shadow,
Will you tell me how you think I'm interpreting those scriptures or will you tell me specifically what it is you believe or think that I am claiming?
-Finrock
shadow,
your interpretation of what I said is not what I was saying.Finrock wrote: ↑March 22nd, 2017, 9:18 amFinrock wrote: You have said point blank that people are not rejecting you, but they are rejecting the scriptures and the prophets because all you have done is quote scripture.Right here is one place (but not the only place and I have several more quotes of yours if they are needed):
You have repeatedly told people who have disagreed with you that they are rejecting scripture and hence they are rejecting God. You keep equating your commentary, your hypothesis, and your interpretation with scripture. You are saying that what you are saying is just pure scripture and those who disagree with you are unwilling to listen to scripture.Ezra wrote:What your comments really say is you are unwilling to listen to scripture to the point that you would rather label me As fallible as what ever the label to avoid the truth in the scriptures.
So if you truly recognize and acknowledge anything. It should be the scriptures. Which I keep pointing to.
This isant about me. But you really want it to be. You keep trying to make it about me. You keep trying to make this personal. why??
Why??
What are you avoiding? Why?
Really read d&c 98. Really read d&c 121 33-43
Really read d&c 88 75-82.
And if you have read them. What do those scriptures say? Some key points.
People are not unwilling to listen to scripture, nor are they rejecting scripture, but they are unwilling to listen to your commentary or your interpretation. It is about you, Ezra. You keep trying to make it about the scriptures and God, but really the issue here is not that people disbelieve scripture nor are they unwilling to listen to scripture.
I have no problems with you providing your interpretation. Just recognize that your interpretation of scripture does not necessarily equate to scripture nor does it necessarily equate to God speaking. If people reject your words and your ideas, it does not mean that people are unwilling to listen to scripture or that they are rejecting scripture.
Further, God accusing and man accusing is not the same thing, even if man pretends to be using scripture to justify their accusations. But, you can't rightfully accuse the missionary of being wrong in his actions because you don't know if he was guided by the Holy Spirit to do what he did. Just because the missionary reacted violently does not mean the missionary was not acting righteously. You have no idea whether the missionary was acting under inspiration or not.
Finally, for the most part I agree with the idea you seem to be sharing, which is that we ought to be peacemakers and try to avoid violence, even when we are threatened or attacked. There is a high road to travel. That is a good thing. But, at the same time, the Spirit can and does sometimes direct us to defend ourselves even with the shedding of blood or through violence.
-Finrock
No, Ezra, I can read English and you told me that I am unwilling to listen to scriptures. You have said the same thing to those who disagreed with your hypothesis.Ezra wrote: ↑March 22nd, 2017, 9:51 amyour interpretation of what I said is not what I was saying.Finrock wrote: ↑March 22nd, 2017, 9:18 amFinrock wrote: You have said point blank that people are not rejecting you, but they are rejecting the scriptures and the prophets because all you have done is quote scripture.Right here is one place (but not the only place and I have several more quotes of yours if they are needed):
You have repeatedly told people who have disagreed with you that they are rejecting scripture and hence they are rejecting God. You keep equating your commentary, your hypothesis, and your interpretation with scripture. You are saying that what you are saying is just pure scripture and those who disagree with you are unwilling to listen to scripture.Ezra wrote:What your comments really say is you are unwilling to listen to scripture to the point that you would rather label me As fallible as what ever the label to avoid the truth in the scriptures.
So if you truly recognize and acknowledge anything. It should be the scriptures. Which I keep pointing to.
This isant about me. But you really want it to be. You keep trying to make it about me. You keep trying to make this personal. why??
Why??
What are you avoiding? Why?
Really read d&c 98. Really read d&c 121 33-43
Really read d&c 88 75-82.
And if you have read them. What do those scriptures say? Some key points.
People are not unwilling to listen to scripture, nor are they rejecting scripture, but they are unwilling to listen to your commentary or your interpretation. It is about you, Ezra. You keep trying to make it about the scriptures and God, but really the issue here is not that people disbelieve scripture nor are they unwilling to listen to scripture.
I have no problems with you providing your interpretation. Just recognize that your interpretation of scripture does not necessarily equate to scripture nor does it necessarily equate to God speaking. If people reject your words and your ideas, it does not mean that people are unwilling to listen to scripture or that they are rejecting scripture.
Further, God accusing and man accusing is not the same thing, even if man pretends to be using scripture to justify their accusations. But, you can't rightfully accuse the missionary of being wrong in his actions because you don't know if he was guided by the Holy Spirit to do what he did. Just because the missionary reacted violently does not mean the missionary was not acting righteously. You have no idea whether the missionary was acting under inspiration or not.
