Mormon Worldview

[huckelberry]

pgm1985, everybody speaking here agrees there is a moral standard. There are disagreements as to how specifically we know that . Most of us think that people in the context of government come together to form the best understanding available.Laws are made by valid human government.I think the fact that we are created in the image of God gives us the ability to make those judgments. Yes sin causes humans to fudge rules, fake them and sometimes disregard them still we have the sense God gave us to search after those. The scriptures and the Holy Spirit encourage and drive us toward truthfulness and away from the fakes.

I do not think anybody here thinks you are the moral authority and when you stand on the Bible people see your limited understanding putting itself first. I certainly do not trust you with that much authority.

I disagree, the argument here is there is NOT a moral standard. I am not claiming to be that standard. I am claiming the Bible is that standard that provides the basis for government, laws, and all of life. Again this not my standard, it is Gods because He is the ultimate authority of all creation, not just the moral authority.

pgm1985 people had laws and moral systems well before the Bible was written. You yourself have mentioned the basis of that fact several times, we were created in Gods image so have a sense of the purpose for which we exist,including to live together in harmony.

what makes for that living together in harmony is a the basis people use to decide how to frame laws and customs shaping and sometimes enforcing behavior.

[Res Ipsa]

Yes. Any interpretation is subjective.

Constitutions and laws are the rules of the road that allow people to function in groups without killing each other. Do you want anybody who has more guns than you to be able to take your property? Me neither. Do you want to be able to for a walk without fear of being kidnapped and tortured? Me too. Every individual has conflicting desires for both autonomy and security. Laws are how a society mediates that contradiction by creating rules that provide some mix of autonomy and security. No objective morality required. Just a negotiation based on rational or irrational self interest.

That doesn’t mean that morality is irrelevant to law. People will appeal to morality as a basis for enacting or not enacting any given law. But that doesn’t that mean that objective morality is a necessary condition for enacting laws.

I’m not claiming that murder is not murder. I’m saying that the word murder is just marks on a page until you give it meaning. And, as soon as you do that, you’ve moved into subjectivity. Now, we may have widespread agreement on some application of the word murder to real life situations, but agreement does not mean objective.

Can you quote me the definition of murder from the Bible that will allow me, without any need to interpret the language, to apply the world in all cases and reach a result that we would agree is moral?

Which premise of my argument are you claiming that our disagreement violates?

Why is murder in any context morally wrong? Either you have competing views of subjectivity, as the murderer does not think his actions was morally wrong, or an objective standard must be applied.

You tell me. I am an atheist and I believe causing a fellow human's death is moral under some circumstances and not moral in others. Nothing in the Bible tells me when causing the death of another human being is moral or immoral. The word "murder" gives me no clue as to when causing the death of another human being is " murder" and thus not moral or when causing the death of another human being is not murder, and therefore moral. I have to decide for myself whether a death is a "murder" or not. I may consult any number of sources to help me decide. But, except in the most simple or extreme cases, I have to decide. And the moment I have to exercise my own judgement, the conclusion I reach is subjective.

Why do you keep telling me that I can't do things that I do dozens of times every day? Just as billions of other people do every day?

Yes, we have competing, subjective views of morality that vary from person to person. People draw from all kinds of sources, which can include the Bible, to construct their own moral system. That moral codes differ from person to person does not mean that we cannot formed reasoned arguments that one moral code, or aspect of a moral code, is better than another. The subjective nature of morality does not logically imply that all moral codes must be equally accepted. A community constructs the moral code that it chooses to apply to all members of the community.

I think that claiming to follow an objective moral code is itself immoral. It relieves the person from any responsibility for even horrific results of enforcing their code. There's a built in excuse -- hey, don't look at me. It's God's objective moral code. That's why I refer to what you are claiming as a false consciousness. If you choose to force a woman against her will to suffer and risk her life for a nonviable pregnancy, you are responsible for her suffering and perhaps her death. It's your choice -- you own the consequences. The pretense that you are following an objective code lets you off the moral hook for the consequences of your own choices. Hey, don't look at me. It's God's objective moral code. I'm just following orders.

As soon as you introduce any subjectivity in how you apply the words that appear in the Bible, you are making a subjective choice. It is immoral not to own your own choices and take responsibility for any pain, suffering or death that your choices cause to others.

