Ideas About Religion

In speaking with me recently ex-LDS brother  a few weeks ago, I came to a sudden realization: ex-LDS members may have read and interpreted the scriptures, but they 'often fail to understand it, (my brother is not the first ex-LDS member I have known by the way). In addition, they also dissent from the apostolic leadership, presuming them to be wrong on several important doctrinal issues, rationalizing their point by even thinking God would be of the same mind as they are. Finally they abandon faith for more readily perceivable and concrete facts. This is why currently they tend to turn to science for answers. 

One point which I felt was interesting is how they believe the God of the old testament is unreal because of how evil He comes across. I was given many examples, such as rape, murder, even genocide, and the taking of possessions not their own from an otherwise "peaceable" people.  I'll work my way around those points by saying its interesting how much we believe people in the past who lost, or were beaten and trampled, enslaved, etc., were always peaceable despite numerous accounts of history showing pretty much every nation to be warlike. For every nation not otherwise isolated and that had abundant resources, war was part of their culture. It had to be. The potential for war existed for every nation that came in contact with outsiders. War often seemed inevitable as conflicts invariably arose, and each nation not fitting the brief description above had a ready and able fighting force to deal with the issue of protecting their interests.  So to say people don't deserve to be at war or fight for their right to exist, is contrary to reality and as such hard to defy as legitimate. In war one side wins the other loses, that is the cold hard reality of nature, survival of the fittest, smartest, or the more numerous.  We exist in a world of evil, but there are good people trying to stay true and make life bearable which is why there is often conflict. God has to allow this, but we can rest assured that all people who live or have ever lived are in His capable hands and are never lost.

That is important to remember, that an Almighty Being accounts for each and every one of us. Those who don't believe in God do not take comfort in this, and would otherwise believe that they are lost, snuffed out, gone forever. Bleak, but a strong reason to avoid war despite its constant reality. However, for many nations who don't believe in God, but an alternate form of afterlife existence, war continues. Take the orient for example, where 7 out of the 10 largest wars in recorded human history were fought.

As for genocide, physical wars fought can be broken down into two categories, chess and checkers. Chess a civilized game of strategy, seems to be  the preferred method today by first world nations. Take out the leaders, and subjugate the nation. Just look at how America occupies nations it invades. However we cannot deny the reality that many wars were fought like a game of checkers, meaning the end goal was annihilation. That is genocide, the same that has been declared a war crime in the 20th century by the UN. So recently it has been declared as highly immoral to the point of never being condoned in a civilized society and outlawed the world round, and will continue to be at least until the UN no longer is the appointed governance in the world. A similar example can be seen with slavery, perfectly acceptable when Rome was the world's leading power, also acceptable in the orient up until the era of the Ming Dynasty, and throughout many nations in practically all eras of history. Right and wrong as you can see are subjective because they are held by those in power. Or is there another power at work that determines societies moral compass? Is it nature with all her serial cruelty (might makes right, survival of the fittest, viral epidemics, natural disasters, etc.)? Or maybe our individual or collective conscience? What makes one man right over another?

The point? If all are in God's hands, why would something as horrible or grand as genocide matter? Some nations and people simply cannot co-exist.  If you feel otherwise, feel free also to negotiate with Islamic terrorists. As I see it however, condoning such acts of seeming cruelty may simply boil down to the cause greater good, and since this life is only a blink in the span of eternity, and we have a God who is in control despite our agency to choose, does it really matter?  Meaning, we have all eternity to live, why get caught up in a single moment when God Himself will ensure we are not lost in that moment?

As for the last point about rape, apparently the Mosaic law condones it. not surprising, considering the hubbub surrounding the topic in today's first world society.  The hype made it easy for many to misconstrue what is otherwise a straight forward scripture because it seems we are starting to see every act of a sexual nature as having the potential to be a rape. The one in question from Deuteronomy 22 talks about a man taking hold of a woman who is not betrothed and a virgin, and laying with her, and both being found are guilty of fornication. So to protect her chastity he must marry her. Considering all subsequent verses deal with what to do in the case of a man taking a woman forcefully it's obvious that the wording her implies not force of something closer to seduction. Sure taking hold of her sounds "rapey", but a study of the original linguistics reveal that certain verbiage in the ancient Hebrew tongue reveal that force was not a factor in this verse because the language had several verbs to describe what we only use one verb to describe, and the verb they chose in this scripture implies an absence of force. I'm not a linguist, but these folks seem to know more about what I'm talking about, describing it in further detail.

As for an actual case of rape in the old testament, earlier in the chapter of 22, its clear that men who rape are put to death, as well as the woman if she too commits sin such as adultery. So one would have to wonder, how can a woman marry a man who is to be put to death? He rapes her, pays the father, marries her and then is put to death? Would seem odd, would it not? So perhaps the link I created earlier is not only a logical explanation but a true one in that it describes two cases, one being that of rape and the other seduction.  What the mosaic law requires, that if a man seduces a woman or fornicates with her and she be willing absent force (her choice), and they are found in sin, to protect her honor, or purity, they must marry. Sounds like a good way to quell promiscuity, one-night stands, out of wedlock pregnancies, and single parent families. 

As for the man's role in the matter. It's funny how he is primarily responsible despite women's agency. Even today, men are responsible for women's behavior socially it seems. A woman gets drunk and suddenly she's not accountable, but if something happens blame the nearest man, even if he is drunk because despite his inebriation, he's totally responsible for everything he does.  A woman commits a crime against a man, and we ask what did he do to deserve it, must have been self defense? Women commits a crime with a man, he made her do it. Always how can we blame a man instead of the woman. Even if there is no man to blame, we must find someone at some point we can blame as a cause for her bad behavior. She was abused, her father didn't love her, was never around, and old boyfriend broke her heart, etc. It's a wonder we condemn the mosaic law when today we embrace so many of its implied tenets.

So this is my interpretation, a sound rebuke to my brother who seems to think the God of the old testament is pitiless and sinister, allowing acts of cruelty that go against the modern understanding and acceptance of morality. Perhaps some more research and an open mind would persuade him otherwise. I doubt it though since once you make a choice, it's hard to be dissuaded from that choice. Take me for example, I chose to follow God and become LDS, and now you'd have the hardest time in the world convincing me to choose another path.

To conclude, I will have many more discussions with my brother concerning the matter, I'm sure of it. We'll just have to wait and see if either of us decide to change, after all, he did once already...