Finally, for the most part I agree with the idea you seem to be sharing, which is that we ought to be peacemakers and try to avoid violence, even when we are threatened or attacked. There is a high road to travel. That is a good thing. But, at the same time, the Spirit can and does sometimes direct us to defend ourselves even with the shedding of blood or through violence.
-Finrock
You should look through my posts you will find this is something I talk about a lot.
Judgments and Labels are satans way of getting us distracted from the truth. The moment that you place a label on someone eles you have closed your eyes to a greater truth.
It is in the darkness of men's own eyes they become lost. Black elk.
Placing labels on others justifys us in treating others poorly and feeling ok about it. It also helps us to ignore them. It doesn't matter the topic. There is a lesson to be learned. Satan doesn't want that lesson learned so he gets us to judge and label others so that we are focused on them and that label we placed on them.
So let's look at the conversation.
Me
Read this scripture. It says this.
You
we are dealing with someone who is infallible. Why should we listen.
Me
your hiding behind a label and not listening to the scriptures or lessons.
You
your infallible and your saying I don't believe in God.
Me
Where?
And so on.
I am not the label you have placed on me. I'm a child of God. There is a big difference. Or doing what you say I am saying.
Placing labels also makes it to where we no longer treat or see them as an equal but as less then us.
That comment was on the label you placed on me. And to try to help you look at you not me. To help you stop trying to make it personal.
Anytime we place a label on another if we can catch ourselfs doing that. We can learn a truth by looking at ourselves. Satan doesn't want this of course.
Labels placed on others are the distraction Satan uses to to fortify us into ignorance. It's the slowly dragging them down without them realizing it.
It seems like you're saying that from the scriptures it's only OK or justified to defend yourself if you're a good man who has the Holy Ghost as your companion. That's where I disagree. The athiest anti-Christian dude down the street has just as much right and justification and I'd also say responsibility for defending himself as any righteous guy up the street. Alma 48 states the the Spirit will guide someone on who, what, where and how to defend themselves, which is a HUGE blessing, but it doesn't claim anywhere that one has to be righteous to defend themselves.
Reading English is not the issue. It's understanding what the meaning is.Finrock wrote: ↑March 22nd, 2017, 9:55 amNo, Ezra, I can read English and you told me that I am unwilling to listen to scriptures. You have said the same thing to those who disagreed with your hypothesis.Ezra wrote: ↑March 22nd, 2017, 9:51 amyour interpretation of what I said is not what I was saying.Finrock wrote: ↑March 22nd, 2017, 9:18 amFinrock wrote: You have said point blank that people are not rejecting you, but they are rejecting the scriptures and the prophets because all you have done is quote scripture.Right here is one place (but not the only place and I have several more quotes of yours if they are needed):
You have repeatedly told people who have disagreed with you that they are rejecting scripture and hence they are rejecting God. You keep equating your commentary, your hypothesis, and your interpretation with scripture. You are saying that what you are saying is just pure scripture and those who disagree with you are unwilling to listen to scripture.Ezra wrote:What your comments really say is you are unwilling to listen to scripture to the point that you would rather label me As fallible as what ever the label to avoid the truth in the scriptures.
So if you truly recognize and acknowledge anything. It should be the scriptures. Which I keep pointing to.
This isant about me. But you really want it to be. You keep trying to make it about me. You keep trying to make this personal. why??
Why??
What are you avoiding? Why?
Really read d&c 98. Really read d&c 121 33-43
Really read d&c 88 75-82.
And if you have read them. What do those scriptures say? Some key points.
People are not unwilling to listen to scripture, nor are they rejecting scripture, but they are unwilling to listen to your commentary or your interpretation. It is about you, Ezra. You keep trying to make it about the scriptures and God, but really the issue here is not that people disbelieve scripture nor are they unwilling to listen to scripture.
I have no problems with you providing your interpretation. Just recognize that your interpretation of scripture does not necessarily equate to scripture nor does it necessarily equate to God speaking. If people reject your words and your ideas, it does not mean that people are unwilling to listen to scripture or that they are rejecting scripture.
Further, God accusing and man accusing is not the same thing, even if man pretends to be using scripture to justify their accusations. But, you can't rightfully accuse the missionary of being wrong in his actions because you don't know if he was guided by the Holy Spirit to do what he did. Just because the missionary reacted violently does not mean the missionary was not acting righteously. You have no idea whether the missionary was acting under inspiration or not.