[pgm1985]

By taking what the Bible defines as life in order to apply it to the commandment. Psalm 139:13–16, Jeremiah 1:5, Job 31:15, Psalm 22:10–11, and Luke 1:41–43 all imply the unborn is a human being. Modern science is able to show us when an embryo is a new life. At fertilization, a new genetic code is created, thus resulting in a new life being born at conception.

Next we look at how different types of contraceptives work and evaluate whether they prevent fertilization or is it an abortifacient. For example, barrier methods, vasectomy, and tubal ligation all prevent fertilization and would not be considered violating the 6th commandment. Intrauterine devices kill a fertilized egg so would be sinful. Oral contraceptives are trickier and would require research, prayerful discernment, and consultation with a doctor to fully understand how the contraceptive is designed to work.

There’s your false consciousness at work. The passages themselves do not “imply” any thing. You are inferring conclusions based on the text. That makes your conclusion subjective, not objective. The second you interpret the text, you forfeit any claim to “objective” morality.

What part are you alleging is false? Is murder not the malicious killing of another human? Does life not begin at conception? Do all forms of birth control not destroy a fertilized egg?

This is how Christians apply the Bible to ethical situations.

[Res Ipsa]

There’s your false consciousness at work. The passages themselves do not “imply” any thing. You are inferring conclusions based on the text. That makes your conclusion subjective, not objective. The second you interpret the text, you forfeit any claim to “objective” morality.

What part are you alleging is false? Is murder not the malicious killing of another human? Does life not begin at conception? Do all forms of birth control not destroy a fertilized egg?

This is how Christians apply the Bible to ethical situations.

Can you quote me the language that clearly says, without any need for interpretation, that life begins at conception? What is the penalty in the Old Testament for injuring a woman and killing her unborn fetus?

I absolutely agree that you have illustrated how some, but not all, Christians apply the Bible to abortion. What is false is that the application is "objective."

Where does the Bible say that murder="malicious" killing. Where does it offer a definition of the word "malicious?"

[pgm1985]

Why is murder in any context morally wrong? Either you have competing views of subjectivity, as the murderer does not think his actions was morally wrong, or an objective standard must be applied.

You tell me. I am an atheist and I believe causing a fellow human's death is moral under some circumstances and not moral in others. Nothing in the Bible tells me when causing the death of another human being is moral or immoral. The word "murder" gives me no clue as to when causing the death of another human being is " murder" and thus not moral or when causing the death of another human being is not murder, and therefore moral. I have to decide for myself whether a death is a "murder" or not. I may consult any number of sources to help me decide. But, except in the most simple or extreme cases, I have to decide. And the moment I have to exercise my own judgement, the conclusion I reach is subjective.

Why do you keep telling me that I can't do things that I do dozens of times every day? Just as billions of other people do every day?

Yes, we have competing, subjective views of morality that vary from person to person. People draw from all kinds of sources, which can include the Bible, to construct their own moral system. That moral codes differ from person to person does not mean that we cannot formed reasoned arguments that one moral code, or aspect of a moral code, is better than another. The subjective nature of morality does not logically imply that all moral codes must be equally accepted. A community constructs the moral code that it chooses to apply to all members of the community.

I think that claiming to follow an objective moral code is itself immoral. It relieves the person from any responsibility for even horrific results of enforcing their code. There's a built in excuse -- hey, don't look at me. It's God's objective moral code. That's why I refer to what you are claiming as a false consciousness. If you choose to force a woman against her will to suffer and risk her life for a nonviable pregnancy, you are responsible for her suffering and perhaps her death. It's your choice -- you own the consequences. The pretense that you are following an objective code lets you off the moral hook for the consequences of your own choices. Hey, don't look at me. It's God's objective moral code. I'm just following orders.

As soon as you introduce any subjectivity in how you apply the words that appear in the Bible, you are making a subjective choice. It is immoral not to own your own choices and take responsibility for any pain, suffering or death that your choices cause to others.

Believe it or not, I actually don’t think our arguments are that far apart. I am not telling you what you can and can’t do things. Nor am I saying we can’t use extra-biblical sources to inform our decisions. I am simply saying the Bible provides the moral standard to base all our decisions off of once we have gathered the information available to us.

I also acknowledge there is a difference between killing and murder. There are justified grounds for the killing of another human, and yes they can be inferred in the Bible. With proper exegesis we can find application. This we should debate and discuss as new situations arise in our evolving culture. But we can always find application in the Bible.

