Traveler

The War in Heaven

Recommended Posts

 

3 hours ago, Vort said:

I have never heard this definition of normalization. Where did you find it?

Actually, I acquired it through the course of my work, but I find that most people in my field are too lazy to do it. Here is a definition from Wiki... 

Quote

In statistics and applications of statistics, normalization can have a range of meanings. In the simplest cases, normalization of ratings means adjusting values measured on different scales to a notionally common scale, often prior to averaging. In more complicated cases, normalization may refer to more sophisticated adjustments where the intention is to bring the entire probability distributions of adjusted values into alignment.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Fornication: sexual intercourse between people not married to each other

You left something out of your definition there.

I believed that definition was left out of the OP to which I replied. There is no other way to fornicate other than by having sex. The OP implied that sex was some how different that fornication.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

I believed that definition was left out of the OP to which I replied. There is no other way to fornicate other than by having sex. The OP implied that sex was some how different that fornication.

Sex is to fornication as dog is to Labrador retriever. It's a subset. If I tell you a Labrador is a good dog to buy and you interpret that to mean any dog is a good dog to buy then you've left something out of the meaning. Labrador does NOT mean sex and fornication does NOT mean dog. Er...something like that. They mean something more specific, which specificity is important.

Having a "weakness" for sex is meaningless because having sex isn't "wrong" in the right context. I can't be as weak for "sex" in my marriage because my marriage allows it without sin. The same does not remain true of fornication. It is (assuming one has been taught the truth) always a sin, which is why it is perfectly legitimate for @Vort to speak of having a weakness for it, because to struggle with sin is weakness whereas to engage in something legal, lawful and wholesome is not. For you to reply that fornication is sex is deflective and really misses the point. Do you realize you're missing the point? Or do you honestly not understand the difference here?  

Whereas, obviously, the "act" of having sex even within the bonds of marriage is a choice, once again, to make that argument misses the broader point that Vort was getting at -- the choice to sin, or rather the exercising of agency.

Your comment that fornication is not a weakness and cannot or will not be judged is just plain false. It is weakness, a choice of sin, and it will be judged. The fact that you even mentioned that you "didn't get the impression" he was talking about married sex simply goes to show that you didn't actually know what fornication really meant. That would be like me saying I didn't the impression you were talking about a Toyota when you used the word Honda. Of course one doesn't mean Toyota when they say Honda. And one doesn't mean married sex when they say fornication because that is not what the word means. Therefore I posted the definition. And yet you continue to stand your ground as if you clearly know what you are talking about better than Vort did. Very useful.

Edited by The Folk Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

We are all damned. (Unless we rely wholly upon the merits of He who is mighty to save. And just so we're clear: that means repentance to taking advantage of the Atonement).

There is clearly a problem here. How shall we take advantage of the atonement if we dare not look up to God?

24 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

But that wasn't my point. My point was simply that our thoughts will condemn us. There's no context to it. It's just a way of saying that not engaging in fornication - or any other activity - doesn't keep us free from the need to repent and thereby rely upon the merits of Christ.

I know what your point was. I'm disagreeing with it. Our thoughts will only condemn us if we act on them. And there is always context. And whether the thought we had warrants repentance or not is entirely up to the individual. Yesterday, I had the thought that'd I'd like to smoke a cigarette. I have no inclination to repent. The day before, I saw a really pretty person walking on the sidewalk. I'm pretty sure I had no thoughts of fornication. I'm not going to repent just in case I did. Doing so would not be... normal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Sex is to fornication as dog is to Labrador retriever. It's a subset. If I tell you a Labrador is a good dog to buy and you interpret that to mean any dog is a good dog to buy then you've left something out of the meaning. Labrador does NOT mean sex and fornication does NOT mean dog. Er...something like that. They mean something more specific, which specificity is important.

Maybe you don't understand what I believed about the argument that was presented. I'm not stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

I know what your point was. I'm disagreeing with it. Our thoughts will only condemn us if we act on them.

Gotchya. Now I understand where you stand in regards to the truth of the teachings of the Book of Mormon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

There is clearly a problem here. How shall we take advantage of the atonement if we dare not look up to God?