Finally, for the most part I agree with the idea you seem to be sharing, which is that we ought to be peacemakers and try to avoid violence, even when we are threatened or attacked. There is a high road to travel. That is a good thing. But, at the same time, the Spirit can and does sometimes direct us to defend ourselves even with the shedding of blood or through violence.
-Finrock
You should look through my posts you will find this is something I talk about a lot.
Judgments and Labels are satans way of getting us distracted from the truth. The moment that you place a label on someone eles you have closed your eyes to a greater truth.
It is in the darkness of men's own eyes they become lost. Black elk.
Placing labels on others justifys us in treating others poorly and feeling ok about it. It also helps us to ignore them. It doesn't matter the topic. There is a lesson to be learned. Satan doesn't want that lesson learned so he gets us to judge and label others so that we are focused on them and that label we placed on them.
So let's look at the conversation.
Me
Read this scripture. It says this.
You
we are dealing with someone who is infallible. Why should we listen.
Me
your hiding behind a label and not listening to the scriptures or lessons.
You
your infallible and your saying I don't believe in God.
Me
Where?
And so on.
I am not the label you have placed on me. I'm a child of God. There is a big difference. Or doing what you say I am saying.
Placing labels also makes it to where we no longer treat or see them as an equal but as less then us.
That comment was on the label you placed on me. And to try to help you look at you not me. To help you stop trying to make it personal.
Anytime we place a label on another if we can catch ourselfs doing that. We can learn a truth by looking at ourselves. Satan doesn't want this of course.
Labels placed on others are the distraction Satan uses to to fortify us into ignorance. It's the slowly dragging them down without them realizing it.
-Finrock
:)) , goodness.Ezra wrote: ↑March 22nd, 2017, 12:05 pmReading English is not the issue. It's understanding what the meaning is.Finrock wrote: ↑March 22nd, 2017, 9:55 amNo, Ezra, I can read English and you told me that I am unwilling to listen to scriptures. You have said the same thing to those who disagreed with your hypothesis.Ezra wrote: ↑March 22nd, 2017, 9:51 amyour interpretation of what I said is not what I was saying.Finrock wrote: ↑March 22nd, 2017, 9:18 am
Right here is one place (but not the only place and I have several more quotes of yours if they are needed):
You have repeatedly told people who have disagreed with you that they are rejecting scripture and hence they are rejecting God. You keep equating your commentary, your hypothesis, and your interpretation with scripture. You are saying that what you are saying is just pure scripture and those who disagree with you are unwilling to listen to scripture.
People are not unwilling to listen to scripture, nor are they rejecting scripture, but they are unwilling to listen to your commentary or your interpretation. It is about you, Ezra. You keep trying to make it about the scriptures and God, but really the issue here is not that people disbelieve scripture nor are they unwilling to listen to scripture.
I have no problems with you providing your interpretation. Just recognize that your interpretation of scripture does not necessarily equate to scripture nor does it necessarily equate to God speaking. If people reject your words and your ideas, it does not mean that people are unwilling to listen to scripture or that they are rejecting scripture.
Further, God accusing and man accusing is not the same thing, even if man pretends to be using scripture to justify their accusations. But, you can't rightfully accuse the missionary of being wrong in his actions because you don't know if he was guided by the Holy Spirit to do what he did. Just because the missionary reacted violently does not mean the missionary was not acting righteously. You have no idea whether the missionary was acting under inspiration or not.
Finally, for the most part I agree with the idea you seem to be sharing, which is that we ought to be peacemakers and try to avoid violence, even when we are threatened or attacked. There is a high road to travel. That is a good thing. But, at the same time, the Spirit can and does sometimes direct us to defend ourselves even with the shedding of blood or through violence.
-Finrock
You should look through my posts you will find this is something I talk about a lot.
Judgments and Labels are satans way of getting us distracted from the truth. The moment that you place a label on someone eles you have closed your eyes to a greater truth.
It is in the darkness of men's own eyes they become lost. Black elk.
Placing labels on others justifys us in treating others poorly and feeling ok about it. It also helps us to ignore them. It doesn't matter the topic. There is a lesson to be learned. Satan doesn't want that lesson learned so he gets us to judge and label others so that we are focused on them and that label we placed on them.
So let's look at the conversation.
Me
Read this scripture. It says this.
You
we are dealing with someone who is infallible. Why should we listen.
Me
your hiding behind a label and not listening to the scriptures or lessons.
You
your infallible and your saying I don't believe in God.
Me
Where?
And so on.
I am not the label you have placed on me. I'm a child of God. There is a big difference. Or doing what you say I am saying.
