Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
mormonstories

Greg Smith, Dan Peterson, John Dehlin, & Lou

Recommended Posts

I would consider compulsory charity to be a quite improper approach for any Christian, and most especially and specifically for Latter-day Saints.

Sheesh, that old canard.

Share this post


Link to post

I would consider compulsory charity to be a quite improper approach for any Christian, and most especially and specifically for Latter-day Saints.

It is not compulsory if one has voted to implement it, which at the very least a majority of the communities must have done so in order to put it in place.

Share this post


Link to post

It is not compulsory if one has voted to implement it, which at the very least a majority of the communities must have done so in order to put it in place.

I don't know your political views, but am glad that you at least get where I'm coming from. Usually in such discussion when the word "compulsion" gets thrown around its use is such that precious little can't be termed compulsion, especially families and churches.

Share this post


Link to post

It is not compulsory if one has voted to implement it, which at the very least a majority of the communities must have done so in order to put it in place.

It is compulsory if it is implemented against the will of the minority, as, of course, it of necessity must be. The tyranny of the majority is not baptized and made holy by democratic procedures.

Share this post


Link to post

It is compulsory if it is implemented against the will of the minority, as, of course, it of necessity must be. The tyranny of the majority is not baptized and made holy by democratic procedures.

Wow, defined that way, what aspect of living in a society of any size then isn't tyranny?

Share this post


Link to post

Wow, defined that way, what aspect of living in a society of any size then isn't tyranny?

Very little as the world is currently. As it stands, my voice shall never be for imposing my will upon any save there be a clear and principled claim to self-defense, such as opposing compulsory resource or labor redistribution laws.

As I said, the contrary practice appears to me to be unbecoming Christians, and exceedingly so for Latter-day Saints.

Edited by Log

Share this post


Link to post

Very little as the world is currently. As it stands, my voice shall never be for imposing my will upon any save there be a clear and principled claim to self-defense, such as opposing compulsory resource or labor redistribution laws.

As I said, the contrary practice appears to me to be unbecoming Christians, and exceedingly so for Latter-day Saints.

Ok, lets apply the principle to traffic laws.

Share this post


Link to post

It is not compulsory if one has voted to implement it, which at the very least a majority of the communities must have done so in order to put it in place.

It's hardly as simple as that. Socialism is never voted in; most of the aspect of socialism and the welfare state are implemented by bureaucratic decree and not directly approved by the voters. The European bureaucracy is incredibly powerful and once it gets its foot in the door, it takes directions nobody has ever voted for. (Note - the same applies to the American bureaucracy.)

In any case, something is always compulsory if it is unequally demanded of one group in society that didn't want it implemented. The forced redistribution of selected wealth in socialism should never be viewed as "not compulsory".

Share this post


Link to post

Charming - the link I put up was just to make the words I wrote blue, rather than actually contributing to the substance of the conversation.

I truly wish busybodies could be quarantined in their own land among their own kind to inflict their visions of the way things ought to be upon each other alone.

Edited by Log

Share this post


Link to post
Charming - the link I put up was just to make the words I wrote blue, rather than actually contributing to the substance of the conversation.

Oh, then I did miss the point by clicking on and reading the link. All kidding aside, this should provide some more food for thought. http://www.reinventi...n-reassure.html Guess what, in the interest of not "oppressing" anyone, you might end up hurting the blind, for instance. Also, I would invite you to Volgograd or Rostov, where traffic laws and signs are almost never observed and many places don't have signs or markings. It is a dangerous mess, where bus drivers don't care about gunning red lights or performing U-turns in traffic. When I visited Ukraine, my instincts worked as they did in Russia. Make a dash for it when and where you can. My wife pointed out that ever since the rules had been reinforced a few years ago, people were driving safer and the number of accidents dramatically decreased. She was right. Do you really think that someone deliberately driving on the opposite side of the road should be tolerated in that behaviour?

Edited by volgadon

Share this post


Link to post

duplicate.

Edited by volgadon

Share this post


Link to post

When more than anecdotes are to be had, then we shall see.

In any event, where there is no principled, clear claim to self-defense, the use of the sword is not justified.

I bid you well of your ideological companions. It is clear you are not one of mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...