Behunin
-
Posts
216 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Behunin
-
-
Are you accusing me of being Anti-American?Originally posted by curvette@Feb 10 2004, 01:46 PM
This thread seems to be hopelessly deadlocked. I never get used to listening to American citizens who are blatently Anti American. Something I meant to mention earlier in the thread is the fact that our late prophet Howard W Hunter was a lawyer as well. I wonder if he is considered unworthy.
Also, prophets are not perfect. Alma the younger was the vilest of sinners and he repented and was reborn; that's the good news, or the Gospel; though we are "fallen" we can awake. Prophets are not exempted from the fall.
-
Don't be upset by this scripture AFDAW, don't read the words literally. There is a deeper message. When I get home from work I will send you this scripture, chapter and verse.Originally posted by AFDaw@Feb 10 2004, 08:27 PM
Yes I would like to see it.
-
The selfishness of adultery has consequences that last a lifetime.
-
Good advice for those who will listen! Thank you Peace.
-
Originally posted by antishock82003+Feb 10 2004, 07:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (antishock82003 @ Feb 10 2004, 07:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--AFDaw@Feb 9 2004, 09:51 PM
Try to read this Antishock...try real hard. GOD...DOES...NOT...CREATE...EVIL! He simply creates life that has their OWN FREE AGENCY to do whatever they want. SO you see...that's how a KIND, LOVING, MERCIFUL God works. He creates his children and gives them all the same blessing of free agency, regardless of whether or not they're righteous or wicked.
If I showed you a passage in the Bible, which incidentally is canonized scripture, that God does indeed create Evil, would you believe otherwise?
AS is correct. It is in Isaiah.
-
Exactly, it is in the mind. It is the mind that is stuck in duality.Originally posted by Peace@Feb 9 2004, 02:38 PM
There is no contradiction except in your own mind.
Giving us weakness to control isn't a contradiction, it is a test. It is being given the world to over come...a challenge to gain dominion and power over one's enviroment, even body environment.
-
Who deems the "citizen" has consented? The men with the guns of course. The mafia can also assume their victims consented.Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Feb 9 2004, 02:23 PM
In a consensual form of government like a republic, the classical thinking is that the government's use of force and compulsion to enforce the laws is different from the force used by a gangster because the citizens are deemed to have consented to the laws and their enforcement.
Note for Behunin -- I'm not sure how a society based on Gandhi's ideas of nonviolence could ever function. His system was only used successfully a couple of times, and in each case it was used to do away with unfair government practices -- not to actively govern. In addition, you can count on your fingers the number of times active nonviolence has been used successfully against any system but an English-speaking democracy. The system relies on the conscience of its target. It doesn't work when the target doesn't have a conscience, which is why Gandhi's suggestion that the British should let the Nazis take all of England they wanted and that the Jews should meet the Nazis' persecutions with nonviolence was singularly moronic and naive. In the real world, one has to assume that not everyone has a conscience that can successfully be appealed to.
You mention contract. Well, "government" is supposed to have one function i.e., to protect life, liberty and property. However, no "government" has an enforceable duty to protect anyone or anything. This is why you cannot sue a police department for failing to protect you or your property, even for failing to respond to a 9/11 call.
You miss the point when you talk about having to "actively govern." The "governing" itself is the problem; men/women should not control other men/women. Control (govern) is not necessary to protect property.
You fail to see how a society based on consent can ever function? It functions every day, just look around. There are only two businesses in the world that do not operate on a mutual voluntary basis: 1) the mafia and 2) so-called "government."
I did not write of non-violence, I wrote about services being provided on a compulsory basis. I believe in self-defense. It is the initiation of force that is the problem. I do not agree with Ghandi's position about the nazi's, on the contrary, I agree with what the Jews did in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising.
-
Let's see, how do the men and women DBA a "government" get the money to pay for the traffic lights? It's called "taxation" the taking of property by force. Does one have a choice in being labeled a so-called "taxpayer" and then being fleeced? No. Real customers pay for services and products, look at Sears or Microsoft to confirm.Originally posted by Cal@Feb 9 2004, 12:54 PM
Beh--you said: Traffic lights do not have to be provided on a compulsory basis. They can be paid for just as another other service and product. Can you explain why traffic lights are different from other products?
What the____are you talking about? Who is going to pay for them, if not the tax payer. By the way, has it ever dawned on you that the "government" is us? People, just like you and me, trying to make sure that society runs smoothly. No perfectly, but smoothly and with some fairness. How are traffic lights NOT paid for like any other product? THEY ARE. The city, county or state has a budget. It purchases the traffic lights from a PRIVATE company that makes them. How is that NOT like any other product purchase?