Placing labels also makes it to where we no longer treat or see them as an equal but as less then us.
That comment was on the label you placed on me. And to try to help you look at you not me. To help you stop trying to make it personal.
Anytime we place a label on another if we can catch ourselfs doing that. We can learn a truth by looking at ourselves. Satan doesn't want this of course.
Labels placed on others are the distraction Satan uses to to fortify us into ignorance. It's the slowly dragging them down without them realizing it.
-Finrock
Parables would be a good example. People can understand the English. But do they understand the meaning the message?
Just because you interpret what I say as meaning something eles doesn't mean that's what I'm saying. I have tryed to explain more.
I can explain and explain. Will you hear it? That's up to you.
But I can tell you this from personal experience. As long as a label of the other person is in place. You will continue to look down on them. Which is Pride.
Humility is the key to growth.
H verlan Anderson said in his book the Book of Mormon and the constitution.
That pride is the worst of all sin as it is the sin the leads to becoming a son of perdition.
That's not me saying your on the road to that. Just so you know and don't interpret it as that.
I'm trying to win the battle of my own pride. I want to be humble. A big part of that is living my life without labeling myself or others.
And d&c 88 75-82 commands me to warn others as I learn.
Warning on labels which come from pride and judgement I have found really upsets others who have pride and judgements. It used to upset me when people would point out my own. The more I work on my own the more and more I have come to love the opportunity they give me for growth.
So really ask yourself why what I said upsets you. The labels you place on me you naturally see yourself as opposite. If you look at that label that you put on yourself you will find it's not really true.
Like if you see me as disrespectful you would see yourself as respectful. And if you examine that label you will find that you can be but also cannot be at times. So is that a true statement that you are respectful. No.
Seeing yourself as respectful is prideful. As you then have to look down on those who you see as being disrespectful. You treat them as being less then you. Breaking down the judgement that you are respectful brings you into a place of humility.
That judgement that you are respectful came about much like a why you would need a crutch. You hurt. Either from doing bad or just feeling bad about yourself.
So you labeled yourself as respectful to feel better about how you feel or what you did. Or are doing. The crazy part is that by seeing yourself as something stops you from being it or growing in that area.
If you are something in your mind are you looking to understand or developing something you already see yourself as being? No.
So you sit still or digress without knowing. Again satans tool to slowly drag us down without our knowledge.
H verlan Anderson also said that pride is a disease that renders the inflicted with an inability to detect it. The worst a person has the disease the less they know it.
Anyways I'm going to stop now. Because either you know this or don't care.
Okay. Thanks for letting me know what you think I am saying. This is what you thought I was saying a few posts ago, and I clarified that it is not what I was saying. I am NOT saying that you must be righteous in order to be justified in defending yourself.shadow wrote: ↑March 22nd, 2017, 11:36 amIt seems like you're saying that from the scriptures it's only OK or justified to defend yourself if you're a good man who has the Holy Ghost as your companion. That's where I disagree. The athiest anti-Christian dude down the street has just as much right and justification and I'd also say responsibility for defending himself as any righteous guy up the street. Alma 48 states the the Spirit will guide someone on who, what, where and how to defend themselves, which is a HUGE blessing, but it doesn't claim anywhere that one has to be righteous to defend themselves.
I have no idea what you're saying. I'm not sure you even know what you're saying.Finrock wrote: ↑March 22nd, 2017, 1:18 pm .
To clarify, the defending part doesn't need to be justified, but the shedding of blood part needs to be justified. So, is it possible for us to defend ourselves without shedding blood? Remember, shedding blood can mean killing a person or it can mean injuring a person. So, we can ask, is it possible to defend ourselves against others without injuring them or without killing them? Yes, we can. A person can defend themselves, no matter what. I refer back to what I posted earlier: "First, it is interesting to note that it seems that this scripture does not give a blanket permission for someone to defend themselves against their enemies by the shedding of blood."
I'm claiming that it seems to me that the scripture in Alma 48 does not provide a blanket justification for us to defend ourselves against our enemies BY THE SHEDDING OF BLOOD. I put that last part in all caps because that is the crux of my assertion and it is the part you seem to be missing.
I'm claiming that we can't read Alma 48 and use that as a blanket justification in defending ourselves by the shedding of blood, because there are several qualifiers and conditions that this scripture identifies before one is justified in shedding blood. Said another way, Alma 48 doesn't say without qualification that you can shed blood when you are defending yourself. Quoting myself from earlier, "the idea is that it is our responsibility to be close to the Spirit and if we are close to the Spirit, then we will be guided in how best to defend ourselves and we will be justified in what we do, even if what we do requires the shedding of blood.
