America /= US government

snoscythe wrote:

kitic77 wrote:

kitic77 wrote:
I'd put JV as a libetarian before I label him as a conservative. He's about maximum freedom with no limits and no regard for consequences. The single most important thing to him is freedom and if people are trying to limit your freedom, then they're free to do anything (to include cheat, lie and steal) to maximize their freedoms.

I consider libertarians the ULTIMATE conservatives.



In my mind, conservatism SHOULD be defined as: The inevitable line of reasoning which stems from the premise that since all men are created equal they should interact with each other on strictly voluntary terms.

I can see that, but once again, you're going to run into difficulty when your definition of something does not meet what the generally accepted of something is.



SHOULD be and IS are different words. Conservatism is not currently defined that way.

Conservatism means to conserve or to do what has been done in the past. In that way a conservative in the US (attempting to preserve freedom) is very different than a conservative in Russia or England. If you consider emulation of the Creator as the ultimate conservatism, libertarianism is conservatism. Can you cite one instance when the Creator used force against those who did not first use force (ie break a covenant or cause physical harm) against Him or His followers?

I can't think of a single instance where the Savior broke any promises or covenants he made.

Yeah. I think that was his point. Or did you mean to agree?

taekwondave wrote:

jvquarterback wrote:

taekwondave wrote:

I'd put JV as a libetarian before I label him as a conservative. He's about maximum freedom with no limits and no regard for consequences. The single most important thing to him is freedom and if people are trying to limit your freedom, then they're free to do anything (to include cheat, lie and steal) to maximize their freedoms.

I consider libertarians the ULTIMATE conservatives.



In my mind, conservatism SHOULD be defined as: The inevitable line of reasoning which stems from the premise that since all men are created equal they should interact with each other on strictly voluntary terms.

I can see that, but once again, you're going to run into difficulty when your definition of something does not meet what the generally accepted of something is.



SHOULD be and IS are different words. Conservatism is not currently defined that way.

Conservatism means to conserve or to do what has been done in the past. In that way a conservative in the US (attempting to preserve freedom) is very different than a conservative in Russia or England. If you consider emulation of the Creator as the ultimate conservatism, libertarianism is conservatism. Can you cite one instance when the Creator used force against those who did not first use force (ie break a covenant or cause physical harm) against Him or His followers?

I can't think of a single instance where the Savior broke any promises or covenants he made.

Yeah. I think that was his point. Or did you mean to agree?

You obviously have no clue what jvquarterback is talking about since he has argued time and again on multiple threads that argue that it is in fact perfectly moral and part of God's plan to lie, cheat, and steal in order to grant yourself the freedom.

hawkwing wrote:
You obviously have no clue what jvquarterback is talking about since he has argued time and again on multiple threads that argue that it is in fact perfectly moral and part of God's plan to lie, cheat, and steal in order to grant yourself the freedom.

I've read all those threads. I have a pretty good idea of what JV is all about, and above I provided a scripture that I think defends his position pretty well. But you'll probably just say I twisted it somehow. Last post. I swear.

taekwondave wrote:

You obviously have no clue what jvquarterback is talking about since he has argued time and again on multiple threads that argue that it is in fact perfectly moral and part of God's plan to lie, cheat, and steal in order to grant yourself the freedom.

I've read all those threads. I have a pretty good idea of what JV is all about, and above I provided a scripture that I think defends his position pretty well. But you'll probably just say I twisted it somehow. Last post. I swear.

I don't think you do have a good idea of what JV is all about.



As for your scripture:

"Now, I speak unto you concerning your families—if men will smite you, or your families, once, and ye bear it patiently and revile not against them, neither seek revenge, ye shall be rewarded; But if ye bear it not patiently, it shall be accounted unto you as being meted out as a just measure unto you" (D&C 98:23-24).



I don't see anything in there that says you can break the commandments in order to seek revenge. In fact, as has been pointed out on countless other threads, the prophets of modern day (I know you don't put much stock in them), and ancient day have stated the exact opposite.

Nope. Not gonna bite.

One of jvquarterback's favorite claims is that NCAA athletes should be able to enter into contracts with NCAA schools with no intention of keeping them. That is, to sign binding NLOI's wherein they agree to abide by NCAA bylaws while secretly intending to accept money and benefits contrary to those bylaws ala Cam Newton.



Yeah, the Savior totally would do that. :roll:

delete

hawkwing wrote:

hawkwing wrote:
You obviously have no clue what jvquarterback is talking about since he has argued time and again on multiple threads that argue that it is in fact perfectly moral and part of God's plan to lie, cheat, and steal in order to grant yourself the freedom.

