CatholicLady

Lol, what's Ether 8?

Folk, listen carefully. I never said I deny God literally speaking to man. As a Catholic, I *cannot* believe that, because I know He has spoken to Saints, etc. I just don't believe He literally ordered anyone to kill their children or to marry multiple women. But I definitely don't deny that God has appeared before people and spoken to them... or sent angels to do the job. :)

Yes, this is what I had originally thought I understood.

Interesting. Thanks crypto!

Mormons, is there any sort of push in your church/community (even if subtle) to vote Republican instead of Democrat?

Oh? My understanding was that the belief in the literal or allegorical forms of the OT can vary from person to person, and that the LDS church has no official position on it? Am I misunderstanding?

duplicate

Sounds like you guys are actually pretty much describing how I feel about it too. I believe at least some of those people were real people, but I do think the stories were written in allegorical form.... exaggerated to make a point, and using metaphors. I don't think God's voice ever echoed from the skies and told Abraham to kill his own son. I also don't believe God told David to have multiple wives. (I'm only using these in particular as examples because I see them brought up here a lot) The Catholic Church leaves it open for its members to either believe it was written literally or figuratively. As long as we believe the crux of the message being expressed, that's what matters. Sounds like it's the same in the LDS community.

whats tl:dr?

He's a conservative Christian blogger I'm a fan of. Just curious if anyone else here liked him or knew who he was. Here's a recent article of his that I really like: http://themattwalshblog.com/2015/01/14/marriage-wasnt-meant/

Fair enough. Though just for the record, don't get me wrong... I'm not saying the OT is a book of lies or anything like that. I just think it was written in allegorical form, verses literally. And I also think it was necessary for Jesus to come down and give us a better understanding of God and morals... the words of the OT were not enough. ^I thought this was actually the understanding most Christians had concerning the OT. Do Mormons take it literally? Even Genesis?

Oh it's ok, Vort. I appreciate your discussions too. Sorry I got a little touchy lol... it was late. I really do think these details are things we simply won't agree on, and there's really no other way to explain anymore. It's not a matter of misunderstanding anymore, now it's just a matter of not agreeing. :)

Well, that's the thing. :) Murder is defined as *wrongful* killing. Self defense, for example, is not murder. Neither is just war. Those are the two big ones. I don't believe God ever commanded any killings in the OT. For example, I don't think He commanded Abraham to kill his son. I think I said this in another thread, but I don't take the OT literally.

Vort, after almost 20 pages, I'm not sure how else to say it to you or how else to explain it lol. You told me I haven't actually identified any moral distinction. But I have. You just don't agree with them. You've responded with saying these details are "utterly irrelevant." And ok, that's your opinion. *I* don't think they are irrelevant. You have your church and your religion, and I have mine. You were taught one thing, and believe one thing, and I was taught differently and believe differently. At this point you say that you understand my position, you just don't agree with it. That's perfectly fine. I personally don't think it's nice that you're telling me that my beliefs are "just hand waving" and "Pharisaical" and "indefensible" and "utterly irrelevant". I would never have said that to you about anything you believe in, and I'm a little disappointed that these things are being said to me here, to be honest. Like I said, God gave us the commandment that murder is always immoral. That is usually pretty clear. But in complicated and extreme situations, we are left to decipher whether or not causing the death of a person would be considered "murder"... and to do this as accurately as we know how, we have to get into really fine details. Bottom line is we simply don't agree on the relevance or significance of some of the particular details being discussed here. And that is really all there is to it at this point. There's not much else to say. :) PS- please don't take my "laughing a lot" as laughing at you or anything like that. Typing "lol" is just my way of conveying a friendly/light hearted tone, since tone is difficult to decipher via text.

When I feel confident, I can have a lot of fun. And when I have fun, I can do amazing things. (joe namath) Do you poop?

Lol, but the gunman is asking you to pull the trigger for the sole purpose of shooting and killing your kid, and you know that. I think at this point we are just going around in circles. Like Clair said, God gave us a commandment, and that is not to commit murder. That is usually pretty clear. But in complicated and extreme situations, we are left to decipher whether or not causing the death of a person would be considered "murder". What I am explaining to you in this thread is what the Catholic Church, after 2000 years of existence and thousands of its theologians/philosophers studying moral theology and double effect, has come up with. Obviously we don't agree on all the details, and that is perfectly fine. But that's all I got for ya. :)

But you are pulling the trigger specifically for the kid to die! :) However, you are not cutting the rope specifically for the kid to die. If your intent in the rope scenario was for your kid to die, then you could just stand at the edge of the cliff and shoot him. There. He'd be dead. But that wouldn't get you to your goal, which is to free your wife of the cord that is pulling her down, not to kill your kid.

Look at it this way, Vort, the 2 scenarios (rope/gun) are different because with the rope, your intended end result is still not for your kid to die (plus, your kid is already dying). There is a rope tied around your wife that is pulling her down. You need to cut the rope to free her. If you go to the cliff's edge and point a gun at your kid, and kill him, it wouldn't solve what you are trying to do. So yes, I still think that shooting your kid in order to kill him so that the bad guy won't kill your wife, is different from cutting a rope tied around your wife where your already dying kid is hanging from. And again, I will say, this is still not a perfect analogy, and honestly I still don't know for sure if even the rope thing would be moral. But what I'm trying to do here is show you the difference between the 2 scenarios.

I have already seen now that we will not agree that these acts are different. But yes, I do think that taking a weapon and shooting someone in the face with the intent of killing them is different from the rope/cliff scenario that Folk presented. In the rope scenario, your kid is already shot and already going to die. He is shot, hanging off a cliff from a rope that is also tied around your wife who is on the edge of the cliff. If you do nothing, your wife will get pulled down the cliff with him. If you cut the rope, your kid falls to his death, but your wife stays up. I don't think this is a perfect analogy of an ectopic pregnancy, but in both cases you are removing the threat without directly targeting and killing the kid.

Estradling, that's weird. #318 is the long post below. But I'm going off of Folk's analogy right here: Post 318:

They *do* amount to the same thing. I wasn't trying to say otherwise. I am not trying to speculate on God's judgement either, that wasn't the point. Either way, it sounds like you think they are morally equivalent acts. Thank you for answering. I will take a look at your post. :)

So just to confirm... you think both these acts (cutting the rope/stabbing the kid) are the same in morality?

Thank you. :) So just to clear it up... you think both these acts (cutting the rope/stabbing the kid) are the same in morality?

To address this little portion separately... I get that you guys don't understand and/or don't agree. But I honestly see no reason to have said this to me. :-/

Give me your thoughts and please answer my question on post #318. :)