I know what your point was. I'm disagreeing with it. Our thoughts will only condemn us if we act on them. And there is always context. And whether the thought we had warrants repentance or not is entirely up to the individual. Yesterday, I had the thought that'd I'd like to smoke a cigarette. I have no inclination to repent. The day before, I saw a really pretty person walking on the sidewalk. I'm pretty sure I had no thoughts of fornication. I'm not going to repent just in case I did. Doing so would not be... normal.

How do you get the notion that repentance doesn't involve looking up to God?

Thoughts lead to actions. It is safe to say that what we spend our time thinking about is an indication of where our heart is. The Lord looks on the heart. How is the Saviour's teaching that lusting after a woman is equivalent to adultery not condemnation of what one thinks about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

Ok. I'm in Utah, I can tell right away. I am tired of swimming upstream. I'm done.

It perplexes me that one so concerned with not being bigoted can then continue to make blanket statements like this that infer there is something wrong with people from Utah. I served a mission in Utah and love the people in Utah. As a Canadian in and LDS forum, I'm not surprised that those leaving comments have doctrinal LDS views on things and approach conversation through the lense of revealed truth. I find it interesting to get all of the different perspectives people have to offer and am sometimes surprised by how pervasive certain belief patterns are in the church, but railing against everyone who disagrees and insinuating the problem must be they are from Utah?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

Maybe you don't understand what I believed about the argument that was presented. I'm not stupid.

I only know what you said. What you said was "fornication is the definition of the act of having sex," which is inaccurate and, "I didn't get the impression u were talking about sex between married couple," from which two comments I did infer that you weren't sure. What else am I supposed to infer from that? They certainly don't imply that you believe fornication is only the act of sex between non-married couples.

Not being 100% sure what a word means in a sentence isn't related to intelligence. I make mistakes with words. So my inferring that you didn't know the exact meaning of the word in the moment wasn't an accusation of stupidity. When I make mistakes with words I simply apologize. "Sorry, I got the meaning of the word wrong," or the like. If something else was misunderstood then I clarify. Feel free to do one of those two things. Because it sure seemed like you believe all sex is fornication. If I misunderstood you, I'll own it. Feel free to clarify.

Edited by The Folk Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:
4 hours ago, Vort said:

I have never heard this definition of normalization. Where did you find it?

Actually, I acquired it through the course of my work, but I find that most people in my field are too lazy to do it. Here is a definition from Wiki... 

Quote

In statistics and applications of statistics, normalization can have a range of meanings. In the simplest cases, normalization of ratings means adjusting values measured on different scales to a notionally common scale, often prior to averaging. In more complicated cases, normalization may refer to more sophisticated adjustments where the intention is to bring the entire probability distributions of adjusted values into alignment.

 

How do you conclude that the (purely statistical) definition of "normalization" that you provide means that normalization is "making everything the same"? That is nowhere mentioned in your quoted definition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, brotherofJared said:

Our thoughts will only condemn us if we act on them.

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Gotchya. Now I understand where you stand in regards to the truth of the teachings of the Book of Mormon.

I'd like to take a closer look at Alma 12. Twice in the same chapter it speaks of being “judged according to our works.” This phrase comes up times in scripture, 15 of them in the Book of Mormon. The phrase, “judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil” or similar wording, appears multiple times in the Book of Mormon as well.

I think this gives some perspective to the role of our thoughts to our condemnation as explained in verse 14, a concept which is rarely elsewhere in scripture (the only other places I can find it are 2 Nephi 12:19, Revelation 6:15-16 and Isaiah 2:19). It has to do with fear and the desire to hide from the Lord. It is self-condemnation. Alma himself knew this feeling well (Alma 36:15). Zeezrom experienced it also when “he was convinced that they knew the thoughts and intents of his heart” and later (Alma 14:6; 15:3) upon reflecting upon his thoughts.

In verses 13-15, Alma is talking about what happens to us when we stand before God after the resurrection. At this time, the Lord will certainly condemn us according to our words and works. But then he adds that our thoughts will also condemn us. This is the guilt and fear and the desire to run and disappear; it happens by being exposed to God’s glory, power, might, majesty and dominion and the terror that ensues. I think this is how our thoughts condemn us in the light of the Lord condemning our words and deeds. This is a bit different than the Lord condemning us.