Beside the fact that you and I have no vote in how the Mafia operates, another massive difference between the government and the MAFIA is called DUE PROCESS. Do you know what that means? Look it up. It's a fundamental principle upon which all government action is taken. When the government takes something from you, like a traffic fine, or the IRS takes property for the payment of taxes, you have a RIGHT to a hearing and to state your case. SINCE WHEN DID THE MAFIA EVER HOLD A HEARING BEFORE IT TAKES SOMETHING FROM YOU, like you life.
The "government" is not us. If it was then you could say no.
"Due process" really means nothing but public relations. A basic understanding of how "government" and "courts" work prove this.
Let's see, Mr. IRS man wants your house. Do you get a hearing first? No, pay first and bring a suit for a refund, it's called the "Anti-injunctive Tax Act" look it up in title 26 section 7421 of the US code. You can't even get a declaratory judgment in "tax" cases.
Think it matters that you get a hearing? Let's see, Mr. IRS man get paid by taking money by force. Mr. judge, how is he paid? That's right, out of the property Mr. IRS man takes by force. I see what is called a "conflict of interest" here.
Do you understand what a "confidence man" is?
People steal from each other, just because they claim to do it for your own good doesn't mean they are any less a robber.
Your mafia analogy is inapplicable; you have no vote as to whether you have a "government" controlling your life and property just as there is no vote to whether the mafia is in your neighborhood. it's called a false choice. Who cares if you can pick who controls your life and property? A slave is a slave because someone controls him. It is silly to think he's not a slave because he can pick a new master. I am going to end this with a quote from Lysander Spooner:
“If A were to go to B, a merchant, and say to him, ”Sir, I am a night-watchman, and I insist upon your employing me as such in protecting your property against burglars; and to enable me to do so more effectually, I insist upon your letting me tie your own hands and feet, so that you cannot interfere with me; and also upon your delivering up to me all your keys to your store, your safe, and to all your valuables; and that you authorize me to act solely and fully according to my own will, pleasure, and discretion in the matter; and I demand still further, that you shall give me an absolute guaranty that you will not hold me to any accountability whatever for anything I may do, or for anything that may happen to your goods while they are under my protection; and unless you comply with this proposal, I will now kill you on the spot,” —- if A were to say all this to B, B would naturally conclude that A himself was the most impudent and dangerous burglar that he (B) had to fear; and that if he (B) wished to secure his property against burglars, his best way would be to kill A in the first place, and then take his chances against all such other burglars as might come afterwards.” Lysander Spooner, Letter to Grover Cleveland.
-
I am a Mormon and can also attest to what Snow has written. I will go further and attest that God, the Father and his Son, Jesus the Christ, are not full of fury and anger. That is a superficial, or natural man way of reading the scriptures; though there are several very plain scriptures in this regard such as: "Fury is not in me..." Isaiah 27:4. The one who has the anger is man; this is taught plainly in the Book of Mormon: "that which ye call anger was the truth, according to that which is in God..." 2 Nephi 1:26.Originally posted by Snow@Feb 8 2004, 10:14 PM
You made a completely absurd and ignorant statement about our beliefs. I respond that I, Snow, who am more knowledgeable than you about LDS doctrine, know your statement is false. (By the way, all other Mormons here can attest that we do not believe that God ONLY alleviates suffering for righteous priesthood holders). But regardless of what I know in that regard, I also know that you cannot offer any evidence what so ever that show we believe that God alleviates ONLY the suffering of righteous priesthood holders. The very notion is absurd. We believe that God has regularly intervened in the affairs of non-priesthood holders and his actions have alleviated suffering.
God does alleviate all suffering, but he cannot make the one suffereing accept or notice it. Lehi testified: "I have beheld his glory, and I am encircled about eternally in the arms of his love." 2 Nephi 1:15, this means he realized he was always there. Anger is rooted in fear. However, love casteth out fear, Moroni 8:16. "God is love." 1 John 4:8.
This love is already within us: "it is the love of God, which sheddeth itself abroad in the hearts of the children of men..." If not, we would literally die: "Then shall ye know that ye have seen me, that I am, and that I am the true light that is in you, and that you are in me; otherwise ye could not abound." D&C 88:50.
