tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post1762354872001483860..comments2024-03-26T21:27:42.278-07:00Comments on Pure Mormonism: The Real Threat To Traditional Marriage, Part Two: Rethinking RightsAlan Rock Watermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.comBlogger209125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-71838677548651706242022-02-24T00:43:00.912-08:002022-02-24T00:43:00.912-08:00This article is very much helpful and i hope this ...This article is very much helpful and i hope this will be an useful information for the needed one. Keep on updating these kinds of informative things...<br /><a href="https://www.kaashivinfotech.com/internship-for-biotech-students/" rel="nofollow">Biotech Internships</a> | <a href="https://www.kaashivinfotech.com/internship-for-cse-students/" rel="nofollow">internships for cse students</a> | <a href="https://www.kaashivinfotech.com/web-designing-course-in-chennai/" rel="nofollow">web designing course in chennai</a> | <a href="https://www.kaashivinfotech.com/it-online-internship/" rel="nofollow">it internships</a> | <a href="https://www.kaashivinfotech.com/online-internship-for-eee-students/" rel="nofollow">electrical engineering internships</a> | <a href="https://www.kaashivinfotech.com/internship-for-bcom-students/" rel="nofollow">internship for bcom students</a> | <a href="https://www.kaashivinfotech.com/python-training-in-chennai/" rel="nofollow">python training in chennai</a> | <a href="https://www.kaashivinfotech.com/online-web-development-internship/" rel="nofollow">web development internship</a> | <a href="https://www.kaashivinfotech.com/internship-for-bba-students/" rel="nofollow">internship for bba students</a> | <a href="https://www.kaashivinfotech.com/internship-for-1st-year-cse-students/" rel="nofollow">internship for 1st year engineering students</a>periyannanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06659546616451492142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-54203104225150067432018-01-10T07:31:48.820-08:002018-01-10T07:31:48.820-08:00Rock, I recognize I'm way late to the party. N...Rock, I recognize I'm way late to the party. Not even sure you're still monitoring this...<br /><br />If you are, maybe I might propose a discussion point.<br /><br />Suppose a black store owner (note: owner - it's his property) has a customer who comes in wearing a shirt that reads, "I hate" followed by the N word. Does the store owner have the right to refuse service to that person? I would advocate that he does. I get your point that the owner has invited the public. I don't think the clause "as long as his behavior was not disruptive" is the sole determining factor.<br /><br />Now, maybe an owner should have a posting outside the establishment indicating people he will not serve, but that'd be fraught with problems. I also selected an example admittedly somewhat extreme (for today).<br /><br />I get that by having a public place, you're inviting the public. If you deny service, you should have a good reason for doing so. Whatever that reason is, however, I can't judge. Nor should, I believe, the state make that determination. That's up to the property owner. However, if I were to learn that a certain store wasn't serving blacks or gays, I could certainly decide not to spend my money there and maybe the market would sort that out.<br /><br />Thank you for explaining the distinction on catering. That's helpful.Andrew Teasdalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05139640004552068856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-69907106081506152862015-10-31T20:07:50.145-07:002015-10-31T20:07:50.145-07:00Circumstances have prevented me from keeping up wi...Circumstances have prevented me from keeping up with the comments on here the past couple of weeks. Having finally looked over the discussion that has taken place while I was gone, I guess I should be grateful I didn't get in the middle of this one.<br /><br />P.S. A new post, the third in this series on marriage, should be up by tomorrow (Sunday). What say we start a new discussion then? Meantime, hope you all have a happy Halloween. I'm going to bed.Alan Rock Watermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-51962722328620497162015-10-27T10:48:00.705-07:002015-10-27T10:48:00.705-07:00So, here's why we're here.