Temptation is obviously an experience we have in our heads, or our spirits; our thoughts. We are not condemned for our temptations. Does dwelling on wicked thoughts -- entertaining temptation and desiring sin -- diminish our opportunities to develop the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost and to do good? Of course it does, and we are condemned for sins of omission, but not for the thoughts. I think it is more a cause and effect relationship, so if our thoughts have made it so that "our hearts have been hardened, yea, if we have hardened our hearts against the word, insomuch that it has not been found in us, then will our state be awful, for then we shall be condemned." This is what happens when we dwell on our wicked thoughts and temptations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I'd like to take a closer look at Alma 12. Twice in the same chapter it speaks of being “judged according to our works.” This phrase comes up times in scripture, 15 of them in the Book of Mormon. The phrase, “judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil” or similar wording, appears multiple times in the Book of Mormon as well.

 

I think this gives some perspective to the role of our thoughts to our condemnation as explained in verse 14, a concept which is rarely elsewhere in scripture (the only other places I can find it are 2 Nephi 12:19, Revelation 6:15-16 and Isaiah 2:19). It has to do with fear and the desire to hide from the Lord. It is self-condemnation. Alma himself knew this feeling well (Alma 36:15). Zeezrom experienced it also when “he was convinced that they knew the thoughts and intents of his heart” and later (Alma 14:6; 15:3) upon reflecting upon his thoughts.

 

In verses 13-15, Alma is talking about what happens to us when we stand before God after the resurrection. At this time, the Lord will certainly condemn us according to our words and works. But then he adds that our thoughts will also condemn us. This is the guilt and fear and the desire to run and disappear; it happens by being exposed to God’s glory, power, might, majesty and dominion and the terror that ensues. I think this is how our thoughts condemn us in the light of the Lord condemning our words and deeds. This is a bit different than the Lord condemning us.

 

Temptation is obviously an experience we have in our heads, or our spirits; our thoughts. We are not condemned for our temptations. Does dwelling on wicked thoughts -- entertaining temptation and desiring sin -- diminish our opportunities to develop the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost and to do good? Of course it does, and we are condemned for sins of omission, but not for the thoughts. I think it is more a cause and effect relationship, so if our thoughts have made it so that "our hearts have been hardened, yea, if we have hardened our hearts against the word, insomuch that it has not been found in us, then will our state be awful, for then we shall be condemned." This is what happens when we dwell on our wicked thoughts and temptations.

Do you believe that if I get cut off in traffic and think "Swear word swear word swear WORD!" but don't say the words that I haven't sinned?

Do you believe that if I lay in bed dreaming about having sex with a woman that isn't my wife that I haven't sinned?

It seems fairly clear to me that the thinking we do is distinctly part of what constitutes our works.

Incidentally, how do you reconcile the concept of lusting being the same as committing adultery in the heart with the idea that the thought isn't a sin?

Also, we're taught that one of the greatest sins is the sin of pride? Isn't pride pretty much fully a sin of thought? Does it not center fully in what we think of ourselves, others, and God?

The idea that thoughts lead to actions does not argue for whether the thought itself is or is not a sin. The discussion of whether it's a worse sin or not isn't meaningful as to whether it actually is or is not a sin to think certain things.

We are commanded in several instances to control our thoughts (some scriptures below). Does the "why" of this mean they are not commandments and that the breaking of them doesn't require repentance? Follow the logic. If pornography leads to adultery is the pornography viewing thereby rendered "not a sin"? Or the same for yelling and fighting leading to murder? Does that mean the yelling and fighting weren't sins. Do only the ultimate sins count? The fact that sinful thoughts lead to sinful actions is an important idea to understand, but the thoughts are still sinful.

A few scriptures for consideration:

Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/isa/55.7-11?lang=eng#6

For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he:
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/prov/23.7?lang=eng#6

Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/acts/8.22?lang=eng#p21

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/heb/4.12?lang=eng#p11

For behold, God hath said a man being evil cannot do that which is good; for if he offereth a gift, or prayeth unto God, except he shall do it with real intent it profiteth him nothing.
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/moro/7.6?lang=eng#p5

Look unto me in every thought; 
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/6.36?lang=eng#p35

Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven.
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/121.45?lang=eng#p44

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

I define self-righteousness as finding the mote in another person's eye. Righteousness is finding the mote in our own eye and being blind to everyone else's.

AKA. Do whatever you feel like as long as you don't tell anyone else what to do; that ain't what the scriptures teach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My biggest beef with homosexuality and psychology (b/c the two are linked as in our modern view of homosexuality is directly tied to modern psychology) is that it completely disregards change and the ability to change oneself.

