So if I walked in on some adult assaulting my grandson (or any child for that matter)and bashed that person's head in with my cast iron frying pan and they die I’m as guilty (and wrong) as any mass shooter, or rapist murderer?
Did the Conference speakers I quoted from the Church's official website give you that opinion? Is that what set you off?
You appear to be when it comes to what God can and cannot do. You’ve put him in a box of your own making. You’ve given him absolutely no wiggle room to make judgements.
Yeah, you're right. I kind of like my God to be in the beneficent, moral, ethical box. You're right to think that I like a Supreme Being who's not fickle, arbitrary, or vengeful. I admit that the box you've put God in is too dirty and ugly for my taste.
Morley, this post of yours is awfully silly. What game are you trying to play?
More and more I’m seeing you as a strict fundamentalist. I see that as a dangerous position to take.
Dangerous and fundamentalist? What is it you see that's so dangerous and fundamentalist about the views of Elders Haight, Wirthlin, and Maxwell? What's so dangerous about a God bounded by ethics?
Would you like to take a stab at the four questions I asked (you can access them in my previous post to Marcus) instead of going for a derail or turning on your fog machine?
Would you consider yourself to be an absolutist? Do you think there’s a time and a place for situational ethics?
How do you dovetail the two?
Regards,
MG
I think the point, MG, is that your church leaders preach against situational ethics:
Do you think they are wrong? Perhaps need a little nuance?
Earlier in the thread, pg. 5, Morley posted quotes that reference ‘situational ethics’ . I actually agree with each of the statements made and the one another poster made soon after. I would invite you to reread the first (mine) post back on pg. 7 and then try to fathom how I can apparently take two positions at once. Well, not at once, but next to each other.
So if I walked in on some adult assaulting my grandson (or any child for that matter)and bashed that person's head in with my cast iron frying pan and they die I’m as guilty (and wrong) as any mass shooter, or rapist murderer?
Did the Conference speakers I quoted from the Church's official website give you that opinion? Is that what set you off?
Answering questions by asking a question seems to be the norm around here today.
I already told you I am not a moral absolutist, having said that I can think of 0 contexts in which I could justify owning another human as chattel property. As noted, I am more moral than your god.
What is it you see that's so dangerous and fundamentalist about the views of Elders Haight, Wirthlin, and Maxwell? What's so dangerous about a God bounded by ethics?
Really. I'm serious. Explain it to me.
Answered in order:
I don’t see a problem with the quotes you provided. I agree with them.
Would you like to take a stab at the two questions I asked instead of going for a derail or turning on your fog machine?
In addition to the two questions up above, would you consider yourself to be an absolutist? Do you think there’s a time and a place for situational ethics?
How do you dovetail the two?
What say we just bypass your(clearly outlined) strategy and go back to the topic, starting with Morley pointing out your incorrect definition of "situational ethics"...
ChatGPT, explain situational ethics. Um, in iambic pentameter....
Isn't that amazing - Joseph Smith's god had the same view of ethics as he, Joseph, did:
“That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said, 'Thou shalt not kill'; at another time He said, 'Thou shalt utterly destroy.' This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.”
I wonder if Joseph ever benefitted from that teaching - perhaps persuading others of its value.
I suppose that it depends on the situation, the judgement to be made, or action to be taken, and the intent, among other considerations.
The way it's stated here - that what god requires is right - is a bit iffy if god does not actually exist, and the human making use of the concept is just satisfying his own desires.
finishing up with Dr. Exiled pointing out the LDS church today does not believe in situational ethics...
I already told you I am not a moral absolutist, having said that I can think of 0 contexts in which I could justify owning another human as chattel property. As noted, I am more moral than your god.
You can still answer my questions. They won’t require you to bend in regards to the statement you’re making here.
It appears you may not want to answer my two questions. Doing so could put you in a tight spot.
...I would invite you to reread the first (mine) post back on pg. 7 and then try to fathom how I can apparently take two positions at once. Well, not at once, but next to each other.