If anyone'...So, here's why we're here.<br /><br />If anyone's read Asimov's Robot series of books, you'll remember the Three Laws of Robotics. These three laws were:<br /><br />1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. <br /><br />2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. <br /><br />3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.<br /><br />In a later book I never read, in a setting where robots were given rule over human societies, Asimov added another law, prioritized above these three.<br /><br />0. A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.<br /><br />Now, I think these are incomplete and contradictory, but they get the point across; without these laws, humans would not tolerate the risk represented by robots. The laws were intended to resolve that conflict. Of course, they fail, or the books would have been really boring.<br /><br />Well, God's gone this one better. Instead of 4 laws, he created the ultimate conflict resolution technology - love. Love is an internal, emotional incentive structure which treats differences as sources of joy, and yearns for closeness and unity. The behavior of love is summed up thus: "All things whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so unto them." (Love results in hierarchical equality and peace.)<br /><br />And with the capacity to love comes the capacity to fear. They are polar opposites. Fear sees differences as threats, and wishes for separation from, or elimination of, differences. (Fear results in hierarchical inequality. Hierarchy is the sign of the rule of fear.)<br /><br />Of course these are incomplete descriptions.<br /><br />So, suppose God has a ton of robots, fresh out of the factory. They don't know what they wish others would do to them, and they don't know what they do not want done to them. So what you do is, if they are willing, toss them into a simulator, starting from a blank slate, where through interaction with each other they learn what they like and what they don't like. And you test them to see if they are capable of and willing to accept the conflict resolution technology - love - and thus show themselves ready to participate in the eternal, peaceful, and joyous society. You do this by sounding the report of this technology among them, and seeing who responds. You give them a taste of this technology from time to time and see who follows it.<br /><br />And at some point, you restore them to their former state and knowledge, retaining their newfound experiential knowledge, and ask if they will accept this technology - love - permanently, forever altering their internal incentive structure and how they relate to others. And, if they will not, they get to go on their merry way to form their own society and hash things out amongst themselves.Jared Liveseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10309044282039536254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-13441130436434767382015-10-26T20:17:09.548-07:002015-10-26T20:17:09.548-07:00Just like today's economy exists to protect on...Just like today's economy exists to protect one technology - the automobile - almost every legal theory exists to protect one ideology - that of property rights.<br /><br />Those are the immovable pegs.Jared Liveseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10309044282039536254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-64993089433215006302015-10-26T20:10:32.394-07:002015-10-26T20:10:32.394-07:00Ben,
I started at the Austrian school too, but r...Ben, <br /><br />I started at the Austrian school too, but realized (after years) there was an inherent contradiction in their philosophy.<br /><br />While the nonaggression axiom is a true principle - it alone doesn't contradict itself and destroy society - their theory of property intentionally expands the meaning of the word "aggression" to include "touching my shit." And that cocktail does contradict itself and lead to societal destruction.<br /><br />So the ideology of property rights convert the non-aggression axiom into a justification for aggression. Boom. There goes the neighborhood - eventually.Jared Liveseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10309044282039536254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-33081006756121042002015-10-26T20:02:14.441-07:002015-10-26T20:02:14.441-07:00See, Irven, you're still conflating stuff with...See, Irven, you're still conflating stuff with ideologies, which are two separate categories of things. Ideologies are not stuff, and stuff is not ideology.<br /><br />A rock, a diamond, a planet, is independent of any conceptualization of how you think you should act in relation to others with respect to the rock.<br /><br />The rock simply exists. If you call it, meaning you, personally, Irven, does it come? I'm guessing not. So while you may grab the rock, hold it in your hand, and threaten to call the cops on whoever touches your rock, or to kill whoever touches your rock, that has nothing to do with the rock, and everything to do with how you think you should relate to others.