-
"Homosexuality is God's way of insuring that the truly gifted aren't burdened with children." Sam AustinOriginally posted by Tr2@Feb 8 2004, 10:00 PM
Evolution is formed on the principle of a species making itself stronger to survive. Homosexuality prevents a species from reproducing, thus halting its progress. If you want to kill all life, make it all homosexual. Am I wrong?
I'm just going to wait for you to disagree with me. I think you hate me so much you'll say anything to disagree. If I said shooting yourself wouldn't hurt, would you try and prove me wrong?
-
I think we need to look at the scriptures apart from the literal aspect. The natural man only sees and understands the literal, what he can see.Originally posted by Peace@Feb 7 2004, 12:25 PM
Okay....when it comes to the Lord commanding someone to kill....it is because He is established upon principles...not applications.
When the principle of giving everyone the chance to know the gospel in it's fullness and to live according to the plan of salvation and knowledge of all of this being contingent upon the obtaining these records and escaping safely... Laban being killed was just one of the things that needed to be accomplished here.
The other one was...like with Paul and the 'eating of unclean meat' ....would Nephi OBEY God no matter what?
Would he put God's command to kill above the written 'law' of thou shalt not kill?
He was being tested...because of all the garbage he was about to endure, he needed to be completely submissive to the Lord, trusting the Lord above everything else.
Death, in my understanding of the scriptures, is rarely meant only literally. There is spiritual death such as: "For this my son was dead, and his alive again; he was lost, and is found." Luke 15:23. The son was not literally dead.
It is interesting that Laban lost his head with a sword. A sword is symbolic of truth; remember the flaming sword that "turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life." Genesis 3:24.
Leaving Jerusalem is symbolic of leaving the great and spacious building. Leaving the great and spacious building means leaving at least part of the natural man behind. This part is symbolized by Laban's head being cut off. Man cannot progress spiritually unless the natural man is gradually put off.
Now for a confession: I enlisted the help of my husband for this post. I started it and then he filled in where I lacked. He is so good to me
. So you all got an excerpt from his book Esoteric Book of Mormon. -
Once again you deflect attention away from the issue. Are you capable of directly addressing an issue? Those tactics may be effective with other lawyers in a court room controlled by a lawyer, but you're not in a court room.Originally posted by Cal@Feb 8 2004, 09:59 AM
Beh---paraphrasing, "the government forces their services on its customers"--again, you must be more specific--give me an example that I can address. I'll guess at what you mean--let's say, income taxes. Yes, the government forces you to pay them. If you don't they take away your property, by force, if necessary. It an example of what you mean?
If you mean what I think you mean, I'm starting to think you live in a cabin in the mountains of Montana, and the nearest town is 40 miles away, and it has 10 people in it. Do you not actually understand that in a complex society, without government regulation, you have chaos and anarchy? It's as simple as traffic lights and stop signs. Sure nobody "likes" them, but without them, people get hurt. Are you suggesting we do without trafic lights, so you don't have to pay for them? If you and I don't pay for them, who should? The Chinese?
You don't like government services? You don't want to be a "customer"? Then don't let me catch you driving to work on roads the rest of us are perfectly will to PAY FOR? Who do you think you are, some kind of freeloader, who doesn't have to pay his share, who doesn't have to be a "customer" of the government, who gets all the benefits of governement, without paying for it. If you don't want to participate in government, and pay your way as a "customer", then.....
get off the roads, don't let me catch you calling the fire department when your house catches on fire; when a robber busts into your house, don't let me catch you calling the police; when your kid falls out of the tree and needs immediate paramedic attention, don't let me catch you calling the fire department paramedics, handle it yourself!
If you don't want to be a customer, and pay your taxes like the rest of us, then get the ______out of the country, WE DON'T LIKE FREELOADERS!
I have been specific, "government" is a group of men and women. These men and women claim to be "protecing life, liberty and property." This "service" is not provided on a voluntary, freely take it or leave it basis.
Traffic lights do not have to be provided on a compulsory basis. They can be paid for just as another other service and product. Can you explain why traffic lights are different from other products?
What will you do if you catch me on the roads? Will you shoot me in front of my kids? The fair share argument, give me a break. Do you realize you are supporting a service provided on a violent basis? I guess you see nothing wrong with the way the mafia does business. Don't like the service John Gotti is forcing on you and the neighborhood? Pay your fair share and move out. Don't let me catch you enjoying the benefit of a neighborhood even the police admit is made safer by the mob than the so-called "government."
