cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board  

Go Back   cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board > non-Sports > Religion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-05-2008, 08:32 PM   #61
Tex
Senior Member
 
Tex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,596
Tex is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
It wasn't my point.

My point was, regardless of the "morality" of the issue, the church's is a bigoted position.
I know. And my point was, moral rightness and bigotry are mutually exclusive.

Your only response to that is to play with the definition of "moral."
__________________
"Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?"
"And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..."

- Cali Coug

"Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got."

- Brigham Young
Tex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2008, 08:41 PM   #62
Solon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Happy Valley, PA
Posts: 1,866
Solon is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex View Post
I know. And my point was, moral rightness and bigotry are mutually exclusive.

Your only response to that is to play with the definition of "moral."
I don't think we're all that far apart here.

I think there are plenty of examples in Hebrew / Christian history where God or God's prophets promoted bigotry, whether it was against people of the neighboring tribes, evildoers, heretics, Jews, Muslims, Native Americans, African-Americans etc. But is an "amoral" action done with the stamp of approval of God / God's representative in fact moral? It's obviously arguable either way, but the bigoted position remains.

At least, that's how I see it.
__________________
I hope for nothing. I fear nothing. I am free. - Epitaph of Nikos Kazantzakis (1883-1957)
Solon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2008, 09:09 PM   #63
Tex
Senior Member
 
Tex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,596
Tex is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
I don't think we're all that far apart here.

I think there are plenty of examples in Hebrew / Christian history where God or God's prophets promoted bigotry, whether it was against people of the neighboring tribes, evildoers, heretics, Jews, Muslims, Native Americans, African-Americans etc. But is an "amoral" action done with the stamp of approval of God / God's representative in fact moral? It's obviously arguable either way, but the bigoted position remains.

At least, that's how I see it.
But that strikes me as self-contradictory. In my opinion, a bigoted act cannot be a morally right act. It's inseparable. If God magically makes an act moral, why can't he magically make it not bigoted too? If we're going to get anywhere in this discussion, we have to settle on a common definition for the sake of argument.

Let's take a clear example: murder. The term connotes immorality (dictionary: "the crime of unlawfully killing a person"). Committed under certain circumstances however (say, in self-defense), it becomes moral. It's no longer murder. It's the same, in my mind, with bigotry.

Does that mean every act committed in the name of morality actually is moral? No. Which is why we have to agree on some meaning for the term, or discussion is really useless. I'm not interested in debating how the term has been abused (or changed) over the years, but what it means for me, now.
__________________
"Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?"
"And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..."

- Cali Coug

"Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got."

- Brigham Young
Tex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2008, 11:26 PM   #64
Solon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Happy Valley, PA
Posts: 1,866
Solon is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex View Post
But that strikes me as self-contradictory. In my opinion, a bigoted act cannot be a morally right act. It's inseparable. If God magically makes an act moral, why can't he magically make it not bigoted too? If we're going to get anywhere in this discussion, we have to settle on a common definition for the sake of argument.

Let's take a clear example: murder. The term connotes immorality (dictionary: "the crime of unlawfully killing a person"). Committed under certain circumstances however (say, in self-defense), it becomes moral. It's no longer murder. It's the same, in my mind, with bigotry.

Does that mean every act committed in the name of morality actually is moral? No. Which is why we have to agree on some meaning for the term, or discussion is really useless. I'm not interested in debating how the term has been abused (or changed) over the years, but what it means for me, now.
A good analysis. I think we're just discussing semantics and the issue is going to boil down to belief in divine approval or not. Not the best route for discussion but thanks for making this issue clear for me.
__________________
I hope for nothing. I fear nothing. I am free. - Epitaph of Nikos Kazantzakis (1883-1957)
Solon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2008, 11:29 PM   #65
Solon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Happy Valley, PA
Posts: 1,866
Solon is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RockyBalboa View Post
I don't have a diploma from BYU.

That was an honest statement.

Give it a whirl. You can do it if you put your mind to it.
I don't have a diploma from the BYU either. There you go.

