I have been so very willing to take my lumps, but I will excuse your lack of understanding that point by assuring myself that no one has read probably half of the responses I have written.
It is easy for you to say that my standard is "anyone who disagrees with me," but remember that I have waded through your posts on the subject during the initial posts months ago, and now. I only responded this way after the continued assault of your arguments. I will reply with some examples not to slight you, but to illustrate my point.
if you want to challenge my aregument you will need to start with these items.
work with the above keys or concepts or princples and answer the rest of the questions.
this isnt ment to be funny, but perhaps a little condesending.
Please try not to leap with both feet into the stupid pool and come back and tell me I am saying then we cannot pass laws against murder.
SPLASH!
not even close. although knowing the flaws in your reasoning over this I was quite certain that you were going swimming.
The FACT is that legislating natural law works only under specific circumstances and we do not currently fall under that umbrella.
to say otherwise is to lie.
I do have the right to smoke, as God has made ME steward of my body. you are correct that I will have to face the consequences of my choices.
I will concede that there is no "right" to do "wrong".
. we MUST legislate morality, but there is a line, and when we cross that line we begin to abridge the agency of others. I have admitted I do not know where that line is but I assure you it is real. AND THIS IS BECAUSE we live in a fallen state.
LOL.... exactly what fictional government are you talking about? how about we speak about reality, not ideals?
again, if men were not screwing things up, we wouldn't need to legislate morality then would we? If men didnt gamble, we wouldnt need laws prohibiting it.
I see false principles being espoused here and I think it is misleading some who honestly are seeking to understand this very difficult subject.
I was thinking I would post next on why government= force. As long as we can agree on this I will address the issue "is there a line" in a few.
I do not speak against celestial law; I speak against forcing celestial law upon a people who are not ready for it. How will we know when they are ready for it? WE WONT HAVE TO FORCE them, they will be living it. Enoch didn’t legislate his city to be "taken up". He taught correct principles and the people applied them.
actually I believe that this can be done on a local level, perhaps even the state level, and as long as we can excommunicate people from the community and they still can exist, then we have full reign to legislate all the way to celestial law.
I hope saying this doesn’t open to big a can of worms. you have to have a firm grasp of the principle of banishment and excommunication to understand when this can be applied.
I believe that the time will come when Skousen will be rightfully recognized as a peer of the great freedom fighters off all time. I hope I can be included in such company when all is said and done.
Are you seeing the underlying principles here? it this beginning to make more sense?
there is nothing from stoping you from living the highest laws. Christ was your perfect example here. Prepare to be treated like he was.
So lets change the equation a bit to make it easier to understand. We cannot be free unless we are secure correct? I mean how free are we the the Mongol hordes come and rape and pillage us of our crops each fall? I think everyone here understands that we have to pass laws to make us secure from threats, and we understand that this includes threats from both local sources and from abroad. so we start to pass laws that secure us from those threats, and as long as we are FOCUSED on liberty and not security we do a fairly decent job.
And now my quote:I guess I am not getting through.
For those, if any, who are trying to understand law, I guess I should clarify again: we must legislate morality. This is one of the key points I have been making, that seems to have been missed.
Again for those who have ears to hear:
After how many pages of contradictions and circular arguments with only one acceptable answer can I make the declaration that you do not want to see the truth?I see that you obviously do not want to see the truth and that is your prerogative. I refuse to argue any longer with someone so lacking respect and so incapable of a rational argument. On both threads you have repeated the same childish tactics and the same "you can only respond to me in the context and understanding that I have because I insist that it is correct" argumentative logic. It is there for anyone to see. I suffered through it that time and this time and will no longer. The points are clear and anyone who honestly seeks the truth will find it there.
I am honestly so disappointed in your continued childish tactics that I have no desire to converse with you any longer.
Anyone intentionally condescending, who admits as much before pressing the "post" button, is clearly lacking respect. Anyone with an ever changing logic (as demonstrated above) is at least not willing to argue rationally if not incapable of it. I would certainly call "if you say this then you jumped in a pool of water with both feet,....SPLASH."a childish tactic. Wouldn't you?
As to investigators, good luck to them! The contention here would be the least of my worries, but it is not a fear of mine in any way, shape, or form.
I am still trying to get you to address a few salient simple questions. If you wish to return the favor minus the above referenced tactics, I will be perfectly willing to address them and move forward.