<br /><br />We can substitute land for the rock, and we get the same results. The land has no logically necessary relationship to how you relate to others. How you relate to others (and the land) is a product of your ideology of property rights. It exists only in your head and not in reality. It is a game, like chess or checkers. The rules only matter if everyone playing agrees to abide by them. But the rules only exist in the heads of the humans playing the game, the game pieces and the board know nothing about the rules and don't care. Just like stuff doesn't care about your ideology.<br /><br />I don't know how else to put it.Jared Liveseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10309044282039536254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-91789592104160922732015-10-26T19:54:07.190-07:002015-10-26T19:54:07.190-07:00Why have you stated numerous times that he was the...<i>Why have you stated numerous times that he was the originator of property rights then? Why have spent over a dozen posts claiming that Lucifer is in fact the originator of property rights, if you don't "know"?</i><br /><br />Let's quote the whole thing in context.<br /><br />I said: "Now, I do have to clarify. I do not know that Satan <i>invented</i> [emphasis in the original] property rights, but from Moses 5, he is the one who introduced the idea to Cain, who went on to found the first city, and apparently the first government, which also was the first to kill someone to shut them up - copyright law taken to the logical end."<br /><br />Dictionary sez: o·rig·i·na·tor - noun<br />"a person who creates or <b>initiates</b> something."<br /><br />He is the originator of property rights in this world. He initiated the game so many love more than God's ways.<br /><br />As to the rest, well, you don't have to buy what I'm selling.Jared Liveseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10309044282039536254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-69244426454224736122015-10-26T19:43:50.329-07:002015-10-26T19:43:50.329-07:00"Now, I do have to clarify. I do not know tha..."Now, I do have to clarify. I do not know that Satan invented property rights,"<br /><br />Why have you stated numerous times that he was the originator of property rights then? Why have spent over a dozen posts claiming that Lucifer is in fact the originator of property rights, if you don't "know"?<br /><br />I'm sorry that I have a life outside of this and other blogs, seemingly unlike yourself, Log. I don't have the time or patience to copy and paste the scriptures that back up every idea that I put forth. I'm posting on the assumption that if you question whether the scriptures speak of creating man in God's image and giving man--people with bodies, human kind, man kind, or whatever definition you feel appropriate to call them--"dominion" over over things--that you would not like to consider property--that you would go to Genesis 1 or Moses 2 and read for yourself.<br /><br />If being given a body--unlike Lucifer and a 3rd of the hosts of heaven--being given dominion over some type of property/land/earth, doesn't presuppose some kind of property or right of property, then I could be wrong. None of your scriptures or opinions have come close to convincing me that God was not the creator of property and subsequently rights, because every one of them is a reference to consecration or Lucifer convincing Cain to murder and steal. Your position could make some sense, only if we knew nothing of the beginning.<br /><br />And it is interesting that you bring up being humble as a child. Children have a natural instinct to know when their property has been taken. A 1 year old can say "mine" when you take what's theirs. They feel trespassed upon. Children even younger will cry or become dissatisfied if you take their tangible property. Doesn't seem humble to be that way, especially if Lucifer originated that idea in their hearts. <br /><br />It's also interesting that the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and covenants contain over 1600 references to land and/or property in a positive manner. Is that Lucifer's influence over the scriptures, Log? Was king Benjamin wrong to speak of laboring with his "own" hands? That's claiming he "owns" them.<br /><br />I could go on and on and on--definitely not as long as you of course--but it will do no good. You have decided that Lucifer is the originator of property rights--except in your last response to me where you admitted you aren't sure--and you aren't going to change your mind. You aren't going to change anyone else's mind until you give better evidence to support you claim than you have thus far shown.<br /><br />Read Alma 44 and think about why wars of defense are justified, but wars of aggression are not. Think of why defending property is justified by God and attacking it is condemned by God. <br /><br />That's it for me. I'm done with this thread. Irvenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17926122949198322768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-24208376183214692052015-10-26T19:40:20.786-07:002015-10-26T19:40:20.786-07:00After thinking much this weekend, I think I finall...After thinking much this weekend, I think I finally understand what you're coming from, Log. I've thought for years that the Austrian economic school and libertarianism is the closest to the gospel of any political philosophy. I still think it is better than most, and allow the greatest agency of the major philosophies, but I did not understand how badly they were lacking.