I've read all those threads. I have a pretty good idea of what JV is all about, and above I provided a scripture that I think defends his position pretty well. But you'll probably just say I twisted it somehow. Last post. I swear.

I don't think you do have a good idea of what JV is all about.



As for your scripture:

"Now, I speak unto you concerning your families—if men will smite you, or your families, once, and ye bear it patiently and revile not against them, neither seek revenge, ye shall be rewarded; But if ye bear it not patiently, it shall be accounted unto you as being meted out as a just measure unto you" (D&C 98:23-24).



I don't see anything in there that says you can break the commandments in order to seek revenge. In fact, as has been pointed out on countless other threads, the prophets of modern day (I know you don't put much stock in them), and ancient day have stated the exact opposite.

Not revenge. Justice. If someone steals from you, they put themselves at a state of war with you and you have the right to take back what they have stolen, by force if necessary. If someone steals from you you have the right to use violence to retrieve it. Deceit is simply another form of violence. Deceit is routinely used during war and can be an just action in personal encounters when used to defend or retrieve your property.



Whatever you think about the NCAA, colleges and the football players they employ, the general argument regarding deceit is correct.

jvquarterback wrote:

Not revenge. Justice. If someone steals from you, they put themselves at a state of war with you and you have the right to take back what they have stolen, by force if necessary.. .

I happen to agree with jvquarterback on this point. I recall the Savior specifically mentioning this on the Sermon on the Mount....

No one is saying there isn't a better way. Only that we respect the principle of justice.



Nothing said in the Sermon on the Mount negates the principle of an eye for an eye -- or do you believe the in a god that changes.

jvquarterback wrote:
No one is saying there isn't a better way. Only that we respect the principle of justice.



Nothing said in the Sermon on the Mount negates the principle of an eye for an eye -- or do you believe the in a god that changes.

In short. Yes.



3 Nephi 15



2 And it came to pass that when Jesus had said these words he perceived that there were some among them who marveled, and wondered what he would concerning the law of Moses; for they understood not the saying that aold things had passed away, and that all things had become new.



3 And he said unto them: Marvel not that I said unto you that old things had passed away, and that all things had become anew.



4 Behold, I say unto you that the alaw is fulfilled that was given unto Moses.



5 Behold, aI am he that gave the law, and I am he who covenanted with my people Israel; therefore, the law in me is fulfilled, for I have come to fulfil the law; therefore it hath an end.

Are you saying that you believe the principle of an eye for an eye is an unjust principle?



To fulfill and end has a very different meaning than to negate something. You don't need to dig very deeply to find that in modern revelation.

I'm sayin that I follow the Savior. You apparantly have a problem doing so



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

I have a problem with you condemning others for not doing so when they still follow a just path which He outlined.



Read all of my posts. I have said BYU (and athletes attending) should avoid even the appearance of evil. But I will defend others who seek justice.



And I'm not the one trying to justify murdering innocents on this thread.

jvquarterback wrote:
Are you saying that you believe the principle of an eye for an eye is an unjust principle?



To fulfill and end has a very different meaning than to negate something. You don't need to dig very deeply to find that in modern revelation.

How does "END" have a difference in today's world than "negate"? Both mean that it does not apply to us today right?

jvquarterback wrote:
I have a problem with you condemning others for not doing so when they still follow a just path which He outlined.



Read all of my posts. I have said BYU (and athletes attending) should avoid even the appearance of evil. But I will defend others who seek justice.



And I'm not the one trying to justify murdering innocents on this thread.

Translation: You get to cherry pick the teachings you like, but others cannot do the same..... :whistle:

jvquarterback wrote:
I have a problem with you condemning others for not doing so when they still follow a just path which He outlined.



Read all of my posts. I have said BYU (and athletes attending) should avoid even the appearance of evil. But I will defend others who seek justice.



And I'm not the one trying to justify murdering innocents on this thread.

You probably support Sharia law too.

jvquarterback wrote:

taekwondave wrote:

You obviously have no clue what jvquarterback is talking about since he has argued time and again on multiple threads that argue that it is in fact perfectly moral and part of God's plan to lie, cheat, and steal in order to grant yourself the freedom.

I've read all those threads. I have a pretty good idea of what JV is all about, and above I provided a scripture that I think defends his position pretty well. But you'll probably just say I twisted it somehow. Last post. I swear.

I don't think you do have a good idea of what JV is all about.