I'm not asking if you agree, but do you now understand what it is that I am claiming?
-Finrock
Shadow Huh?
Well, if you have no idea what I'm saying then it will be hard for you to disagree with me.shadow wrote: ↑March 22nd, 2017, 2:03 pmI have no idea what you're saying. I'm not sure you even know what you're saying.Finrock wrote: ↑March 22nd, 2017, 1:18 pm .
To clarify, the defending part doesn't need to be justified, but the shedding of blood part needs to be justified. So, is it possible for us to defend ourselves without shedding blood? Remember, shedding blood can mean killing a person or it can mean injuring a person. So, we can ask, is it possible to defend ourselves against others without injuring them or without killing them? Yes, we can. A person can defend themselves, no matter what. I refer back to what I posted earlier: "First, it is interesting to note that it seems that this scripture does not give a blanket permission for someone to defend themselves against their enemies by the shedding of blood."
I'm claiming that it seems to me that the scripture in Alma 48 does not provide a blanket justification for us to defend ourselves against our enemies BY THE SHEDDING OF BLOOD. I put that last part in all caps because that is the crux of my assertion and it is the part you seem to be missing.
I'm claiming that we can't read Alma 48 and use that as a blanket justification in defending ourselves by the shedding of blood, because there are several qualifiers and conditions that this scripture identifies before one is justified in shedding blood. Said another way, Alma 48 doesn't say without qualification that you can shed blood when you are defending yourself. Quoting myself from earlier, "the idea is that it is our responsibility to be close to the Spirit and if we are close to the Spirit, then we will be guided in how best to defend ourselves and we will be justified in what we do, even if what we do requires the shedding of blood.
I'm not asking if you agree, but do you now understand what it is that I am claiming?
-Finrock
It seems that you're saying one can defend themselves up to but not include shedding blood and be justified, but defending oneself can only go so far unless one has the spirit with them in order to justify them. I think that's a silly notion. What, the guy trying to kill you is going to stop his attempt as soon as you're at your limit? Or if you don't have the spirit with you you're just supposed to let him kill you because you can't fight back fearing you might scratch him and shed blood?
Alma 48 gives the qualification that it's OK if you're defending yourself period. You seem to read more into it.
I disagree with your interpretation of shedding blood. To me it's scripturally clear that shedding blood means death, not just a bloody nose.
This isn't a label, Ezra. Its nonsensical for you to try to argue that you are being labeled because someone says that you are fallible. Everyone knows, whether you say so or not, that you are fallible. We all are, Ezra. I'm a child of God and I'm fallible. Just like you are.Ezra wrote: ↑March 22nd, 2017, 3:26 pmShadow Huh?
Finrock yes and no. perfection is attainable scriptures say so. They say be thou perfect. Am I no. Do I label my self as perfect no. Do I label myself as fallible no. I'm nothing more and nothing less then a child of God. Like everyone eles is. That enables me and everyone else to be like our father. It also means we can choose to be less then him.
Labels hold us back from being like our father.
Seeing myself as being good is prideful. Seeing myself as being bad is denying my birthright of being a son of God. Seeing myself and everyone eles as children of God. As equals. That Is my goal.
Do children of God judge what another person does in varied circumstances? No, Don't forget. How you judge is how you will be judged.Ezra wrote: ↑March 22nd, 2017, 3:26 pmShadow Huh?
Finrock yes and no. perfection is attainable scriptures say so. They say be thou perfect. Am I no. Do I label my self as perfect no. Do I label myself as fallible no. I'm nothing more and nothing less then a child of God. Like everyone eles is. That enables me and everyone else to be like our father. It also means we can choose to be less then him.
Labels hold us back from being like our father.
Seeing myself as being good is prideful. Seeing myself as being bad is denying my birthright of being a son of God. Seeing myself and everyone eles as children of God. As equals. That Is my goal.
I have no idea what you're saying because on one hand you claim we can defend ourselves but on the other hand you seem to be saying we can defend ourselves only up to a point. After that point when blood is shed, we might not be justified in defending ourselves. Do I have it right?Finrock wrote: ↑March 22nd, 2017, 3:35 pmWell, if you have no idea what I'm saying then it will be hard for you to disagree with me.shadow wrote: ↑March 22nd, 2017, 2:03 pmI have no idea what you're saying. I'm not sure you even know what you're saying.Finrock wrote: ↑March 22nd, 2017, 1:18 pm .