“Sow a thought, reap an action; sow an action, reap a habit; sow a habit, reap a character; sow a character, reap a destiny.”

That saying is an enigma to psychology and the modern day philosophy of homosexuality. What the basic premise/theory says is:

a) our emotions are based on chemical processes in the brain.

b) b/c these emotions (whether they be attraction to the same sex, depression, feelings that the person is really a boy trapped in a girls body etc.) are based on chemical processes that are linked to biological factors, genetics, etc. it is unjust, not fair, not right and morally wrong to declare that someone who acts out on those emotions is wrong.

c) furthermore, b/c (so goes the theory) these emotions/feelings are generated by natural processes this means that any declaration that those feelings are wrong means that those who say they are wrong are hateful, spiteful, vengeful, bigoted, etc. b/c to judge a feeling wrong for something that cannot be controlled (these are natural processes remember) means that those who do so they are wrong are evil.

This is why modern day psychology is downright evil.  It completely disregards what the Gospel teaches about change; that through Christ we can become a new man.  Oh members of the Church have bought into this lie that well yeah we can change . . .but for somethings we really can't.  Pick whatever pet modern day psychological illness that culture now deems a innate, inborn or due to some neurological chemical problem (even thought they can't prove it-i.e. that there is a homosexual gene or that it is inborn) and it suddenly changes.  

Then it becomes, well yeah of course through Christ we can change . . .but not in this.  Not in homosexuality, not in transgenderism, not in xyz.  The are born that way . .. how do we know that . . .well b/c psychology tells us that they are.  How do we know they can't change? Well b/c psychology tells us so. We have put our faith and trust more in the arm of flesh rather than in God.

How does the person who has an addiction stop the addiction.  Quite simple, they just simply stop.  It requires the will to act.  Sure we have helps for people that help them develop the will to stop; but it all comes down to the will to not do it.  

This idea that SSA is something that is just there and always will be there is total BS.  How do I know?  Well, it's quite simple. I'm a married man.  When I was single, it was very easy to look at girls and to be attracted to them.  Over time as I've learned to control my thoughts, my actions, as I've matured, I've learned that I don't have to be attracted to good looking women.  I can look at a good looking woman and recognize that she is attractive without being attracted to her. Just like I can recognize when there is a guy who is a good looking guy, without being attracted (even though that has never been a problem for me) to him and not think I'm homosexual or there is something wrong with me.

Christ even said that we can control our thoughts when it comes to attraction. He tells us that to look upon a women to lust is like unto adultery . . .i.e. He expects us to be able to control our thoughts to where we are not lusting after another women.  If He expects us to do that . . .why is it so hard to think that we can control what we are attracted to?

Once you start down the road that we can't control our emotions/feelings pandora's box is wide open.  Pedophiles . . .they just can't help how they feel towards little children and anyone who judges them for having these feelings/inclinations is a bigot . . .where does it end?  Where does it end?

And it all starts with:

“Sow a thought, reap an action; sow an action, reap a habit; sow a habit, reap a character; sow a character, reap a destiny.”

 

Edited by yjacket

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

Ok. I'm in Utah, I can tell right away. I am tired of swimming upstream. I'm done.

I'm in Florida, never been to Utah.  @Vort is in Seattle.  I don't remember where everyone else is from but a majority don't live in Utah.

Maybe if you try to understand what everybody is saying you'll realize this has nothing to do with Utah.  But hey, if your cup is full and you don't like being challenged, I wish you luck finding another forum on the internet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, yjacket said:

My biggest beef with homosexuality and psychology (b/c the two are linked as in our modern view of homosexuality is directly tied to modern psychology) is that it completely disregards change and the ability to change oneself.

“Sow a thought, reap an action; sow an action, reap a habit; sow a habit, reap a character; sow a character, reap a destiny.”

That saying is an enigma to psychology and the modern day philosophy of homosexuality. What the basic premise/theory says is:

a) our emotions are based on chemical processes in the brain.

b) b/c these emotions (whether they be attraction to the same sex, depression, feelings that the person is really a boy trapped in a girls body etc.) are based on chemical processes that are linked to biological factors, genetics, etc. it is unjust, not fair, not right and morally wrong to declare that someone who acts out on those emotions is wrong.

c) furthermore, b/c (so goes the theory) these emotions/feelings are generated by natural processes this means that any declaration that those feelings are wrong means that those who say they are wrong are hateful, spiteful, vengeful, bigoted, etc. b/c to judge a feeling wrong for something that cannot be controlled (these are natural processes remember) means that those who do so they are wrong are evil.