As for your scripture:

"Now, I speak unto you concerning your families—if men will smite you, or your families, once, and ye bear it patiently and revile not against them, neither seek revenge, ye shall be rewarded; But if ye bear it not patiently, it shall be accounted unto you as being meted out as a just measure unto you" (D&C 98:23-24).



I don't see anything in there that says you can break the commandments in order to seek revenge. In fact, as has been pointed out on countless other threads, the prophets of modern day (I know you don't put much stock in them), and ancient day have stated the exact opposite.

Not revenge. Justice. If someone steals from you, they put themselves at a state of war with you and you have the right to take back what they have stolen, by force if necessary. If someone steals from you you have the right to use violence to retrieve it. Deceit is simply another form of violence. Deceit is routinely used during war and can be an just action in personal encounters when used to defend or retrieve your property.



Whatever you think about the NCAA, colleges and the football players they employ, the general argument regarding deceit is correct.

Actually you are wrong. You do not have the right to use violence to recoup that which was stolen from you. You cannot shoot someone who is stealing your car. If you killed them you would be tried for murder or at the very least manslaughter. The law does not equate the worth of possessions on par with tha of life.

As for the Law of Moses, it's gone, done, finis, kaput. It doesn't exist in His world. It was fulfilled and hence we meet on Sunday's and don't have to worry about getting the blood of a first born calf on your shoes. It is a new law, a new commandment love one another. Of course it doesn't mean you have to take Gitmo alumni into your home. :roll:

jvquarterback wrote:
No one is saying there isn't a better way. Only that we respect the principle of justice.



Nothing said in the Sermon on the Mount negates the principle of an eye for an eye -- or do you believe the in a god that changes.

But who is to decide when someone has taken something from you? I could then steal from my employer and justify that he wasn't paying me enough so I was simply fulfilling justice. I've had plenty of jobs that looking back I KNOW I wasn't getting paid enough, but I was grateful at the time for the opportunity to make money. Should I go back to those employers and demand justice??? And from an employers perspective how much can be demanded from an employee? Because of the terrible working conditions that were caused by greedy employers during the industrial revolution, we now have the wonderful unions that are one reason our economy is down the tubes today. Moderation in all things.



The way you've set up your argument, everyone decides for themselves if they are justified in their actions or not. That sets up total chaos.



The legal system exists to sort out these issues. Even in the times when eye for an eye was in full swing, God wasn't condoning violent methods of retrieving goods. I've seen the "eye for an eye" principle explained this way, and it makes the most sense to me- punishment should be equal to but not greater than the crime. Doesn't mean to take someone's eye as justice, just that there should be a penalty that is on par with the crime. It was actually a more merciful law than most of the world practiced at the time.



Also important to remember, and this is how I personally believe the Savior would approach the whole NCAA fiasco that paying players would turn into, that the Jesus taught us to give to Caesar that which belongs to Caesar. He recognized that governing bodies aren't always evil. The romans were NOT popular to the Jews but Christ still recognized that payment to the romans (I'm sure you could make an argument that taxing the Jews wasn't fair) was the right thing to do.

ABYUFAN, words have meaning. To negate means to contradict or make untrue. An eye for an eye is true and always will be. There is certainly a better way but that does not mean that someone who takes back what someone has taken from them does not have justice on their side.



Imuakahuku, the way I use the word violence has a meaning with which you may be unfamiliar -- that is doing anything to anyone against their will. That means the person taking something back from a thief is using violence no matter how they obtain it, whether that is physically restraining (jailing) while the property is recovered, compelling labor or deceiving to obtain the property. The violence of the individual trying to retrieve their stolen property is justified. Of course as decloug says the violence used to obtain that which was stolen should be on par with the violence used in obtaining it.



Decloug, as long as both you and you employer entered into a voluntary agreement neither can expect more than was volunteered from the other. I see, unfortunately, that you have accepted the lies about "the good" unions have done in the past. Unions were not a major factor in bettering working conditions, competition among employers for workers was.



Everyone decides for themselves if they are justified no matter what argument is made. What matters is what to do when you judge someone has done violence to you. You can join with others (voluntarily) and agree to use collective violence (or threat of violence) against those who initiate violence or you can do so on your own. But the act of joining others in a legal system makes your actions no more legitimate and does nothing to limit chaos as you suggest (or that chaos is undesirable).



I agree with you that the person against whom violence was done in the first place can (and usually will) accept something of lesser value than was taken from them. Also that Christ (and His church and representative university) would act as you indicate. But that does not mean that others who seek justice are wrong in doing so.