<br /><br />I love Nibley's book Approaching Zion, but I've had a dissonance between what he talks about in that book, and how "the real world" works. I couldn't see how Zion could possibly work without prices, competition, wages, etc. I knew they weren't compatible, but I had no way to resolve it. I think you've finally given me some tools to finally understand what Nibley was saying. <br /><br />Doxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11229489025173839494noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-358562511221265542015-10-26T19:29:56.386-07:002015-10-26T19:29:56.386-07:00But I have to admit, except as an extended demonst...But I have to admit, except as an extended demonstration that the law of God preserves peace among mortal humanity in the absence of the power of the devil, I can't think of another purpose for the millennial reign of Christ. It seems clear to me that their opportunities for advancement in understanding and development in conflict resolution would be necessarily limited without suffering the abuse that comes from the reign of the devil, even if they do grow up without sin unto salvation, and are eventually presented to the Lord (JST Matt 21:55).<br /><br />Something, I guess, to research.Jared Liveseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10309044282039536254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-27720703526977096432015-10-26T17:19:31.625-07:002015-10-26T17:19:31.625-07:001 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, ...<i>1 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?<br /><br />2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, and said, Verily, I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.<br /><br />3 Whosoever, therefore, shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.</i>Jared Liveseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10309044282039536254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-72677812161443465752015-10-26T17:07:24.779-07:002015-10-26T17:07:24.779-07:00To become as a little child might be best understo...To become as a little child might be best understood as uncritically believing what God has said, and doing what he has asked without stubbornness of heart.<br /><br /><i> 31 Behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will declare unto you my doctrine.<br /><br /> 32 And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me.<br /><br /> 33 And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God.<br /><br /> 34 And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned.<br /><br /> 35 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and I bear record of it from the Father; and whoso believeth in me believeth in the Father also; and unto him will the Father bear record of me, for he will visit him with fire and with the Holy Ghost.<br /><br /> 36 And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghost will bear record unto him of the Father and me; for the Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one.<br /><br /><b> 37 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and become as a little child, and be baptized in my name, or ye can in nowise receive these things.<br /><br /> 38 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little child, or ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.</b><br /><br /> 39 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.<br /><br /> 40 And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them.<br /><br /> 41 Therefore, go forth unto this people, and declare the words which I have spoken, unto the ends of the earth.</i>Jared Liveseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10309044282039536254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-12857522889533341242015-10-26T17:00:00.276-07:002015-10-26T17:00:00.276-07:003 Nephi 9:22
22 Therefore, whoso repenteth and com...3 Nephi 9:22<br />22 Therefore, whoso repenteth and cometh unto me as a little child, him will I receive, for of such is the kingdom of God. Behold, for such I have laid down my life, and have taken it up again; therefore repent, and come unto me ye ends of the earth, and be saved.<br /><br />D&C 121<br /> 45 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.<br /><br /> 46 The Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion, and thy scepter an unchanging scepter of righteousness and truth; and thy dominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever.Jared Liveseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10309044282039536254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-54706126137423802072015-10-26T16:12:30.590-07:002015-10-26T16:12:30.590-07:00And here I am going to speculate - what purpose is...And here I am going to speculate - what purpose is served by a society of Gods?<br /><br />I think we'll be Star Trekking.<br /><br />No joke.<br /><br />If there are other powers out there, they will be founded upon the Golden Rule and we will join with them. If we find systems of hierarchies, we will try to invite as many as will to join us. Jared Liveseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10309044282039536254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-76437452098235693692015-10-26T15:59:25.728-07:002015-10-26T15:59:25.728-07:00Man is a potential God in training.