To clarify, the defending part doesn't need to be justified, but the shedding of blood part needs to be justified. So, is it possible for us to defend ourselves without shedding blood? Remember, shedding blood can mean killing a person or it can mean injuring a person. So, we can ask, is it possible to defend ourselves against others without injuring them or without killing them? Yes, we can. A person can defend themselves, no matter what. I refer back to what I posted earlier: "First, it is interesting to note that it seems that this scripture does not give a blanket permission for someone to defend themselves against their enemies by the shedding of blood."
I'm claiming that it seems to me that the scripture in Alma 48 does not provide a blanket justification for us to defend ourselves against our enemies BY THE SHEDDING OF BLOOD. I put that last part in all caps because that is the crux of my assertion and it is the part you seem to be missing.
I'm claiming that we can't read Alma 48 and use that as a blanket justification in defending ourselves by the shedding of blood, because there are several qualifiers and conditions that this scripture identifies before one is justified in shedding blood. Said another way, Alma 48 doesn't say without qualification that you can shed blood when you are defending yourself. Quoting myself from earlier, "the idea is that it is our responsibility to be close to the Spirit and if we are close to the Spirit, then we will be guided in how best to defend ourselves and we will be justified in what we do, even if what we do requires the shedding of blood.
I'm not asking if you agree, but do you now understand what it is that I am claiming?
-Finrock
It seems that you're saying one can defend themselves up to but not include shedding blood and be justified, but defending oneself can only go so far unless one has the spirit with them in order to justify them. I think that's a silly notion. What, the guy trying to kill you is going to stop his attempt as soon as you're at your limit? Or if you don't have the spirit with you you're just supposed to let him kill you because you can't fight back fearing you might scratch him and shed blood?
Alma 48 gives the qualification that it's OK if you're defending yourself period. You seem to read more into it.
I disagree with your interpretation of shedding blood. To me it's scripturally clear that shedding blood means death, not just a bloody nose.
For the sake of this conversation I'll concede that "shedding blood" means killing someone. I was trying to be thorough in how I was defining a term, but in the end it isn't critical for my argument that shedding of blood also means injuring someone (even though it is technically true that "shedding blood" can also mean just injuring someone without killing them).
It seems to me that we can't assume that just because we are being attacked that we are justified in shedding blood. Alma 48 does not give a blanket justification to defend yourself by the shedding of blood. It qualifies the situation when shedding blood is justified.
Your contentions against my reasoning are irrelevant and clearly miss the point. Understandable though, being that you have no idea what I'm saying.
I'll try to put everything together in one post because I recognize that I've fleshed out what I'm claiming over several posts and having one post where I have all my reasoning and analysis are together may make it easier for you to understand what it is I'm saying.
-Finrock
Is that a sarcastic way of labeling the Elder as someone who isn't doing what Jesus would do?
Based on our chosen definition shedding blood = killing someoneshadow wrote: ↑March 22nd, 2017, 3:58 pmI have no idea what you're saying because on one hand you claim we can defend ourselves but on the other hand you seem to be saying we can defend ourselves only up to a point. After that point when blood is shed, we might not be justified in defending ourselves. Do I have it right?Finrock wrote: ↑March 22nd, 2017, 3:35 pmWell, if you have no idea what I'm saying then it will be hard for you to disagree with me.shadow wrote: ↑March 22nd, 2017, 2:03 pmI have no idea what you're saying. I'm not sure you even know what you're saying.Finrock wrote: ↑March 22nd, 2017, 1:18 pm .
To clarify, the defending part doesn't need to be justified, but the shedding of blood part needs to be justified. So, is it possible for us to defend ourselves without shedding blood? Remember, shedding blood can mean killing a person or it can mean injuring a person. So, we can ask, is it possible to defend ourselves against others without injuring them or without killing them? Yes, we can. A person can defend themselves, no matter what. I refer back to what I posted earlier: "First, it is interesting to note that it seems that this scripture does not give a blanket permission for someone to defend themselves against their enemies by the shedding of blood."
I'm claiming that it seems to me that the scripture in Alma 48 does not provide a blanket justification for us to defend ourselves against our enemies BY THE SHEDDING OF BLOOD. I put that last part in all caps because that is the crux of my assertion and it is the part you seem to be missing.
I'm claiming that we can't read Alma 48 and use that as a blanket justification in defending ourselves by the shedding of blood, because there are several qualifiers and conditions that this scripture identifies before one is justified in shedding blood. Said another way, Alma 48 doesn't say without qualification that you can shed blood when you are defending yourself. Quoting myself from earlier, "the idea is that it is our responsibility to be close to the Spirit and if we are close to the Spirit, then we will be guided in how best to defend ourselves and we will be justified in what we do, even if what we do requires the shedding of blood.
