Wingnut Posted June 14, 2010 Report Posted June 14, 2010 Your attitude does not fit with the second great commandment: To love your neighbor as yourself.That's laughable, coming from you.
Daniel2020 Posted June 14, 2010 Report Posted June 14, 2010 (edited) That's laughable, coming from you.I think you're confusing loving your neighbor with condoning sin. They're actually very different. (I know you won't believe me when I say I have a friend who is homosexual, but it's true. It's also true that I don't pull any punches when asked what is--and is not--a sin.) Additionally I don't think you understand what is meant by loving the sinner, but hating the sin.---------------And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent. (D&C 1:27)Somehow I get the idea this scripture expresses an attitude you dislike. Edited June 14, 2010 by Daniel2020
brooks Posted June 14, 2010 Author Report Posted June 14, 2010 In other words--contrary to the scriptures--you don't believe in "being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates." Nor do you believe in "obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."Way to try to turn what I said around, but no.I obey and honor the laws. I do not break the law. There is a difference in not following the law of the land and not believing that the government has authority over me.You could have responded to my post that was a reply to your previous post, but I guess you just ignored that.
brooks Posted June 14, 2010 Author Report Posted June 14, 2010 Yes. That is what being subject to, as well as supporting and obeying, the law of the land is all about.------------You seem to have a big hang-up on taxes. You go so far as to call it theft when you are taxed for the benefit of others. Frankly, I think you're hiding behind a convenient philosophy that allows you to justify being greedy and selfish. Your attitude does not fit with the second great commandment: To love your neighbor as yourself. I doubt you would have made it as a First Century Christian when they had all things in common. It might be well for you to ponder on the second great commandment. Also the message and circumstances when Christ said, "Render under Caesar that which is Caesars, and unto God that which is Gods."Taxation is theft. Theft is taking without consent. Take it how you want to, that is a fact.I am greedy and selfish? I'm not one to disclose what I give to charity, but since you are assuming things about me.. I will go ahead and assume it is much more than you do.Where have I disclosed any information about myself that would lead you to believe that I do not love others, as much as myself? If you are still referring to my belief that taxation is theft.. then I would remind you that I believe that for all people, not just myself. I should believe that taxation is theft, but yield that it is ok to tax others in the same manner?Again, I do render what is required.. as I said in my previous post to your first response, I obey the law.If you wish to continue in this conversation, I only ask that you make no more assumptions about me.. rather ask.Thanks for your reply though.
brooks Posted June 14, 2010 Author Report Posted June 14, 2010 Welcome to an active return to the LDS church. I know you must love the church, and you want to partake of the wonderful spirit there. Wow, it makes me think of my own issues that are currently threatening my continued church activity. I will pray that you find a solution.Thank you Boris. The Lord knows my heart. There is not one of us active in this forum that isn't imperfect. My prayers will have you in them too. Please stay active, as we can encourage one another. Peace.
brooks Posted June 14, 2010 Author Report Posted June 14, 2010 Let's please try to play nice people.I'm sorry, It was not my intention to bring hostility to the site.
Elgama Posted June 14, 2010 Report Posted June 14, 2010 I'm sorry, It was not my intention to bring hostility to the site.you didn't:) my admiration for Mark Thomas gives me an understanding and respect for your position. I don't know many people with his respect for the law we have, he is a peace activist and last time he was arrested he received damages from the police for illegal detention. He works with the law we have to produce his results. I don't agree entirely with his position but think he is an honourable man worthy of great respect for his work.
Moksha Posted June 15, 2010 Report Posted June 15, 2010 I think anarchy can help bring us back to the time Thomas Hobbes described as being solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short for the majority of people. Not so for those having their own cave on Galt Island, unless the soccer ball was plotting to go apostate in response to all those sermons. :)
HoosierGuy Posted June 15, 2010 Report Posted June 15, 2010 Taxation is theft. Theft is taking without consent. Take it how you want to, that is a fact.Thanks for your reply though. "Taxation is theft" is not a fact. With all due respect, you may call yourself an "anarchist" but to me you sound just like another right wing conservative. Against taxes, abortion, welfare, taxes, government, etc.... It's a free country (a freedom provided by the Federal Constitution), call yourself what you want. But that freedom comes from one place, the Federal Constitution.
