Nominee Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 You may want to adjust your hearing aid.You don't need to be rude. I read. I don't hear. So, if you feel it is necessary, adjust your insult and then throw it again.
lachrymolotov Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 Are you pretending to be thick? Or is this some tactic of focusing on unimportant details?
Nominee Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 Are you pretending to be thick? Or is this some tactic of focusing on unimportant details?Now I'm possibly pretending to be thick? You are not a very nice person. You mentioned a few minutes ago that you cannot tell the difference between someone who believes in God and someone who does not based on the way they act or treat people. I can.
lachrymolotov Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 Are you now suggesting that all people who believe in God are nice?
lachrymolotov Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 Pretending to not understand is a common debate tactic. It was a serious question, albeit direct. The adjusting your hearing aid comment is a result of you misconstruing (unintentionally or not) ideas repeatedly. It may seem that I am not nice, but I was trying to cut through whatever the issue was.
Nominee Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 Pretending to not understand is a common debate tactic. It was a serious question, albeit direct. The adjusting your hearing aid comment is a result of you misconstruing (unintentionally or not) ideas repeatedly. It may seem that I am not nice, but I was trying to cut through whatever the issue was.I don't come here to debate. Maybe you made the wrong assumption that everyone here has that motivation. IMO, you need to be more civil. A lesson or two in diplomacy wouldn't hurt.I do my best to be an example of Christ. I live my life in his name. That means that what I say and do reflects on to Him. You posit that God does not exist. I was saying that you are a very unattractive example of this choice. I see the difference between my actions as a Christian and your actions as someone who can posit that God does not exist.
lachrymolotov Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 A shame not all of your brethren feel the same way. Maybe you haven't noticed how harsh people like Pahoran or Zerinus or Dr. Peterson have been to people. I am direct. Very direct. But I am never mean spirited. I have no problem telling people they are wrong and it is easy to misinterpret that as meanness. This is such a place to tell people they are wrong. I am more gentle in person, but I don't find myself in places, in person, where the whole point is to bring conflicting points of view together to discuss them.
elguanteloko Posted December 2, 2011 Author Posted December 2, 2011 let's return to the important issues, folks, please.
Stargazer Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 God's morality might be a product of his power. The problem is whether or not that 'morality' is something we can make sense of as really moral. It seems to me that we can't. If God's 'morality' that stems from his power is so devoid of link to what we understand to be basic good and bad actions, then he simply can't be taken to be moral except on faith and not on reason or understanding.PRECISELY!This is the correct answer--at least as I understand it within the context of the doctrine of God as revealed by the Prophet Joseph Smith.I believe you have it backwards. God's power is not the source or origin of His morality; on the contrary, it is His morality which is the source of His power. To argue otherwise is to argue that might makes right, which it most certainly doesn't.God's "morality" has no relationship to what we understand to be basic "good" and "bad" actions, and our powers of reason are insufficient to understand the mind of God.Moses 1 is, in my judgment, the bookend to the King Follett sermon. It is popular among some students of Mormonism to suggest that Joseph Smith's theology evolved over time. I thoroughly dispute that notion, and I submit that the concepts of the King Follett sermon from 1844 are discernible in the Book of Moses from 1830.At any rate, I concur 100% with your rumination that it is by faith alone that we can rely upon God to guide us right.I will agree with you on that.
elguanteloko Posted December 2, 2011 Author Posted December 2, 2011 I believe you have it backwards. God's power is not the source or origin of His morality; on the contrary, it is His morality which is the source of His power.The issue is, how do you know he is moral?
Cobalt-70 Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 God's morality might be a product of his power. The problem is whether or not that 'morality' is something we can make sense of as really moral. It seems to me that we can't. If God's 'morality' that stems from his power is so devoid of link to what we understand to be basic good and bad actions, then he simply can't be taken to be moral except on faith and not on reason or understanding.True. The "right by might" theory explains human morality, and it explains God's morality, but it doesn't do anything to merge the two, which some people might find unsatisfying. But at the same time, with the particular Bible that we are stuck with, God doesn't really show many signs of a human-style morality. He is portrayed more as an absolute monarch, than as one who is himself bound by a code of morality. He is excused to pretty much do anything he wants. On the subject of vengeance, for example, he takes a "do as I say, not as I do," approach. (Rom. 12:19).
elguanteloko Posted December 2, 2011 Author Posted December 2, 2011 Tried that. Nothing happened. Many other people have had varying results, none of which constitute proof.Obviously, you weren't trying hard enough. In fact, until it happens you weren't trying hard enough or in the right way. If you get a confirmatory answer then it is right, if not then you are wrong.
lachrymolotov Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 Very good then....by some logic, it seems that we are without any way of knowing if God is moral or not. We would just have to have faith.by some logic, it would seem that God is patently immoral since he breaks his own commandments.I don't see any possible to way to demonstrate how God is moral unless one is prepared to create a double-standard.If you end up with your own planet, do you also get to maintain a double standard? Will you be encouraging genocide of the people who have wickedness in their hearts?
