by forcing an axe against them: for thou mayest eat of them, and thou shalt not cut them down (for the tree of the field is man's life) to employ them in the siege:
20 Only the trees which thou knowest that they be not trees for meat, thou shalt destroy and cut them down; and thou shalt build bulwarks against the city that maketh war with thee, until it be subdued.

(Old Testament | Deuteronomy 20:12 - 20)

I'll throw out a jab here. Referring to Mountain Meadows, it's fortunate for the children, cattle and riches that the INDIANS were most familiar with this account in the Bible (Deut 20:12-20) - or at least found it to be the most accurate translation. God bless the indians for their humanity.

Very nice post!

Your thoughts speak to my underlying issue with the church.

What sort of God is described by scriptures and prophets?

Not a God of love.

If any person on the planet commanded such atrocities as attributed to God in scripture and through prophets, they would be considered an incarnation of evil itself.

Your awareness reflects (in my opinion), a consciousness where your innate care, compassion, and ideas of goodness and love do not blend or merge with the teachings and behavior of a God who is supposed to be holy.

In my own personal journey... my doubts about the church had nothing to do with the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, the Church history problems or any such thing... they had to do with my lack of ability to integrate my own experience of love and God with what is taught in some religions.

As much as I tried, prayed, fasted, pleaded, with God to believe what I thought and felt was horrific, was actually good, it never happened.

~dancer~

harmony wrote:The scriptures are a collection of stories written by men, men with agendas that sometimes conflicted with each other. Times change; cultures change; men change; men's needs change so men's interactions with God change. Explanations for natural events emerge from the fog as science advances and "God did it" no longer is necessary or believed.

The Old Testament is useful in that it gives us a snapshot of what life was like then. It's an ancient book that survived annihilation, even though the people that wrote it didn't. That doesn't mean the stories are true accounts of historical events. That simply means the stories illustrate a particular aspect of life within that culture that bothered the man who wrote it. A harsh life? Of course. Communication and diplomacy were not exactly valued then, but then certain annihilation wasn't possible for entire blocks of land through nuclear holocaust weren't possible then either. Respect is given based on who has the biggest weapon; back then, the biggest weapon wasn't nuclear. King David might have looked mighty and courageous to someone who lived under his thumb. The same king probably looked quite different to a mightier enemy with his fancy set on David's kingdom. Perspective is everything. I imagine when Lake Missoula broke, the resulting flood looked like it covered the whole earth... to those primitives who lived in its path.

The ancients knew less than we do now, both scientifically and spiritually. There is no reason to keep a hold of their foolishness in a vain attempt to restore that which deserves to stay lost. The Old Testament is as useful as Aesop's Fables. It teaches some correct principles, but it's not God-breathed anymore than the D&C is.

I really like this outlook, Harmony. It parallels my own view. I'm curious. How do you fit the New Testament and The Book of Mormon into this assessment? My view is that they are slightly more historical than the Old Testament and the D&C, but there are still chunks of history left out due to man's interpretation.

truth dancer wrote:In my own personal journey... my doubts about the church had nothing to do with the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, the Church history problems or any such thing... they had to do with my lack of ability to integrate my own experience of love and God with what is taught in some religions.

As much as I tried, prayed, fasted, pleaded, with God to believe what I thought and felt was horrific, was actually good, it never happened.

~dancer~

Thank you for your kind words Truth Dancer,

I guess that is what I have discovered as well. I had fasted much (in spite of the negative health risks involved), prayed and pled as well concerning His character and intent. I have yet to form a concrete conclusion.

If I have received an answer I have yet to fully understand it. However, it seems that I am left with three possibilities:

1) Either He is permitting me to discover His true character of consistant love, peace, forgiveness and charity one extremely small step at a time - inspite of what is written about Him.
2) He is a creator with as many weaknesses as the common man.
3) There is no God at all, yet there is something else beyond my capacity (at this time) that has a hand in bringing a modicum of peace to the universe.

At this point I find I am not longing to return home to such a violent and vengeful being or even call Him my Father.

Am I leaving out other posibilities?