Are all our choices going to be clear or not result in pain or suffering of ourselves or another? Absolutely not. We live in a fallen world in which pain and suffering exist. What I strive to do is to live by the example of Jesus. We are all in the same situation, sinners in need of a Savior. Ultimately it is not I who you need to convince and I will not judge your actions, God will.

[pgm1985]

I disagree, the argument here is there is NOT a moral standard. I am not claiming to be that standard. I am claiming the Bible is that standard that provides the basis for government, laws, and all of life. Again this not my standard, it is Gods because He is the ultimate authority of all creation, not just the moral authority.

pgm1985 people had laws and moral systems well before the Bible was written. You yourself have mentioned the basis of that fact several times, we were created in Gods image so have a sense of the purpose for which we exist,including to live together in harmony.

what makes for that living together in harmony is a the basis people use to decide how to frame laws and customs shaping and sometimes enforcing behavior.

And where did those laws and moral systems come from? Before sin entered the world, God gave commands to Adam and Eve. They were to be fruitful and multiply, subdue the Earth, honor the Sabbath, instituted marriage, and worship Him. Right from creation, God gave commands, and through disobedience, sin entered this world.

[pgm1985]

What part are you alleging is false? Is murder not the malicious killing of another human? Does life not begin at conception? Do all forms of birth control not destroy a fertilized egg?

This is how Christians apply the Bible to ethical situations.

Can you quote me the language that clearly says, without any need for interpretation, that life begins at conception? What is the penalty in the Old Testament for injuring a woman and killing her unborn fetus?

I absolutely agree that you have illustrated how some, but not all, Christians apply the Bible to abortion. What is false is that the application is "objective."

Where does the Bible say that murder="malicious" killing. Where does it offer a definition of the word "malicious?"

Those verses I referenced speak to the unborn having life. Not sure how much more proof you require.

I’m not sure why you’re asking for a definition, all your going to do is reply it is my subjective interpretation and not accept it.

[Res Ipsa]

You tell me. I am an atheist and I believe causing a fellow human's death is moral under some circumstances and not moral in others. Nothing in the Bible tells me when causing the death of another human being is moral or immoral. The word "murder" gives me no clue as to when causing the death of another human being is " murder" and thus not moral or when causing the death of another human being is not murder, and therefore moral. I have to decide for myself whether a death is a "murder" or not. I may consult any number of sources to help me decide. But, except in the most simple or extreme cases, I have to decide. And the moment I have to exercise my own judgement, the conclusion I reach is subjective.

Why do you keep telling me that I can't do things that I do dozens of times every day? Just as billions of other people do every day?

Yes, we have competing, subjective views of morality that vary from person to person. People draw from all kinds of sources, which can include the Bible, to construct their own moral system. That moral codes differ from person to person does not mean that we cannot formed reasoned arguments that one moral code, or aspect of a moral code, is better than another. The subjective nature of morality does not logically imply that all moral codes must be equally accepted. A community constructs the moral code that it chooses to apply to all members of the community.

I think that claiming to follow an objective moral code is itself immoral. It relieves the person from any responsibility for even horrific results of enforcing their code. There's a built in excuse -- hey, don't look at me. It's God's objective moral code. That's why I refer to what you are claiming as a false consciousness. If you choose to force a woman against her will to suffer and risk her life for a nonviable pregnancy, you are responsible for her suffering and perhaps her death. It's your choice -- you own the consequences. The pretense that you are following an objective code lets you off the moral hook for the consequences of your own choices. Hey, don't look at me. It's God's objective moral code. I'm just following orders.

As soon as you introduce any subjectivity in how you apply the words that appear in the Bible, you are making a subjective choice. It is immoral not to own your own choices and take responsibility for any pain, suffering or death that your choices cause to others.

Believe it or not, I actually don’t think our arguments are that far apart. I am not telling you what you can and can’t do things. Nor am I saying we can’t use extra-biblical sources to inform our decisions. I am simply saying the Bible provides the moral standard to base all our decisions off of once we have gathered the information available to us.

I also acknowledge there is a difference between killing and murder. There are justified grounds for the killing of another human, and yes they can be inferred in the Bible. With proper exegesis we can find application. This we should debate and discuss as new situations arise in our evolving culture. But we can always find application in the Bible.