God is an o...Man is a potential God in training. <br /><br />God is an omnicompetent servant who loves everyone; a master of every art. He literally is one of us, as the Joan Osborne song goes. The difference between him and us is merely knowledge and experience.<br /><br />The point is to see who will willingly and freely adopt the ideology of God, and not because of who and what is in heaven. Because if you're going to be doing it forever and ever, worlds without end, it has to be who and what you are, otherwise you will fail; nobody wants to be an eternal babysitter or referee.<br /><br />Those who love each other rejoice in each other's company, and want to be around each other - isn't the pleasure of your loved ones' company reason enough for a society of peace?<br /><br />And no, we couldn't have that in heaven without experiencing the complete opposite down here. That's part of the point of this little experiment.<br /><br />If you will agree to relate to things as God does, you will have the same power God has - things will willingly obey you, thus they will belong to you. If you relate instead to things as the devil bids, well, you can go party in his kingdom. There is no "transfer of property." One of us is all of us. The power of God is love and truth. The power of the devil is fear and lies.<br /><br />You prepare for Godhood by experiencing the power of love and truth, as well as fear and lies. Having experienced the power of love and truth, as well as fear and lies, you are rendered presumptively competent to select the society and rules you wish to abide. If you choose love and truth, you go with the society that likewise chooses love and truth. If you choose fear and lies, well, because you've been down here and experienced their effects and seen their consequences, you know what you're asking for, so it is just to give it to you.<br /><br />When you say the scriptures are not meant to be taken literally, you are only saying that you do not believe them.<br /><br />And when you say I am self-righteous, you are simply telling me that you assume I know just as little as you, and also that you do not believe me.<br /><br />Well, we choose whom to believe based on our values - what we really want. It's possible I am being self-righteous. But if you don't know I'm wrong, then to be consistent, you have to grant the possibility that I might be right and that I may know what I'm talking about.<br /><br />And if you grant that possibility - in full view of the knowledge that you are going to die - why not perform an experiment upon the words of Christ? See what happens when you try doing things his way.Jared Liveseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10309044282039536254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-85741292698490444442015-10-26T14:00:05.856-07:002015-10-26T14:00:05.856-07:00What is man then? What is God then? You would have...What is man then? What is God then? You would have humans reduced to a child like state, living in their parent's house with their parent's things until they die. And then commanded to play nice with each other and share everything because none of the things are theirs. <br /><br />And you have to assume God knew we would not play fair. But assuming everyone did play fairly and shared everything and lived in peaceful harmony, what would be the point? What would be the purpose of mortality in a society of 100% peace? Couldn't we have had that in heaven? <br /><br />And why would God promise eternal kingdoms, planets and everlasting dominions for people who had never had the right or privilege to own anything? And why wouldn't that eventual transfer of property (planets kingdoms, dominions) be a Satanic/evil principal in your scenario? Are you proposing we live in a child like state of subservience and submission, sharing all of God's toys, property, food, until we die, and then someday we will have transferred into our posession unknown sums of power and property and possessions? What kind of nonsense is that?<br /><br />If earth life is preparation to Godhood (owner of all we can imagine anyway, since we believe that all of what is on the earth and planets are "his") then how do prepare for godhood? How does a life playing in the nursery prepare anyone for adulthood? Godhood?<br /><br />Many of the scriptures are not meant to be taken literally. We are to live in thankfullness and gratitude, faith and love. We are hear to learn and trial and live with each other and all who disagree with us. We are to learn to not be self-righteous and unkind. Some could start with behavior on this blog. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16423919174137826379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-31398177993450782972015-10-26T07:35:38.542-07:002015-10-26T07:35:38.542-07:00God's model:
Acts 4:32
32 And the multitude o...God's model:<br /><br />Acts 4:32<br />32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.<br /><br />Satan's model:<br /><br />Ether 14:2<br />2 Wherefore every man did cleave unto that which was his own, with his hands, and would not borrow neither would he lend; and every man kept the hilt of his sword in his right hand, in the defence of his property and his own life and of his wives and children.Jared Liveseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10309044282039536254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-40649366405540790862015-10-25T23:12:07.226-07:002015-10-25T23:12:07.226-07:00That's the entire point people got lost at - #...That's the entire point people got lost at - #8.<br /><br />Physical stuff is not properly identified with ideologies; to conflate the two is to commit a category error.<br /><br />But this kind of error can only be committed, in my judgement, when people cannot conceive of an alternative ideology.