Hi Inconceivable,

1) Either He is permitting me to discover His true character of consistant love, peace, forgiveness and charity one extremely small step at a time - inspite of what is written about Him.
2) He is a creator with as many weaknesses as the common man.
3) There is no God at all, yet there is something else beyond my capacity (at this time) that has a hand in bringing a modicum of peace to the universe.

At this point I find I am not longing to return home to such a violent and vengeful being or even call Him my Father.

Am I leaving out other posibilities?

One other possibility... maybe God IS that something else beyond our capacity to understand. :-)

Maybe God is the mystery.... the mystery that people have anthropomorphized into a being because of our limited ability to grasp the wonders of the universe?

That would be my best guess!

For the life of me I just could not imagine the God of the universe, being an advanced primate, more specifically, Caucasian human, looking just like the men of our particular stage of development. As if evolution stops at this particular moment... ya know? And what seems very apparent to me is that the people (tribes, religions, males), who seem to know all about God, define God as they want God to be. (Take a look at Will's thread in the telestial forum for an example).

Religious texts are more about men's search for God than they are about God... IMHO! ;-)


You may relate to a post I wrote on my blog:

http://goodnessgraciousness.blogspot.co ... o-god.html

Personally I think you reflect an awareness that almost requires one follow their heart!

Warmest wishes,

~dancer~

Inconceivable wrote:At this point I find I am not longing to return home to such a violent and vengeful being or even call Him my Father.

Am I leaving out other posibilities?

At least one other: that God is not what men say he is. I have a problem with a vengeful God. Vengence is not God's; vengence is manmade. God has no need for vengence, because in the end, God is the last one standing.

But what is God? I'm still working on that one. I know what I think he is, but I don't know if I'm right, almost right, halfway right, a little bit right, or completely wrong. But I know projection when I see it, and I know an agenda when I see it, and that's what the vast majority of the canon looks like to me: manmade. There's some wisdom there, some good, some positive stuff... but there's also a lot of agenda-driven manmade convenient-for-someone stuff in there, and I don't feel at all bound by that kind of thing.

So why doesn't God stop man from doing such wickedness to others, especially children? Why doesn't God stop bad things from happening to good people? Because he can't. Were he to do so he would violate the Prime Directive that Val talks about on another thread (although Val got the Prime Directive wrong.) And what's his PD? That every choice has a consequence. We get what we choose to get, even the smallest and most innocent. Even when it seems there is no choice, there is always a choice. And God won't interfere in anyone's choices, including the bad and the wicked.

Inconceivable,

I understand how this disturbs you. I no longer believe in God, and to a significant extent this is because of the problem of suffering.

Intense suffering happens even to the smallest children, who cannot possibly comprehend it or process it. So how can they "grow from it"?

And even if they could grown from it, could they grow enough to offset the evil inflicted upon them? And would this justify it? A human parent who let his child be exposed to HIV he could "grow" from the experience would be judged monstrous. But when God does it, this hideous evil becomes good? Isn't this rather like saying that a logical absurdity applied to God ceases to be absurd?--e.g., For a human being to be a married bachelor is absurd, but for God to be one makes good sense. Just as a logically absurd proposition doesn't suddenly become sensible when "God" is inserted as its grammatical subject, so a description of immoral behavior doesn't suddenly become moral when "God" is its doer. If there are such things as right and wrong, they apply to God as much as to any other being. And under any recognizable code of morality, any being overseeing this world is guilty of atrocities that make Hitler look like a Merry Miss.

The god of the religious faiths does not exist. That God if supposed to be all-good and supposed to have revealed himself to Moses, or Zoroaster, or Muhammad, or Joseph Smith, et al., but hasn't a damn thing to say about the child being molested next door or how to cure HIV before kills another ten million African children. He can't be capable of such revelations, being withholding them, and be "all-good" as claimed.

If there is a God, 'he' is either imperfectly moral, amoral, or extremely limited in power--to the point that he cannot communicate clearly with human beings. And in any of these cases, one might legitimately question if he is what is meant by the term "God."

Don