Freeloader? Taxes are taken out of my paycheck every week. You don't like freeloaders, but you do seem to like people who take property by force under the guise of protection. They are the criminals. A freeloader is someone who gets something for nothing and that is "government." "Government" does not create value, it takes it, violently. And they have an army of apologists called lawyers to justify it.
You see, the "state" is the only service that comes with its own religion, it's called politics. And its followers (victims) ALWAYS respond emotionally when they feel it is being attacked. You probably justify a compulsory service because you personally profit from it.
-
We worship Heavenly Father through his Son Jesus Christ, and we receive witness to this through the Holy Ghost.Originally posted by sanctuaryave@Feb 8 2004, 05:28 AM
When we worship God. which god aren we worshipping our creator or his creator?
Three in the Godhead, one in purpose. And we all are one with the Savior, if we want to be: John 15:5
"I am the vine, ye are the branches........"
To answer your question: no, we worship as I have explained above. However, this does not mean that at some point in the eternities we won't understand Heavenly Father's heritage (so to speak).
-
Thank you sweetheart, I love you.Originally posted by HalleysComet@Feb 7 2004, 06:15 PM
Behunin,
For as much as everyone here tolerates me,the least I can do is pray for someone else. Things will be okay,hon.
Halley
-
Very good! I think those penguins have just been in NYC too long!Originally posted by AFDaw@Feb 7 2004, 07:30 PM
It's my belief that God does not make one homosexual.
As for the animal kingdom, I don't think they necessarily work under the same laws as Humans.
Flame away.
-
I loved this Peace. Thank you!
-
I have often wondered about these questions. While I want my children to make good choices, I know that if I controlled EVERYTHING they do, they would not have the earthly experience they were meant to have.Originally posted by Peace@Feb 7 2004, 10:26 PM
Are you evil because of what your children do? Do they do only those things you make them do? Can you prevent them from being individuals? Would you if you could, control everything they did?
-
A Betty Eadie explaination would be that we all chose how we would die in the pre exsistance before we came to earth. This little girl is not really dead, just without her body at this time.Originally posted by antishock82003@Feb 6 2004, 11:27 AM
I'm not blaming God. Why don't you answer the question instead of attacking me? How could a just, loving, merciful God allow such a thing to happen?
-
1) You miss the point by going to the alleged "law breakers." The "government" forces their "services" on their pretended customers. Why don't you address that?Originally posted by Cal@Feb 7 2004, 02:07 PM
Very little in your response makes any sense:
1) I responded to your claim that the government has no business "forcing" people to behave a certain way by pointing out to you that the only way to deal will law breakers is to punish them! Absent punishment, law breakers would soon take over the world---in case you haven't noticed "the natural man is an enemy to god", and might I add to everyone else TOO"
2) Voluntary--what do you mean by this? Are you suggesting that law enforcement personnel are "forced" to work at their jobs? This is what I mean by "la la land". The last time I checked ANY government worker, or any worker ANYWHERE in the united states can walk off his job any time he wants, as a general rule (obviously a fireman, say, has a duty to do his job while he is commited to it)---but once you quit your job, who is "forcing" you to do it? Please, give me one example of some one performing a service on anything BUT a voluntary basis!
Talk about not addressing the issues--your diatribe about "voluntariness" is so vague and nebulous that, until you get more specific and define your terms, no one is going to be able to respond in a meaningful fashion. I have had to define your terms for you in order to even approach a logical response.
PS There is nothing ad homenin about this, all I'm asking you to do is
2) This appers to be a lawyer tactic (I get your little ploy, this isn't a court room though). But I will still respond for others reading this thread.
When I write voluntary, I mean the men and women DBA ("doing business as") a so-called "government" do not provide their "services" to their pretended customers (so-called "citizens" and "taxpayers") on a voluntary basis, it is compulsory. This means the customer has no choice whether he wants the service or not. He gets it and must pay for it. The customer is a customer not by his freely given consent, but by compulsion.
Go ahead and call this "diatribe" also; but I doubt you will address it directly. Or do you require me to first define each word such as government, men, women, service, voluntary, compulsion, business, and forcing?
As far as the "natural man," you are again way off base. The "natural man" is not limited to "law breakers." A "natural man" is someone who is carnal, sensual and devilish." Devilish is one who seeks to control others, remember the plan that was rejected? Carnal and sensual has to do with someone who serves his senses, he understands everything literally based on what he can see, hear etc. Why is he an enemy to God? Because faith, the first principal and ordinance of the Gospel, is "hope for things which are not seen..." Alma 32:21. Unless one is at the tree of life, which includes comprehending God (D&C 88:49), they are a "natural man."
