Immorality in the Book of Mormon - Page 5

DeepShadow · #41 07-09-2008, 07:50 PM

First, you're taking a skeptic's view of omnipotent, namely literally able to do anything. This isn't supported by the scriptures, as we see them.

Second, I don't believe it's a threat. I think it's a warning. See my example about the alarm bill.

spiritually inclined · #42 07-10-2008, 03:55 AM

Quote:

First, you're taking a skeptic's view of omnipotent, namely literally able to do anything. This isn't supported by the scriptures, as we see them.

You're skirting the issue. If this violence is the result of a removal of God's protection, then God has allowed the innocent children to be slaughtered because of the wicked.

Quote:

Second, I don't believe it's a threat. I think it's a warning. See my example about the alarm bill.

Once again: why would God withdraw his protection from the children? They were innocent. They did not deserve to die with the wicked.

Is anyone ever going to answer this question without skirting around the issue?

You call it a warning when an alleged entity says that he will stir up people who will kill innocent children. I call it a threat.

James

DeepShadow · #43 07-10-2008, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spiritually inclined

You're skirting the issue. If this violence is the result of a removal of God's protection, then God has allowed the innocent children to be slaughtered because of the wicked.

God's omnipotence is actually at the heart of the issue, because it explains what God can or cannot do. In this case, God CANNOT protect the children. This is not skirting the issue.

DeepShadow · #44 07-10-2008, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spiritually inclined

You call it a warning when an alleged entity says that he will stir up people who will kill innocent children. I call it a threat.

Because you choose to take the "stir up" as literal. I already said I took it as a metaphor.

You wanted a Mormon's interpretation of these scriptures. I'm giving you one. You don't have to agree with it, but saying I'm skirting the issue is unfair.

spiritually inclined · #45 07-10-2008, 03:05 PM

Quote:

God's omnipotence is actually at the heart of the issue, because it explains what God can or cannot do. In this case, God CANNOT protect the children. This is not skirting the issue.

If God can remove his protection, as you say, what prevents him from protecting the children?

James

spiritually inclined · #46 07-10-2008, 04:15 PM

This is what I don't get, DeepShadow. You said:

Quote:

SI, regarding the verse about "stirring up" the Medes and Persians, I think the crucial part here is that God must work with earthly resources. When He withdraws His protection and allows a violent and bloodthirsty people "off the chain," they will do as they normally do.

Clearly, you believe God has withdrawn his protection from the wicked and their innocent children. If God protected them before, and then withdrew his protection, why is he now unable to protect the innocent children? That doesn't make sense to me. He could protect them before, but he can't now? What's up with that?

James

DeepShadow · #47 07-10-2008, 06:39 PM

Ah, I see your question now. Again, this has to do with the methods that God has at His disposal for preventing war. Usually He would do this by causing the threatening nation to falter, become divided, etc. Once war has started, much of it is outside of His control, because of the two-edged sword of personal agency on the part of soldiers.

This is an interesting concept to explore. Please feel free to ask more questions.

spiritually inclined · #48 07-11-2008, 01:40 AM

Quote:

Once war has started, much of it is outside of His control, because of the two-edged sword of personal agency on the part of soldiers

These scriptures have to do with causing (or, as you interpret, letting) a war to happen in which it is specifically said that innocent children will be murdered. Why is this a justifiable method of punishment? I'm still not hearing a clear answer.

James