Mormons And The Catholic Church

[thesometimesaint]

GRW:

Of course almost anything is possible, but somethings are highly improbable.

[saemo]

When ethics are discussed there is always a right and wrong. And it needs to be so. We can act ethically right or ethically wrong. There is quite often no middle ground. Of course in postmodernism there is no universal truth, just a hodgepodge of identities. Once we remove right and wrong from the human mind, what we have left is moral and ethical chaos. And perhaps this is now the state of many societies.

However, I do know that in postmoland, such thoughts are prevalent....there is no right or wrong, just the act of being in the world and we are all each responsible for our own behavior.

However, in the Catholic faith and in the lds faith, there are set principles that guide people in righeous living. There is a right and wrong way to act and to be in this world.

I thought we were talking about theologies or dogma and who is right/wrong. I don't equate religion with ethics.

I guess I live in "postmoland", if that is possible. Mormonism was and is a large part of my life. It is not something that "goes away". Not any more or less than any life experience would. I was thinking this morning that I'm hanging out here, visiting an old friend that I haven't seen in a long time. Not you specifically, but mormonism thought, belief, etc. It's nice to check in on an old friend, even if you don't have the same beliefs as them. Admittedly, it has taken me some time to see mormonism as an old friend and not some sort of monster to run from and throw all sorts of negative feelings at.

You make some assumptions about what I believe. That's ok, because what you believe about me has nothing to do with me. They are your thoughts alone. But my "ethics" are very grounded in non-harm. I try to not harm people. There are of course many ways to harm a person. And there are, I believe, ethical rules that are universal to all of humanity. The grey areas come in defining the rules, and of course, humans will always think up reasons for justifying hurting another person.

What you call "principles" is subjective. For example, I believe killing another human for any reason is wrong. But in religious, "righteous", principles there is found justification for killing another human. Which belief is "right"?

In the end, how I live in this world is what is important. I can't control another person's thoughts or behavior any more than I can control how other people drive on the highway.

[thesometimesaint]

saemo:

If God told you to kill someone would you?

If No, why

If Yes, why?

PS; Is self defense/defense of other wrong?

[urroner]

In the end, how I live in this world is what is important. I can't control another person's thoughts or behavior any more than I can control how other people drive on the highway.

We might be able to control what they do, but we can have a lot of influence on how they drive on the highway.

[why me]

I guess I live in "postmoland", if that is possible. Mormonism was and is a large part of my life. It is not something that "goes away". Not any more or less than any life experience would. I was thinking this morning that I'm hanging out here, visiting an old friend that I haven't seen in a long time. Not you

In the end, how I live in this world is what is important. I can't control another person's thoughts or behavior any more than I can control how other people drive on the highway.

Yes you do. Your last paragraph was the giveaway. People who live in postmoland usually have your beliefs. People in postmoland usually write that it is how they live their life that is important. But you see, although this may sound and feel good, it is very postmodern. It is not the 'I' that is important but the 'we'. It is how we live our lives that is important.

The word 'I' is a disconnect from the greater whole. It is centered in individualism. And as you know, many choose to live rather evil lives. Should they also claim the 'I' word?

[saemo]

saemo:

If God told you to kill someone would you?

If No, why

If Yes, why?

PS; Is self defense/defense of other wrong?

No to God. I don't take the Old Testament literally. It is a bunch of oral histories/stories put into written form. To me the stories are metaphorical. A way of teaching something in a very powerful way. I believe it teaches us, among other things, the nature of God and his will. The Big Ten I believe to be God's rules, for all of humanity. And in those rules is thou shalt not kill. I think that I would have to be pretty hard pressed to kill someone. And I don't believe that God would command anyone to kill another person. I don't believe in personal revelation, least of all that God would command to kill. I think that is a very dangerous belief. And I believe that in the Old Testament, the stories of God commanding someone to kill is a way of teaching us metaphorically that God is our Lord and Master, and his will should be done. I can't believe that God would ask someone to kill another. If pressed to believe in a God like that, I'll choose to be atheist.

Defense of someone I love is much harder to answer. I have killed animals with a rifle, and contemplating taking a human life is a very serious consideration. As I have never been in a situation where I was faced with it, I don't know how I would react. There are so many things to consider, the possibilities are limitless. But, I think of it the same as war. War to me is the most horrible of human conditions and actions. The harm that is done is large in scope and irreperable. So much is destroyed that was good. Innocent lives are lost. To defend something via war should be very worth defending, in my pov, and war should be the last resort, when all else has failed. This is how I feel about defending someone I love. I'd try like mad to figure out something that was not killing, but if I had to, I would make the choice to defend someone I love over someone elses life. So there, as I said, humans think up justifications for killing. I am no exception.

What do you think about the death penalty? Is it wrong or right? And why?

[saemo]

Yes you do. Your last paragraph was the giveaway. People who live in postmoland usually have your beliefs. People in postmoland usually write that it is how they live their life that is important. But you see, although this may sound and feel good, it is very postmodern. It is not the 'I' that is important but the 'we'. It is how we live our lives that is important.

The word 'I' is a disconnect from the greater whole. It is centered in individualism. And as you know, many choose to live rather evil lives. Should they also claim the 'I' word?

Then there are a lot of people who have never been mormon that live in this make believe world of yours. I live in the same world as you do.