-
Originally posted by sanctuaryave+Feb 7 2004, 01:47 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (sanctuaryave @ Feb 7 2004, 01:47 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Peace@Feb 7 2004, 12:12 AM
hmmm, a babe in the woods...well, It means that God was once a man on earth and through the same pathes He traveled and has outlined for us, we can become like Him....Gods.
Does that mean that, like me, God has a creator as well? If I can become God, is there then more than one?
Yes.
-
I think your correct, but I think it would be a very educational website, and a healing one too!Originally posted by Peace@Feb 5 2004, 03:39 PM
You know what we really need is a forum for people to come and report their experiences with lawyers and cops.
I think it would be filled up with bad experiences so fast, they would have over-load problems.
No matter where we are, and no matter what kind of croud we are mingling with, when the topics of bad experiences with lawyers and cops comes up, everyone....and I do mean everyone....has a story or two or three or more to tell.
Maybe you and I should start one.........
-
Thank you Blessed and Halley.
My Aunt's surgery is next month.
-
That is what I am getting at, his heart being softened AFTER. But, if his heart was not soft, why would he have cried to the Lord? If his heart was hard it seems he would not have cried unto the Lord and had a visitation. It seems, at least in the BoM, visitations happen to the real wicked and the humble.Originally posted by Jenda@Feb 5 2004, 07:20 AM
Maybe because Nephi, prior to then, was obedient for the sake of being obedient, as the law dictates. It was only after he cried to the Lord and the Lord answered him that his heart softened and he became a believer.
The letter of the law thing compared to the spirit of the law thing.
Maybe he saw the futility in trying to be obedient and that humbled him to a point where he would seek the Lord with real intent.
It seems as if what happened AFTER or during the visitation was a deeper learning, or affected a deeper part of Nephi.
-
Again you resort to ad homenin attacks. I address each "substantive" point you raise and you come back being non-responsive and hurling personal attacks. You have not shown where any of the points I have raised are incorrect.Originally posted by Cal@Feb 5 2004, 11:06 PM
Beh--Yes, I can see you are an anarchist. The idea that a complex society, made up of people who will take advantage of eachother and injure eachother, has no right to REQUIRE that people behave in a civilized manner )ie that they compensate eachother for wrongs they do to eachother, or that they may be, yes, forcibly removed from society if they do things like kill, maim, rob, rape etc eachother) is an absurdity reserved for the mind of a 4 year old.
How would you suggest we deal with rapists etc? . Sit them down and have a nice long CHAT?
If I refuse to pay the medical bills of someone I have NEGLIGENTLY just run over with my car, what do you suggest? That the government say "oh, that's ok, just don't do it again"?
You are living in lala land!
You speak of a "complex society" and then talk about "forcibly" removing people. You are so closed off to new ideas you fail to see the flaws in your statements. I do not have to the time to point out all the flaws in that first paragraph.
First, in the act of trying to kill, maim, rob and rape, in a truly free society a potential victim may be armed (oh no, maybe even concealed!) and may defend themselves. However, after the fact such "perp" may be removed from society in a non-violent manner. There are alternatives to violence. Remember Ghandi?
I don't suggest a "government" doing anything but leaving people alone and getting real jobs. Normal people provide their services and products on a voluntary basis.
And this is where you have a problem. You attack me by comparing me to a "4 year old." Yet, at the heart of this, you believe a mere service, provided by men and women, should be provided on a compulsory basis. Apparently you cannot conceive of a service, provided by men and women, being provided and paid for on a voluntary basis. This appears to be your problem. You think coercion is necessary to provide a service. Why can't the same services, by the same people, be provided on a voluntary basis like other services?
Last, there are only two groups of men and women who provide their services on a compulsory basis: 1) gansters and 2) so-called "governments."
. So you all got an excerpt from his book Esoteric Book of Mormon.
"definitive Conclusion By Logic"
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
You forget, those so-called "laws" are imposed by force by a group of men and women who impose themselves on the people without their consent. Yeah, use the Gambino union and stay out of trouble. It's simple!
What I recognize is a group of men and women who impose themselves on others. Too bad you can't recognize that. You don't recognize a man/woman's right to say no.
Best ever devised? Please, even the best form of slavery is still slavery. How about the same services provided on a voluntary basis? Why impose a service on someone against their will?