This is why modern day psychology is downright evil.  It completely disregards what the Gospel teaches about change; that through Christ we can become a new man.  Oh members of the Church have bought into this lie that well yeah we can change . . .but for somethings we really can't.  Pick whatever pet modern day psychological illness that culture now deems a innate, inborn or due to some neurological chemical problem (even thought they can't prove it-i.e. that there is a homosexual gene or that it is inborn) and it suddenly changes.  

Then it becomes, well yeah of course through Christ we can change . . .but not in this.  Not in homosexuality, not in transgenderism, not in xyz.  The are born that way . .. how do we know that . . .well b/c psychology tells us that they are.  How do we know they can't change? Well b/c psychology tells us so. We have put our faith and trust more in the arm of flesh rather than in God.

How does the person who has an addiction stop the addiction.  Quite simple, they just simply stop.  It requires the will to act.  Sure we have helps for people that help them develop the will to stop; but it all comes down to the will to not do it.  

This idea that SSA is something that is just there and always will be there is total BS.  How do I know?  Well, it's quite simple. I'm a married man.  When I was single, it was very easy to look at girls and to be attracted to them.  Over time as I've learned to control my thoughts, my actions, as I've matured, I've learned that I don't have to be attracted to good looking women.  I can look at a good looking woman and recognize that she is attractive without being attracted to her. Just like I can recognize when there is a guy who is a good looking guy, without being attracted (even though that has never been a problem for me) to him and not think I'm homosexual or there is something wrong with me.

Christ even said that we can control our thoughts when it comes to attraction. He tells us that to look upon a women to lust is like unto adultery . . .i.e. He expects us to be able to control our thoughts to where we are not lusting after another women.  If He expects us to do that . . .why is it so hard to think that we can control what we are attracted to?

Once you start down the road that we can't control our emotions/feelings pandora's box is wide open.  Pedophiles . . .they just can't help how they feel towards little children and anyone who judges them for having these feelings/inclinations is a bigot . . .where does it end?  Where does it end?

And it all starts with:

“Sow a thought, reap an action; sow an action, reap a habit; sow a habit, reap a character; sow a character, reap a destiny.”

 

I really appreciate your comments here. With so many mental health issues it appears as if society tends to think that medication and counselling should be able to resolve or at least manage the condition. However, with others it's becoming taboo to suggest that there is a problem in the first place. I was reading some interesting material lately about how in trying to prove that homosexuality is nature and not nurture that geneticists spent years looking for homosexuality genes, but could not find them. Instead, they have found evidence to suggest that homosexuality is strongly correlated with methylation mutations in the brain which are likely to be caused by epigenetic factors. Essentially, this is saying that there is a physical cause to a chemical imbalance that causes homosexuality in susceptible individuals - in our current political climate I'm afraid further funding for studies to learn more about this will be hard to come by, we don't want science proving that SSA is actually a mental illness that can be corrected or managed by supporting underlying methylation pathways or correcting other chemical imbalances. This is also still based on trusting the arm of flesh. How much greater is the likelihood of effective change when calling on God? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, SpiritDragon said:

I really appreciate your comments here. With so many mental health issues it appears as if society tends to think that medication and counselling should be able to resolve or at least manage the condition. However, with others it's becoming taboo to suggest that there is a problem in the first place.

You're welcome.  Yes indeed, b/c truth is now relative. Instead of relying upon the Word of God to guide us as a society as to what truth is we know rely on man.  This all started in the 60s-70s. That is when modern psychology really took over and started infecting society with it's rot. It did it in the raising of children, it did it with homosexuality, it did it with mental illness, it did it with transgenderism, and who knows what's next. Truth is no longer found in God's word but in man's word.

And it's infected the Church. We know what the family model God wants looks like, yet how many women pine for working outside the home. We know what God has said about homosexuality, but look at this thread.  Truth has become relative even inside the Church (it's not as bad and as a culture we are probably 50 years behind modern culture . . . but just give it time; even the very elect will be deceived.