I'm not asking if you agree, but do you now understand what it is that I am claiming?
-Finrock
It seems that you're saying one can defend themselves up to but not include shedding blood and be justified, but defending oneself can only go so far unless one has the spirit with them in order to justify them. I think that's a silly notion. What, the guy trying to kill you is going to stop his attempt as soon as you're at your limit? Or if you don't have the spirit with you you're just supposed to let him kill you because you can't fight back fearing you might scratch him and shed blood?
Alma 48 gives the qualification that it's OK if you're defending yourself period. You seem to read more into it.
I disagree with your interpretation of shedding blood. To me it's scripturally clear that shedding blood means death, not just a bloody nose.
For the sake of this conversation I'll concede that "shedding blood" means killing someone. I was trying to be thorough in how I was defining a term, but in the end it isn't critical for my argument that shedding of blood also means injuring someone (even though it is technically true that "shedding blood" can also mean just injuring someone without killing them).
It seems to me that we can't assume that just because we are being attacked that we are justified in shedding blood. Alma 48 does not give a blanket justification to defend yourself by the shedding of blood. It qualifies the situation when shedding blood is justified.
Your contentions against my reasoning are irrelevant and clearly miss the point. Understandable though, being that you have no idea what I'm saying.
I'll try to put everything together in one post because I recognize that I've fleshed out what I'm claiming over several posts and having one post where I have all my reasoning and analysis are together may make it easier for you to understand what it is I'm saying.
-Finrock
Ya I guess so. I wanted to open the conversation of what he would do. Which I do believe is not what the elder did. I don't know if that's a label or fact though?
I'm not sure I understand your question. Can you rephrase it?eddie wrote: ↑March 22nd, 2017, 3:54 pmDo children of God judge what another person does in varied circumstances? No, Don't forget. How you judge is how you will be judged.Ezra wrote: ↑March 22nd, 2017, 3:26 pmShadow Huh?
Finrock yes and no. perfection is attainable scriptures say so. They say be thou perfect. Am I no. Do I label my self as perfect no. Do I label myself as fallible no. I'm nothing more and nothing less then a child of God. Like everyone eles is. That enables me and everyone else to be like our father. It also means we can choose to be less then him.
Labels hold us back from being like our father.
Seeing myself as being good is prideful. Seeing myself as being bad is denying my birthright of being a son of God. Seeing myself and everyone eles as children of God. As equals. That Is my goal.
All of Your facts are not facts just because you say they are.Finrock wrote: ↑March 22nd, 2017, 3:49 pmThis isn't a label, Ezra. Its nonsensical for you to try to argue that you are being labeled because someone says that you are fallible. Everyone knows, whether you say so or not, that you are fallible. We all are, Ezra. I'm a child of God and I'm fallible. Just like you are.Ezra wrote: ↑March 22nd, 2017, 3:26 pmShadow Huh?
Finrock yes and no. perfection is attainable scriptures say so. They say be thou perfect. Am I no. Do I label my self as perfect no. Do I label myself as fallible no. I'm nothing more and nothing less then a child of God. Like everyone eles is. That enables me and everyone else to be like our father. It also means we can choose to be less then him.
Labels hold us back from being like our father.
Seeing myself as being good is prideful. Seeing myself as being bad is denying my birthright of being a son of God. Seeing myself and everyone eles as children of God. As equals. That Is my goal.
Fact: Ezra is fallible
Fact: Ezra is not Jesus Christ or Heavenly Father
Fact: Ezra can make mistakes in his reasoning
Fact: Ezra's ideas may be wrong
Fact: Ezra's ideas do not necessarily equal scripture and God's ideas
Fact: Ezra making accusations using scriptures is not necessarily the same as God making accusations
Fact: Ezra does not know if the missionary was guided by the Holy Ghost or not.
Fact: Saying that Ezra is fallible is not labeling Ezra.
Fact: Saying that Ezra is fallible does not necessarily mean that people should not listen to Ezra.
Fact: Others can disagree and think Ezra is wrong without necessarily disagreeing with scripture or necessarily disagreeing with God.
-Finrock
Post by freedomforall »
That's a tuff question. One could basically interpret that he basically killed unarmed people. So it was not in self defense. So how could it be justified? But I don't believe that's what that means.freedomforall wrote: ↑March 22nd, 2017, 5:19 pm Was Moroni justified in killing men that would not fight for freedom? He had a lot of people killed without, himself, raising a sword.