Wingnut Posted June 15, 2010 Report Posted June 15, 2010 There are two sides to the "taxation = theft" pancake. For people who live in the 21st century, who among us consented to the addition of the 16th amendment, which allows for taxation? However, it was ratified in 1913 by 42 states. We today can be considered grandfathered into that.
john doe Posted June 15, 2010 Report Posted June 15, 2010 Hoosier, please run the hate speech for conservatives back before it gets you in trouble here.
LocalFarms Posted June 15, 2010 Report Posted June 15, 2010 "Taxation is theft" is not a fact. With all due respect, you may call yourself an "anarchist" but to me you sound just like another right wing conservative. Against taxes, abortion, welfare, taxes, government, etc.... It's a free country (a freedom provided by the Federal Constitution), call yourself what you want. But that freedom comes from one place, the Federal Constitution.By your deffinition it may be. To me he souds like a libertarian (my deffinition of the word). FWIW here's is web deffinition of anarchist:anarchist [ˈænəkɪst]n1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a person who advocates the abolition of government and a social system based on voluntary cooperation2. a person who causes disorder or upheavalwhen I first saw he was an anarchist it got my back up. It's all relavent to your deffinition though. Let's move past the semantics and labels and discuss the deeper meaning shall we?
brooks Posted June 15, 2010 Author Report Posted June 15, 2010 (edited) "Taxation is theft" is not a fact. With all due respect, you may call yourself an "anarchist" but to me you sound just like another right wing conservative. Against taxes, abortion, welfare, taxes, government, etc.... It's a free country (a freedom provided by the Federal Constitution), call yourself what you want. But that freedom comes from one place, the Federal Constitution.You don't seem to know much about Anarchism, as you equate it to right wing conservatism. With all due respect, you are wrong. If you want to argue my logic, do so, but please don't make me pity you for your grossly lacking knowledge in a subject that you know.. what appears to me.. nothing about.That freedom does not come from the Federal Constitution. The constitution is just a piece of paper that could do more to keep a homeless man warm at night than it could ever do to keep me free. I challenge you to find one 'conservative' that would agree with that, then you may have made a case that I could at least lol a little at.EDITED to add:Theft is the taking of one's property without his or her consent. I do not consent to taxation, therefore it is theft. You can disagree, but you cannot say that statement is not fact. Edited June 15, 2010 by brooks
brooks Posted June 15, 2010 Author Report Posted June 15, 2010 By your deffinition it may be. To me he souds like a libertarian (my deffinition of the word). FWIW here's is web deffinition of anarchist:anarchist [ˈænəkɪst]n1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a person who advocates the abolition of government and a social system based on voluntary cooperationwhen I first saw he was an anarchist it got my back up. It's all relavent to your deffinition though. Let's move past the semantics and labels and discuss the deeper meaning shall we?Thank you. While I did not fit number 2, I certainly fit into one.Peace.
