The Bottom Line

[_SteelHead]

The ultimate example of moral relativism:

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.'

[_just me]

In the Bible God punished David and Bathsheba by killing their first baby together.

I think that is a horrible horrible thing. What would make that not horrible?

[_Tobin]

The ultimate example of moral relativism:

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.'

That's absurd. Clearly you have no idea what the definition of moral relativism is.

[_Drifting]

In the Bible God punished David and Bathsheba by killing their first baby together.

I think that is a horrible horrible thing. What would make that not horrible?

On the face of it, that's horrible and evil.
From a Christianity point of view it was necessary, justified and not so bad because everyone has to die sometime...

[_just me]

In the Bible God punished David and Bathsheba by killing their first baby together.

I think that is a horrible horrible thing. What would make that not horrible?

On the face of it, that's horrible and evil.
From a Christianity point of view it was necessary, justified and not so bad because everyone has to die sometime...

Yeah, I guess that means it would not be evil if we killed every child that was conceived out of wedlock.

[_Drifting]

In the Bible God punished David and Bathsheba by killing their first baby together.

I think that is a horrible horrible thing. What would make that not horrible?

On the face of it, that's horrible and evil.
From a Christianity point of view it was necessary, justified and not so bad because everyone has to die sometime...

Yeah, I guess that means it would not be evil if we killed every child that was conceived out of wedlock.

Well, you could only claim it as 'not evil' if you were following orders from the voices in your head/tummy.

[_SteelHead]

From: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona ... Relativism

The philosophized notion that right and wrong are not absolute values, but are personalized according to the individual and his or her circumstances or cultural orientation. It can be used positively to effect change in the law (e.g., promoting tolerance for other customs or lifestyles) or negatively as a means to attempt justification for wrongdoing or lawbreaking. The opposite of moral relativism is moral absolutism, which espouses a fundamental, Natural Law of constant values and rules, and which judges all persons equally, irrespective of individual circumstances or cultural differences.

Which when applied to the above Joseph Smith quote, makes god the greatest moral relativist of all.

Romans 4:15 ...for where no law is, there is no transgression.

Romans 5:13 ...sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Relativism much?

[_Tobin]

From: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona ... Relativism

The philosophized notion that right and wrong are not absolute values, but are personalized according to the individual and his or her circumstances or cultural orientation. It can be used positively to effect change in the law (e.g., promoting tolerance for other customs or lifestyles) or negatively as a means to attempt justification for wrongdoing or lawbreaking. The opposite of moral relativism is moral absolutism, which espouses a fundamental, Natural Law of constant values and rules, and which judges all persons equally, irrespective of individual circumstances or cultural differences.

Which when applied to the above Joseph Smith quote, makes god the greatest moral relativist of all.

Romans 4:15 ...for where no law is, there is no transgression.

Romans 5:13 ...sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Relativism much?

Not really. God judges us. It isn't relative at all. If we do what God asks, we are justified. If not, we are not justified. It doesn't matter what anyone else states so there is no moral relativism. It simply does not exist. So stating this is moral relativism is ridiculous.

[_SteelHead]

So right and wrong are situational (by definition relativism), but it is all ok as long as it is god defining the situation?

Relativism is expressly manifest in the Joseph Smith quote, and in the scriptures I provided from Romans. If you are in the condition of being without the law, you can not transgress the law. But some one who has the law, doing the exact same thing, transgresses the law.

By definition, relativism.

[_Tobin]

So right and wrong are situational (by definition relativism), but it is all ok as long as it is god defining the situation?

Relativism is expressly manifest in the Joseph Smith quote, and in the scriptures I provided from Romans. If you are in the condition of being without the law, you can not transgress the law. But some one who has the law, doing the exact same thing, transgresses the law.

By definition, relativism.

By definition God is good, so again - there is no relativism involved. God isn't going to have us do something evil period. As I said, your assertion is ridiculous. There is no relativism here at all.