Alma 46
35 And it came to pass that whomsoever of the Amalickiahites that would not enter into a covenant to support the cause of freedom, that they might maintain a free government, he caused to be put to death; and there were but few who denied the covenant of freedom.
..........................................................................................................................
When two warriors face each other there is going to be bloodshed. One of the warriors may enjoy maiming and killing having hate in his heart, while the other may be a very righteous person merely defending his life, his family and his faith. But both warriors must learn to fight to the death if necessary or they are going to lose before the fight even begins. The righteous man must learn to make his strikes count, to maim or even kill if he has any chance of survival. He doesn't want or like hurting others but he has to learn to be aggressive and fight like a wild animal in order to succeed. Fighting is not a game, and the other guy is out to kill because he enjoys it.
Moroni was a great prophet, but he would tear a man apart when the need arose. He didn't want to but he trained to do so, because otherwise, he wouldn't have gotten through his first fight if he cowered and tried back peddling. A normally calm sheep has to learn to fight like a ferocious lion and then go back to being a calm sheep. The warrior filled with hate will never be a calm sheep.
Now I see what you mean. OK, sure. I thought we were a bit more advanced in this discussion. Yeah, I'll just make up some names here- if Mark trips his classmate Ezra at middle school then yes, it would be inappropriate for him to to be killed because of it. If you want to call that self defense, then sure, Ezra wouldn't be justified. I thought we were talking about defending lives, not hitting or name calling. I think that's what Alma 48 was referring to as well. But I see your point.Finrock wrote: ↑March 22nd, 2017, 4:18 pm
No, what you are saying is incorrect. We can defend ourselves in multiple ways. One way we can defend ourselves is by shedding blood or killing our attacker. If we are going to defend ourselves by killing our attacker, we need to make sure that we are justified in killing the attacker. Just because we are being attacked does not automatically justify us killing our attacker.
Here is an example.: I am a healthy adult. I am being attacked by a 6 year old who is hitting me with a small stick. He is attacking me and hurting my body and I am defending myself. Am I justified in killing the 6 year old because I am defending myself? Seems to me that I would not be justified in killing the boy.
-Finrock
Is freedom worth killing over? Honestly, so a government keeps you as a slave and takes your stuff. So what? If a thug on the street can rob you and you're fine with it, why not let a government agent take your stuff too? No big deal. What would Jesus do? He'd render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar. If you're on his land then you're his. Fighting back is unChristlike, right? Hasn't that been your argument this whole thread?Ezra wrote: ↑March 22nd, 2017, 5:57 pmThat's a tuff question. One could basically interpret that he basically killed unarmed people. So it was not in self defense. So how could it be justified? But I don't believe that's what that means.freedomforall wrote: ↑March 22nd, 2017, 5:19 pm Was Moroni justified in killing men that would not fight for freedom? He had a lot of people killed without, himself, raising a sword.
Alma 46
35 And it came to pass that whomsoever of the Amalickiahites that would not enter into a covenant to support the cause of freedom, that they might maintain a free government, he caused to be put to death; and there were but few who denied the covenant of freedom.
..........................................................................................................................
When two warriors face each other there is going to be bloodshed. One of the warriors may enjoy maiming and killing having hate in his heart, while the other may be a very righteous person merely defending his life, his family and his faith. But both warriors must learn to fight to the death if necessary or they are going to lose before the fight even begins. The righteous man must learn to make his strikes count, to maim or even kill if he has any chance of survival. He doesn't want or like hurting others but he has to learn to be aggressive and fight like a wild animal in order to succeed. Fighting is not a game, and the other guy is out to kill because he enjoys it.
Moroni was a great prophet, but he would tear a man apart when the need arose. He didn't want to but he trained to do so, because otherwise, he wouldn't have gotten through his first fight if he cowered and tried back peddling. A normally calm sheep has to learn to fight like a ferocious lion and then go back to being a calm sheep. The warrior filled with hate will never be a calm sheep.
he couldn't afford to have an enemy within his own ranks.
Support the cause of freedom I think is the key words in that verse. That could mean a lot of different things.
Like hey are you going to actively fight against us??? Yes or no.
Yes. Then let's get it over with.
Simply not actively fighting against them could be considered supporting them.
I can't see Moroni forcing people to do things against their will and be a champion of freedom. Or killing all who choose not to fight. As there are many jobs one could do that would be help that doesn't involve fighting. Like gathering food. Cooking so on.
I can see him killing those who are a threat. with guidance from god to do so.
LDSFreedomForum.com and its admin / moderators do not necessarily agree with all content posted by users of this forum.
The views and content on this site reflect only the opinions and teachings of the authors of the respective content contained herein.