<br /><br />That is, the concept of rights, in particular, property rights, is so deeply ingrained that for those who hold to this ideology there is no conceivable alternative.<br /><br />So it's possible Irven read my explanation of how everything is God's (with some exceptions) and yet entirely missed the significance since it doesn't intersect in any significant way with how he conceives men and God ought to relate to each other in the presence of stuff.<br /><br />And when I say that property rights is simply covetousness given legal justification and lethal enforcement, that is taken by those who cannot conceive of an alternative to property rights as me trying to arrogantly take a non-existent moral high ground.<br /><br />Folks: stuff exists and always has. According to the scriptures, God can neither create nor destroy stuff, nor intelligence, even if he can coax and persuade stuff to take shape out of chaos. He is not a conquistador, planting his flag and threatening all who trespass on his land with death or taxes or rent, he is a parent and a teacher and a mentor and a servant. Stuff obeys him - honors him - because he doesn't abuse others. That which obeys him thereby belongs to him, and remains his so long as it obeys him. That is how everything is God's, except man. Man is being tested and sifted to see if they will obey him, or if they will obey the other guy. Men belong to whom they willingly obey.<br /><br />That's it.<br /><br />The other guy has introduced a different system, one based on covetousness and lethal enforcement of claims - the conquistador model, if you like.Jared Liveseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10309044282039536254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-24665278298292116862015-10-25T22:15:08.129-07:002015-10-25T22:15:08.129-07:001. "God himself is the originator of all phys...1. "God himself is the originator of all physical elements."<br /><br />A: D&C 93:33<br /><br />2. "As I recall, it is said that God created the earth and man in his image. I don't recall Lucifer creating anything."<br /><br />A: WoJS - George Laub Journal, April the 6th, 1843, search string "sined"<br /><br />3. "If they aren't property, what was Lucifer--as you assert--creating property rights for?"<br /><br />A: He introduced the concept of property rights for the purposes outlined in Moses 4:6.<br /><br />4. "Property was withheld from Lucifer and a third of the hosts of heaven. That is why he seeks to influence everyone to do his bidding for him."<br /><br />A: This statement, like many others you make, requires one first buy into your notion that bodies constitute private property. In other words, you are assuming the very point at issue. Have you stopped beating your mother yet?<br /><br />5. "If he were the initiator of property and its inherent rights, he would not have withheld that power from himself."<br /><br />A: This is a garbled and confused mismash of what you think I said. I said he originated the concept of property rights - at least, he is the one who introduced the concept to this world.<br /><br />6. "You are demanding that we don't consider bodies property."<br /><br />A: I am making no demands. I am saying the concept of private property is not from God.<br /><br />7. "I'm not the one cherry picking scriptures--sometimes generally unrelated to property--in defense of my position on the origination of property rights."<br /><br />A: I agree your comments have been remarkably untainted by scripture.<br /><br />8. "Your whole theory is predicated on the idea that Lucifer was originator of property rights. The only way for him to be originator of property rights, would be for him to be the originator of property itself."<br /><br />A: This statement illustrates, again, you confuse physical stuff, which exists, with property rights, which is an ideology. You are committing a category error.<br /><br />Now, I do have to clarify. I do not know that Satan <i>invented</i> property rights, but from Moses 5, he is the one who introduced the idea to Cain, who went on to found the first city, and apparently the first government, which also was the first to kill someone to shut them up - copyright law taken to the logical end.Jared Liveseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10309044282039536254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-6765123746453943542015-10-25T22:10:06.224-07:002015-10-25T22:10:06.224-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jared Liveseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10309044282039536254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-17208548272482807262015-10-25T21:00:36.001-07:002015-10-25T21:00:36.001-07:00How does God own everything if the "originato...<i>How does God own everything if the "originator of property rights" is Lucifer?</i><br /><br />I explained this already, which means you cannot be troubled to read what I've written, OR you cannot understand it.<br /><br />Either way, there is no merit to repeating what you can discover by troubling yourself to read my comments, in their entirety, on this thread.<br /><br />When you can be troubled to read the answer, which I stated explicitly, then maybe we can continue.Jared Liveseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10309044282039536254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-30754810220250901712015-10-25T20:54:57.340-07:002015-10-25T20:54:57.340-07:00How does God own everything if the "originato...How does God own everything if the "originator of property rights" is Lucifer?