You have yet to demonstrate that anything specific I've said is inaccurate, let alone "intentionally dishonest." Until you figure out that you want to say something meaningful, something other than "you're dishonest," I'm done here.
__________________
I hope for nothing. I fear nothing. I am free. - Epitaph of Nikos Kazantzakis (1883-1957)
Solon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2008, 11:38 PM   #66
UtahDan
Senior Member
 
UtahDan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Bluth Home
Posts: 3,877
UtahDan is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
Also, and although some here will undeniably snark here about this, the Church does this kind of thing very rarely in modern times. This was seen as a moral issue. I don't think the Church can be expected to stay out of such matters.
LA you had your boots on the ground there, do you have any sense about why the church chose this particular fight? AZ and FL had similar measures we didn't get involved in, there were other moral issues on the ballot around the country including abortion and gambling that we stayed out of.

Do you think it has to do with how heavily CA influences the rest of the western US? Do you also anticipate that we will fight this again and again? I understand the church taking a moral stand, that makes sense to me and I have no problem with it. I would have held my nose and supported prop 8 if I lived in CA. I'm wondering if you have any insight about why we got involved in this particular battle with so many others available and so many other worthy ways to spend 20M (if we believe that funny/silly commercial).
__________________
The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. -Galileo
UtahDan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2008, 11:41 PM   #67
UtahDan
Senior Member
 
UtahDan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Bluth Home
Posts: 3,877
UtahDan is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeattleUte View Post
Seems even the thoughtful UtahDan agrees with this.
Envy is one of the seven deadly sins SU.
__________________
The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. -Galileo
UtahDan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2008, 11:48 PM   #68
BigFatMeanie
Senior Member
 
BigFatMeanie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Jordan
Posts: 1,725
BigFatMeanie is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UtahDan View Post
LA you had your boots on the ground there, do you have any sense about why the church chose this particular fight? AZ and FL had similar measures we didn't get involved in, there were other moral issues on the ballot around the country including abortion and gambling that we stayed out of.

Do you think it has to do with how heavily CA influences the rest of the western US? Do you also anticipate that we will fight this again and again? I understand the church taking a moral stand, that makes sense to me and I have no problem with it. I would have held my nose and supported prop 8 if I lived in CA. I'm wondering if you have any insight about why we got involved in this particular battle with so many others available and so many other worthy ways to spend 20M (if we believe that funny/silly commercial).
I'm not LAUte and I'm not in CA and I don't speak for the Church but I'll offer my opinion nonetheless:

The Church chose CA as the battleground (eschewing AZ and FL) because of the following reasons:

1. Size of CA - the most populous state in the union
2. Probability that the issue would go in the Church's favor was already high in FL and AZ - in other words, the Church didn't step into the fray in those states because it didn't need to.
3. Number of "boots on the ground" available in CA. Not as many boots in FL. Plenty of boots in AZ but, again, they weren't needed.
BigFatMeanie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2008, 12:35 AM   #69
RockyBalboa
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 7,297
RockyBalboa is an unknown quantity at this point
Send a message via MSN to RockyBalboa
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
I don't have a diploma from the BYU either. There you go.

You have yet to demonstrate that anything specific I've said is inaccurate, let alone "intentionally dishonest." Until you figure out that you want to say something meaningful, something other than "you're dishonest," I'm done here.
Insisting that taking a moral stand against for marriage makes a person a bigot is a deliberatly dishonest fit to one's frustrated dogma and mis-directed anger.
__________________
Masquerading as Cougarguards very own genius dumbass since 05'.
RockyBalboa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2008, 02:32 AM   #70
SteelBlue
Senior Member
 
SteelBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Norcal
Posts: 5,821
SteelBlue is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RockyBalboa View Post
Insisting that taking a moral stand against for marriage makes a person a bigot is a deliberatly dishonest fit to one's frustrated dogma and mis-directed anger.
I wonder if our polygamist ancestors considered it bigotry when the nation sought to protect traditional marriage and deny them the right to plural marriage?
SteelBlue is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.