Nominee Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 A shame not all of your brethren feel the same way. Maybe you haven't noticed how harsh people like Pahoran or Zerinus or Dr. Peterson have been to people. I am direct. Very direct. But I am never mean spirited. I have no problem telling people they are wrong and it is easy to misinterpret that as meanness. This is such a place to tell people they are wrong. I am more gentle in person, but I don't find myself in places, in person, where the whole point is to bring conflicting points of view together to discuss them.Thank you for this response. I can respect where you are coming from. Zerinus can be short, I agree, but his words are usually informed and it is rarely just his opinion that he is sharing. I understand that debate happens but I come to this board for inspiration and enlightenment. I think there can be less offense taken if we could all remember that both opinions and facts are being displayed here and it is helpful to state them accordingly.
elguanteloko Posted December 2, 2011 Author Posted December 2, 2011 PRECISELY!This is the correct answer--at least as I understand it within the context of the doctrine of God as revealed by the Prophet Joseph Smith.God's "morality" has no relationship to what we understand to be basic "good" and "bad" actions, and our powers of reason are insufficient to understand the mind of God.It has no relationship? So, burning innocent children for pure fun might be right for God? That's the type of stuff I'm taking as very basic 'bad' actions. If God has a morality so outrageous that we can't even make sense of it, then why call it moral in the first place? God might say he is moral and he might punish you if he thinks you are wrong but that sounds ludicrous.It really isn't that hard to get. Why trust that God is moral in the first place when what He calls 'good' is so outrageous as to let millions upon millions to suffer horribly when he could stop it? You might as well say of ANYONE (murderers, rapists, etc) that they might have good reasons they aren't telling us for doing those horrible things, or that we simply aren't capable of understanding their grandiose reasons. At any rate, I concur 100% with your rumination that it is by faith alone that we can rely upon God to guide us right.Which means only that you have no reason to think God is good but simply trust that he is. If not, then why have faith in the first place?
elguanteloko Posted December 2, 2011 Author Posted December 2, 2011 True. The "right by might" theory explains human morality,actually, it doesn't and I honestly don't know how you can even think this is the case. We protect the weak not because the king told us to. We can be against the king not because the king threatened us if we didn't (that would be strange).
KevinG Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 Exodus 12:2929 Now it came about at midnight that theLordstruck all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the firstborn of the captive who was in the dungeon, and all the firstborn of cattle.K - explain how that was immoral.Was the Civil War immoral as a course to freedom for slaves? (See Gettysburg Address)
elguanteloko Posted December 2, 2011 Author Posted December 2, 2011 (edited) K - explain how that was immoral.Was the Civil War immoral as a course to freedom for slaves? (See Gettysburg Address)Killing innocent children when you could not do so and just kill the enemies is not immoral? Good grief! We are talking about God here, pal. Edited December 2, 2011 by elguanteloko
Ares Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 Are you pretending to be thick? Or is this some tactic of focusing on unimportant details?Slow down newbie and read the board guidelines.
KevinG Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 Killing innocent children when you could not do so and just kill the enemies is not immoral? Good grief! We are talking about God here, pal.Again with the assertions. Explain why in the circumstance cited God was immoral. Was there not enough warning? Was an escape from tragedy not provided if Pharoh obeyed? Was the action God killing or God warning of an impending disaster that was ignored?Provide some cogent reasoning here to go with your moral outrage.In light of the parallels did the killing of innocents in the Civil War make the fight to free slaves immoral? Was Abraham Lincoln immoral for taking the action he did?Please explain yourself. Emotional outbursts are not informative and make you look silly.
caudicus Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 I don't think the Civil War was actually about freeing slaves.I also don't think killing people is okay, even if you warn them first.
Cobalt-70 Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 Moses 1 is, in my judgment, the bookend to the King Follett sermon. It is popular among some students of Mormonism to suggest that Joseph Smith's theology evolved over time. I thoroughly dispute that notion, and I submit that the concepts of the King Follett sermon from 1844 are discernible in the Book of Moses from 1830.I don't agree that much of Smith's 1840s theology is evident in the Book of Moses. But speaking of the King Follett sermon, consider the following quote: "The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. God Himself found Himself in the midst of spirits and glory. Because He was greater He saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest, who were less in intelligence, could have a privilege to advance like Himself and be exalted with Him, so that they might have one glory upon another in all that knowledge, power, and glory. So He took in hand to save the world of spirits."So this bolsters the moral relativism model you have been advocating, in that God created laws of morality to help his lesser-advanced co-eternal neighbors achieve greater intelligence. So that is moral relativism. But presumably, when God was in the same position, there was an intelligence, higher still, which "instituted laws" so that God could get the knowledge he needed to achieve his own exaltation. Evidently, however, these laws have run their course and God no longer needs them to achieve greater knowledge.This also dovetails with the Mormon concept of "sealing"--that is, that one can be sealed to one's exaltation such that one may commit any manner of sins and blasphemies (apart from the unpardonable sin) and will nevertheless be guaranteed exaltation. Underlying this theory is the idea that once one passes a certain level of knowledge on the path toward exaltation, moral laws no longer apply.
KevinG Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 By the way you have plenty of time to form a cogent response. I'm off to camp with my young Danite Scouts in below freezing weather. If I survive I'll be interested in seeing the discussion.
KevinG Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 I don't think the Civil War was actually about freeing slaves.I also don't think killing people is okay, even if you warn them first.There are theories that volcanic gasses killed the firstborn of Egypt. If that was the case and they failed to heed God's warnings does God take credit for an immoral act?Yes, yes I live in the South... The Civil War was about States Rights to do what you ask? Why keep slaves of course!
caudicus Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 I assumed, for the sake of argument, that we were considering the Bible to be true.
Recommended Posts