Are all our choices going to be clear or not result in pain or suffering of ourselves or another? Absolutely not. We live in a fallen world in which pain and suffering exist. What I strive to do is to live by the example of Jesus. We are all in the same situation, sinners in need of a Savior. Ultimately it is not I who you need to convince and I will not judge your actions, God will.

I'm afraid we are miles apart. If you support anti-abortion legislation, then you are telling others what to do based on your subjectively chosen moral code. Exegis is a fancy word for making choices about how to apply the language of the Bible to a particular set of facts. The Bible doesn't do the choosing. You do. Subjectively.

Another example of what I'm describing as false consciousness. You aren't "finding" application -- you are choosing application. The difference is that if you finding something that is there, you are not morally responsible for what you find. If you are making a choice, you are morally responsible for that choice. The opposite opinions that Christians take on the question of whether abortion is a sin is a good example of how subjectivity and choice are necessary to get from the words in the Bible to application to specific situations.

I agree that the Bible, along with many other sources, contains general standards of morality. When you choose to ground your own moral code in the Bible, that is a subjective choice. Just as I choose the sources from which I derive my individual moral code. Regardless, to apply any generalized standard to the facts of a particular situation requires subjectively interpreting the standard and making choices about how it applies to specific facts. We can consult as many sources as we like, but that doesn't remove the subjective choices we must make to get from wherever we start to the specific facts we are confronted with.

My argument is that I form my moral code the same way you do. I just don't claim that mine is objective.

[Res Ipsa]

Can you quote me the language that clearly says, without any need for interpretation, that life begins at conception? What is the penalty in the Old Testament for injuring a woman and killing her unborn fetus?

I absolutely agree that you have illustrated how some, but not all, Christians apply the Bible to abortion. What is false is that the application is "objective."

Where does the Bible say that murder="malicious" killing. Where does it offer a definition of the word "malicious?"

Those verses I referenced speak to the unborn having life. Not sure how much more proof you require.

I’m not sure why you’re asking for a definition, all your going to do is reply it is my subjective interpretation and not accept it.

OK, the tree in my back yard has "life." Is it moral for me to chop it down? If the Bible says that terminating "life" is a sin, then we're all in a heap of trouble. Can we even walk around without killing some form of "life?"

You've already acknowledged that it is moral to kill, not just "life", but human life under some specific set of circumstances. Where does the Bible say that abortion is "murder?"

[pgm1985]

Believe it or not, I actually don’t think our arguments are that far apart. I am not telling you what you can and can’t do things. Nor am I saying we can’t use extra-biblical sources to inform our decisions. I am simply saying the Bible provides the moral standard to base all our decisions off of once we have gathered the information available to us.

I also acknowledge there is a difference between killing and murder. There are justified grounds for the killing of another human, and yes they can be inferred in the Bible. With proper exegesis we can find application. This we should debate and discuss as new situations arise in our evolving culture. But we can always find application in the Bible.

Are all our choices going to be clear or not result in pain or suffering of ourselves or another? Absolutely not. We live in a fallen world in which pain and suffering exist. What I strive to do is to live by the example of Jesus. We are all in the same situation, sinners in need of a Savior. Ultimately it is not I who you need to convince and I will not judge your actions, God will.

I'm afraid we are miles apart. If you support anti-abortion legislation, then you are telling others what to do based on your subjectively chosen moral code. Exegis is a fancy word for making choices about how to apply the language of the Bible to a particular set of facts. The Bible doesn't do the choosing. You do. Subjectively.

Another example of what I'm describing as false consciousness. You aren't "finding" application -- you are choosing application. The difference is that if you finding something that is there, you are not morally responsible for what you find. If you are making a choice, you are morally responsible for that choice. The opposite opinions that Christians take on the question of whether abortion is a sin is a good example of how subjectivity and choice are necessary to get from the words in the Bible to application to specific situations.

I agree that the Bible, along with many other sources, contains general standards of morality. When you choose to ground your own moral code in the Bible, that is a subjective choice. Just as I choose the sources from which I derive my individual moral code. Regardless, to apply any generalized standard to the facts of a particular situation requires subjectively interpreting the standard and making choices about how it applies to specific facts. We can consult as many sources as we like, but that doesn't remove the subjective choices we must make to get from wherever we start to the specific facts we are confronted with.

My argument is that I form my moral code the same way you do. I just don't claim that mine is objective.

How do you define when human life begins and what is that based on?