If I live my life with no intent to harm, and you live your life with no intent to harm, and everyone that is lives with no intent to harm, then what kind of world would that be? Shangri La. lol. Idealistic, yes indeed. But I would rather have hope for humanity than the belief that the world is in a dark downward spiral with a final conclusion of obliteration.

"I" is taking responsibility for my own actions. "I" am the only person I have control over. To believe otherwise is dillusional. Sure, society makes rules that are enforced for the benefit of "we". But each person makes a choice for themselves if they are going to adhere to the rules. I can't force you or my neighbor or a mass murderer to do anything other than what they are going to do.

When a criminal does their deed, there is no one who made that choice for them but themselves. There is only them. "I" didn't choose anything for them.

How do you define "free will"?

[saemo]

We might be able to control what they do, but we can have a lot of influence on how they drive on the highway.

Agreed.

[Scott Lloyd]

This just in:

I am reliably informed that this Sunday, the Mormon Tabernacle Choir will receive the "Mother Teresa Award" from the Catholic Diocese of Salt Lake City.

What a strange thing for the "mother of abominations" to do.

(For the irony impaired: That last sentence is not to be taken seriously. And if I could have found an emoticon with tongue planted in cheek, I would have used it.)

[USU78]

[thesometimesaint]

saemo:

I honestly don't know what I'd do if God told me to kill someone. I would hope never to be put in that position of God telling me to kill. It would be a very hard decision for me to make. But I believe I could do it under the right circumstances. But I have hard time visualizing my being in those circumstances.

It is a mixed bag in the Scriptures. Yes, we have the Ten Commandments, but a few verses later we have God ordering the Children of Israel to utterly destroy. So it puts us in the difficult position of which commandments do we follow. This is where the LDS have a better rule. We believe that we were sent to earth to do whatsoever the Lord our God commands us to do. It does not make it any easier, but it does however make it more clearly understood, and better.

I have been in postions where I've killed, both indirectly, I was in the military during VietNam, and directly by looking down the wrong end of a .357 Magnum(not exactly my idea of a fun time). I don't know that any of us really knows for certain what we'd do when individually, or our loved ones are threatened. But I do know from experience I will do what needs to be done, and then live with the consequences. That is what I believe God would have all of us do.

[kibye]

Even our friends in the RCC are the children of our heavenly father. ==))

Treat them as our brothers and sisters.

[why me]

If I live my life with no intent to harm, and you live your life with no intent to harm, and everyone that is lives with no intent to harm, then what kind of world would that be? Shangri La. lol. Idealistic, yes indeed. But I would rather have hope for humanity than the belief that the world is in a dark downward spiral with a final conclusion of obliteration.

Actually, the description that you gave would be far from shangri la. It would be a nightmare waiting to happen. When we all live in the 'I', we will have a general disconnection from the whole. There would also be a feeling of general marginalization that excludes us from the other. However, if you change your 'I' to 'we', we may have a chance at survival.

Hope for humanity is found in the 'we', and 'us'. Humanity is found in the collective love of men, women, and children. And the plan is not discovered in the 'I' but in the common good of humankind. And if this ever becomes commonplace, we will be saved from obliteration.

[why me]

"I" is taking responsibility for my own actions. "I" am the only person I have control over. To believe otherwise is dillusional. Sure, society makes rules that are enforced for the benefit of "we". But each person makes a choice for themselves if they are going to adhere to the rules. I can't force you or my neighbor or a mass murderer to do anything other than what they are going to do.

How do you define "free will"?

'I' may be taking responsibility for my actions but I can assure you that without a common conversation about what 'our' responsibility is in this world of us, the 'I' will be a meaningless exercise in living. To be believe in the 'we' is not delusional, it is very christian. The 'we' is found in the blood of christ since he died for the 'we'. If Christ died for the 'I', his death would be meaningless.

And yes, you can influence your neighbor. To believe otherwise is very nihilistic.

Free will: To act freely to benefit not only myself but to benefit others.

Such is Christian free will.

[saemo]

why me: In your last two posts you touch on a couple of things that I have been thinking about for quite some time.

Perhaps you read my post about going nihilistic, or you see that I still have that in me still. You got me thinking, about my road to nihilism, your description of "I" and "we", and the short time that I have purposefully been travelling back to believing *something*. I like your description of "we", only I believe that you can't have that sort of "we" without the "I".

You and another poster (don't remember who at the moment) said the same thing. That you can "influence". There is a distinct difference between influence and control. People can be influenced, and influence can be used to control people. The most important factor between influence and control is intention. You are just as idealistic as I am, in believing that influence should always be used to control people for the betterment of humanity. I like your idealism.

Intention is found in "I". The person with the intent to influence makes a determination of what that influence will be. That is an "I" moment if there ever was one. Of course it can become exponentially complex when there is another person or an organization that is influencing the influencor (I don't think that is a word, but what word to use?). And this is where we have social contructs, of all kinds, religious, social, economic, etc.

What a nihilist does is descontruct the constructs. There is nothing that you consider as "we" that is not constructed. And the glue of any construct is "I". Nothing that has been constructed will stay together without the individuals who believe in it actually beliving in it. So when I say that if every person, as an "I", chose to live a life of non-harm, that is what I am seeing, what I am describing, the glue of a "we".

Your "we" is a construct that requires the glue of "I" believing in a sort of religious humanist Christianity with a mormon twist.