What's even more amazing is with the new normal of gender-fluidity taking place.  Miley Cirus, she was straight, then went homo, then went bi and is now back to straight.  Okay, so how does that fit in?  So for some people attraction is fixed and for some people it isn't; or is it only fixed if you want it to be fixed. Is it only fixed if you are homosexual want to make the claim that nobody can judge you so you claim it is fixed.

At what point do you say, enough! what is happening is people are just doing whatever they want to do without any regard to morals and no-one can tell them they are wrong.  If that isn't exactly what has happened in the scriptures, if that's not why Ammoniah was burned, why Sodom and Gomorrah were roasted, why God at different points in time brought down hellfire and damnation on cities. . . than I don't know what is.  

Without God as a compass this is what happens.  It is really, really bizarre to see this occur in real-time in my lifetime.  It was not like this when I was growing up.

Edited by yjacket

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Do you believe ...

I already addressed all this in the post you’re responding to. Temptation is a thought but it is not a sin. Entertaining temptation is a sin in a couple of ways. You are not describing temptations but hate, lust and anger. I understood the discussion to be about judging someone according to his temptations, which is unrighteous judgement.

It seems brotherof is talking about the temptations of people with ssa, which is not a sin, and you are talking about lustful thought, which is a sin. I pointed out that Alma 12 is talkig of self-condemnatory thoughts of those who have given no place for the word of God in their hearts as the reaction to facing Him as He judges and condemns them for their words and works. I think you weren't using that scripture properly in making your point. There are much more accurate references about both sinful thoughts (some of which you listed) and temptation.

Then you take a tangent off of that and discuss whether having temptation and/or sinful thoughts means there is something wrong with a person, or that something has to be wrong with him to have them. I think the plan of happiness answers that question.

It seems to me the question of whether something is wrong with someone because he is tempted is the same as asking whether something is wrong with him because he is a fallen person, even if he resists the temptation. Doesn't the answer to that seem to be both yes, and no, depending on whether we are talking spiritual or temporal principles, and on what we are trying to accomplish? Can't either answer be used to be a both a minister and a hypocrite? Semantics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/9/2017 at 11:27 AM, brotherofJared said:

I define self-righteousness as finding the mote in another person's eye. Righteousness is finding the mote in our own eye and being blind to everyone else's.

I have often wondered why people tend to not read, or ignore, the last part of verse 42 regarding the "beam" and "mote". I assume you meant "beam" in our own eye rather than mote. Let's review this scripture: Luke 6:42

1) We notice the "mote" in our brother's eye
2) The chastening of recognizing a "mote" in thy brother's eye, because we could not see the "beam" in our own eye.
3) The Lord's counsel, remove the "beam" from thy own eye first
4) Then the action, additional counsel, once the "beam" is removed we read the following, "and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother’s eye." (emphasis added)
5) If I have successfully removed a "beam" which is possible, as evidence with scripture, I can then see clearly the "mote" (the mote I saw is still there even before removing my beam -- intriguing) which is needing to be removed.

Righteousness, is the ability to not only find and remove the "beam" from our own eye, it is also the ability then to see clearly (not blind) the "mote" in our brother's eye to help him pull it out. Righteousness is not blind to sin, wrong doing, etc... It actually allows us to see more clearly, because we are able to see not only with natural eyes we are able to see with spiritual eyes.

The Lord tell us to "call" the sinner to repentance. How can one call anyone to repentance if their "eye(s)" are blind?  They can't. The Lord isn't blind. We are to be like the Lord who called and invited all to repentance because he recognized something is wrong.

Edited by Anddenex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Righteousness, is the ability to not only find and remove the "beam" from our own eye, it is also the ability then to see clearly (not blind) the "mote" in our brother's eye to help him pull it out. Righteousness is not blind to sin, wrong doing, etc... It actually allows us to see more clearly, because we are able to see not only with natural eyes we are able to see with spiritual eyes.

I don't believe the intent was that a person should or even can ever remove anything from anyone else's eye. The message for me is: stop trying to fix other people's problems. Fix your own. The rest of it, IMO, was added by some well-meaning scribe who insisted that it is our duty to fix other people's problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

 The rest of it, IMO, was added by some well-meaning scribe who insisted that it is our duty to fix other people's problems.

Ah the modern world. Only believe the scriptures verses that support what you want to believe.....the rest don't count. 

Philosophies of men mingled with scripture. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now