Kawazu Posted June 15, 2010 Report Posted June 15, 2010 Brooks, Since this is a theological community, I was wondering in which areas your philosophical beliefs have complemented your religious principles; has anarchism helped strengthen your testimony, in any way? Have a great day. Regards, Kawazu
brooks Posted June 16, 2010 Author Report Posted June 16, 2010 Brooks,Since this is a theological community, I was wondering in which areas your philosophical beliefs have complemented your religious principles; has anarchism helped strengthen your testimony, in any way?Have a great day.Regards,KawazuI think in some ways it has, but I think more than anything, my religious principles that I have learned in the church helped mold my philosophical beliefs more so than being the other way around.Learning what the earth was created for, for example, has lead me down the path of being a good steward of the earth. I think a lot of that has to do with where I grew up. Being from a rural area, where you are surrounded by nature has always been a reason behind that too. I'm more satisfied being in a natural setting vs an urban one.My compassion for others is certainly something that the church has taught me, and I believe that is part of what has played into my philosophy. It has certainly grown through my philosophy as well.I think it is immoral to force anyone into seeing the world in one way or another, and I think that has lead to many problems that we now see on such a large scale today. Give 10 people the same law to look at it, and you will get 10 interpretations of it. Some can see it as justifiable, some won't. If you aren't harming anyone else, I don't see any need to force you to stay within the bounds of a law that isn't protecting someone else from your actions.Free will is more about responsibility than just doing whatever you want. Only juveniles see it as such.Laws are written to suit us. They are weak because we are weak. They are broken because we are broken. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.. need I live by any other law than that to be a good person?
NeuroTypical Posted June 17, 2010 Report Posted June 17, 2010 I think it is immoral to force anyone into seeing the world in one way or another...I don't see any need to force you to stay within the bounds of a law that isn't protecting someone else from your actions.So, doesn't that mean that you DO see the need to force someone to stay within the bounds of a law that IS protecting someone? Isn't that forcing someone to see the world a particular way?Sorry if this sounds argumentative. In another situation, it probably would be. But I just got back from attending a parole hearing for a guy doing a life sentence for aggravated sexual abuse of a minor. Went through a lot of big solid doors guarded by people who have dealt out a lot of force while doing their jobs. The subject is therefore much on my mind.Dood was told he will not be up for another hearing until he at least begins a therapy program they have at the prison. In effect, his release is contingent upon his ability to convince a parole board that his view of the world has changed in ways they want it to change. I'm of the opinion that forcing such a change is just peachy, as we're talking about someone at high risk of molesting another kid if such a change doesn't happen.Thoughts?LM
marshac Posted June 17, 2010 Report Posted June 17, 2010 Anarchy doesn't last over the long-term- eventually some political structure emerges such as a warlord, dictator, etc- it's human nature to want more power. Additionally, while you recognize a higher authority, the very nature of anarchy demands that no such imposition be placed on your fellow man- they are free to do as they will, possibly to your detriment since there wouldn't be an impartial entity to enforce basic things such as property rights. Can you be LDS and an anarchist? I don't see why not as long as you recognize that our political system is a representative republic and you abide within the framework of the law- although you personally may desire a state of anarchy, that's not the reality of the world around you.
brooks Posted June 17, 2010 Author Report Posted June 17, 2010 So, doesn't that mean that you DO see the need to force someone to stay within the bounds of a law that IS protecting someone? Isn't that forcing someone to see the world a particular way?Sorry if this sounds argumentative. In another situation, it probably would be. But I just got back from attending a parole hearing for a guy doing a life sentence for aggravated sexual abuse of a minor. Went through a lot of big solid doors guarded by people who have dealt out a lot of force while doing their jobs. The subject is therefore much on my mind.Dood was told he will not be up for another hearing until he at least begins a therapy program they have at the prison. In effect, his release is contingent upon his ability to convince a parole board that his view of the world has changed in ways they want it to change. I'm of the opinion that forcing such a change is just peachy, as we're talking about someone at high risk of molesting another kid if such a change doesn't happen.Thoughts?LMIt isn't argumentative at all, at least as far as I am concerned. I think you misunderstood the context of what I was saying. There is no reason to force someone into a view of something being ok, as long as no one is affected. Anarchism allows a common law of respect for others. There is a huge difference there.It doesn't mean that child rapist will run wild in the streets.. nor will murderers roam free. That is a common misconception that people have.