<br /><br />In the beginning God created man and gave man dominion--control, sovereign authority--over the earth and the things on the earth. That's just me considering land and the things that occupy it to be property. Kind of like my craziness of considering a body to be property. If a body and things on the earth aren't considered property, what are we to consider them? If they aren't property, what was Lucifer--as you assert--creating property rights for? <br /><br />As I recall, it is said that God created the earth and man in his image. I don't recall Lucifer creating anything. He does all of his work vicariously, through people who have a physical body(property) unlike himself. Everything he does, he does by influence because of his lack of a tangible, physical body. <br /><br />God himself is the originator of all physical elements. Man has dominion and can take from those elements and expand on them. Man cannot create them. He can only take and expand on them. Lucifer, because of his lack of a physical body cannot even expand on those elements himself. He must influence others to do so in his behalf. <br /><br />Lucifer does not exist in the physical. Property by its very nature is physical. Property was withheld from Lucifer and a third of the hosts of heaven. That is why he seeks to influence everyone to do his bidding for him. That's as close as he can get to property. If he were the initiator of property and its inherent rights, he would not have withheld that power from himself. <br /><br />Its funny that you accuse me of being worried more about winning than being right. I'm not the one cherry picking scriptures--sometimes generally unrelated to property--in defense of my position on the origination of property rights. I'm simply going back to the beginning--at least that we know of--first property(body)and taking it from there. You are demanding that we don't consider bodies property. Why? Because it destroys your whole thesis. Your whole theory is predicated on the idea that Lucifer was originator of property rights. The only way for him to be originator of property rights, would be for him to be the originator of property itself. There can be no rights of property without there first being property.<br /><br />I'm sure this is a fruitless endeavor with you. You could still possibly be hung up wondering if I believe in God, as per your question a few posts ago.Irvenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17926122949198322768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-11224686939338881142015-10-25T18:24:06.315-07:002015-10-25T18:24:06.315-07:00Post #4: The Clincher and Fourth Post So I Lose!
...Post #4: The Clincher and Fourth Post So I Lose!<br /><br /><i>Mosiah 4:22<br />22 And if ye judge the man who putteth up his petition to you for your substance that he perish not, and condemn him, how much more just will be your condemnation for withholding <b>your substance, which doth not belong to you but to God, to whom also your life belongeth;</b> and yet ye put up no petition, nor repent of the thing which thou hast done.</i><br /><br />We own nothing. Not even our lives.<br /><br /><i>Mosiah 2:21<br />21 I say unto you that if ye should serve him who has created you from the beginning, and is preserving you from day to day, by lending you breath, that ye may live and move and do according to your own will, and even supporting you from one moment to another—I say, if ye should serve him with all your whole souls yet ye would be unprofitable servants.</i><br /><br />God is continually and actively intervening on the order of things from moment to moment to keep us alive and able to do as we will with the time he has given us.<br /><br />So when God asks us to give unto every man that asks, he's asking us to do with his stuff - for it obeys his voice - as he asks, so we can be his stuff too. If we are his, he is ours, for he will do as we ask as well.<br /><br />Or, we can go with the other guy, who tells us we can buy anything in this world with money - even armies and navies, false priests who oppress, and tyrants who destroy and reign with blood and horror on the earth.<br /><br />Historically, his offer has been the one most people go with. I mean, really, who wants to be poor and at the mercy of others? God may not even exist, or may be a liar, so doing what Jesus taught is a sucker's play. Amirite?Jared Liveseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10309044282039536254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-65522865301125826542015-10-25T15:21:01.959-07:002015-10-25T15:21:01.959-07:00Post #3: The Origin of Property Rights
Moses 5:29...Post #3: The Origin of Property Rights<br /><br /><i>Moses 5:29-33<br /> 29 And Satan said unto Cain: Swear unto me by thy throat, and if thou tell it thou shalt die; and swear thy brethren by their heads, and by the living God, that they tell it not; for if they tell it, they shall surely die; and this that thy father may not know it; and this day I will deliver thy brother Abel into thine hands.<br /><br /> 30 And Satan sware unto Cain that he would do according to his commands. And all these things were done in secret.<br /><br /> 31 And Cain said: Truly I am Mahan, the master of this great secret, that I may murder and get gain. Wherefore Cain was called Master Mahan, and he gloried in his wickedness.<br /><br /> 32 And Cain went into the field, and Cain talked with Abel, his brother. And it came to pass that while they were in the field, Cain rose up against Abel, his brother, and slew him.<br /><br /> 33 And Cain gloried in that which he had done, saying: I am free; surely the flocks of my brother falleth into my hands.</i><br /><br />Note well - the secret is stated as murder in order to get gain. That sure sounds an awful lot like killing people to get shit, doesn't it? And if you kill people to get it in the first place, why would you scruple to kill people to keep it?Jared Liveseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10309044282039536254noreply@blogger.com