LocalFarms Posted June 17, 2010 Report Posted June 17, 2010 It doesn't mean that child rapist will run wild in the streets.. nor will murderers roam free. That is a common misconception that people have. Yeah but how can this be enforced if there is no central "archy"
NeuroTypical Posted June 17, 2010 Report Posted June 17, 2010 Anarchism allows a common law of respect for others. There is a huge difference there.It doesn't mean that child rapist will run wild in the streets.. nor will murderers roam free.So, ok, but what does an anarchist society do with its anarchist members who wish to visit unspeakable acts of horror on other members of the anarchist society? Because these people exist in every society, you know...Anarchism allows a common law of respect for others. What do you do with the people who break that law, and how do you do it to them?LM
Vanhin Posted June 17, 2010 Report Posted June 17, 2010 (edited) brooks,I don't know whether anarchy properly describes you or not, but as far as the subtance of what you claim to believe in, I don't see anything at first glance that is out of harmony with the teachings of the Church. In fact, I feel the same way as you do about many things.HoosierGuy,It's a free country (a freedom provided by the Federal Constitution), call yourself what you want. But that freedom comes from one place, the Federal Constitution.Our freedom is derived from the light of Christ in us coupled with an environment that God places us in to act for ourselves. In short it comes from God.The U.S. Constitution establishes a government with limited power - only barely enough to keep the peace and protect our borders, but ultimately to leave the people alone to live their lives as they wish.Our rights are not derived from the Constitution. The Constitution simply recognizes those rights as inherently belonging to mankind, and secures them from tyranny. The Declaration of Independence states the following:"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." (The Declaration of Independence)The government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed! We are the guardians of liberty that the almighty God has granted us."A primary object...should be the education of our youth in the science of government. In a republic, what species of knowledge can be equally important? and what duty more pressing...than...communicating it to those who are to be the future guardians of the liberties of the country?" (Ibid., 35:316) - George Washington, 1776Regards,Vanhin Edited June 17, 2010 by Vanhin Edited to tone it down a bit...
Blackmarch Posted June 18, 2010 Report Posted June 18, 2010 Yes, I'm an anarchist.. With that out of the way, I'm not here to promote the ideals of anarchism.. I just want a little feedback.I was born and raised a member of the church, and I'm trying to get myself back into going to my meetings, as I do have a testimony.I have been mostly inactive for the past 8 years, but have had spouts of activity throughout. During my young adult life, I have had several quarrels with members over my philosophical differences with them, but never once has it been because of me. I really don't like discussing politics or philosophy with members, mainly because of this. They are not going to change my mind, but I'm also not going to lie when the question arises. I have sought my bishops council on my beliefs, but I will not share his thoughts.. mainly because I want to hear what you, as other members think.To clarify, I am an individualist/anarchist.. or what many refer to as an American Anarchist or evolutionary anarchist (no, I'm not an evolutionist.. it means that I believe that in order for the anarchist ideals to work, they have to be lived out by the individual, and that a gradual change will take place.) I am not really anti-government.. if you want one, have at it.. it's just not for me.Please, I don't want to argue.. so if you don't really know what my ideology is, then ask a question or read up before responding if you are going to throw out the typical "anarchism is chaos", because it clearly isn't if you can look past what the movies portray.Thanks.if it's about other members being at fault for whatever I"m sorry to hear that....As for anarchy unless a single person is going to be living alone/ have no relationships with other people, being in a continual state of anarchy will probably come back to haunt you.
talisyn Posted June 18, 2010 Report Posted June 18, 2010 Ohhh a fellow LDS anarchist..and more somewhere out there in the ethernet? I'm getting goosebumps People like to look at Anarchism as freedom to run wild, while they fail to see the maximum amount of responsibility it places on that freedom. It is not chaos, unless you irresponsible.This is a good quote, and I agree with it. True anarchy is a huuuuge responsibility. You are not responsible for doing the right thing within a certain worldly framework. You don't get points for driving past a cop while doing the speed limit. Instead you are doing the right thing as agreed upon between you and your creator. Do unto others as you would have done unto you isn't just a nice thing to say, I believe it's the key to a successful anarchist society.Unfortunately though I don't see it happening until around the 2nd coming, and by that time we'll be ready for an even better form of gov't.
Recommended Posts