mfbukowski Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 It doesn't matter what the other person does. It is internal. You can oppose someone without being contentious. You can be contentious and not say a thing.I don't understand what you are saying at all. Should a policeman avoid contention at all costs? At what point does it become a serious issue? Does this apply in defending your children? "It doesn't matter what the other person does"? Is it more important to defend your children than the souls of immature adults who do not think clearly about faith issues because they have not been trained to do so? 2
Scott Lloyd Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 Funny thing about that exchange is I can just as easily imagine Amulek saying that to Zeezrom with eyes full of tears as with the voice of anger. Good catch, though!Be that as it may, I can scarcely conceive of a more stinging rebuke than to call someone "a child of hell." And in public, to boot. And Zeezrom wasn't even incorrigible. He ultimately made amends and became one of the good guys.
bluebell Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 I don't understand what you are saying at all. Should a policeman avoid contention at all costs? At what point does it become a serious issue? Does this apply in defending your children? "It doesn't matter what the other person does"? Is it more important to defend your children than the souls of immature adults who do not think clearly about faith issues because they have not been trained to do so? Defending yourself, your children, and the innocent from harm is not a sin. Contention is a sin (because nothing 'of the devil' can ever be good). That would seem to mean that defense/war/etc. and contention (such as the scriptures are talking about) are not comparable. 2
jkwilliams Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 Good question, and I obviously have a problem in this area which I freely admit. My goal is never personal though it may sound so. I want to render the person's arguments harmless, not the person. I do not want to allow the person to influence others, so I attempt to show how wrong the arguments are, and sometimes that sounds like I am attacking the person. There is one here who, to me, is consistently inconsistent and self-contradictory in nearly every post. He will say one thing then contradict in the next sentence. I don't know how to deal with that. To me it is a sign of a muddled mind and yet he tries to influence others with his negativity. And indeed he does influence others. So what is the proper way to deal with that?? Looking for suggestions!? I suppose I should just let go and ignore him, but I feel he is doing harm just by being here. When we have the force of ideas on our side, we don't need to make it personal. It becomes personal when we feel angry or hurt or slighted in some way. Heaven knows I've let things get personal with some people. But I can't imagine believing that another person is doing harm just by being here. One would imagine that everyone here knows someone they completely disagree with, but that's motivation to show that someone's positions or arguments are wrong, not that they are a bad person or an idiot. Above all, it is important to say what we think and stand up for ourselves. As long as people are standing up for what they believe, we should be happy to engage each other. So, my suggestion is that we try to focus on what is said, not who is saying it. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 (edited) Defending yourself, your children, and the innocent from harm is not a sin. Contention is a sin (because nothing 'of the devil' can ever be good). That would seem to mean that defense/war/etc. and contention (such as the scriptures are talking about) are not comparable.What about "contend earnestly for the faith"? Isn't that contention such as the scriptures are talking about? Edited October 12, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 2
ttribe Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 Good question, and I obviously have a problem in this area which I freely admit. My goal is never personal though it may sound so. I want to render the person's arguments harmless, not the person. I do not want to allow the person to influence others, so I attempt to show how wrong the arguments are, and sometimes that sounds like I am attacking the person. There is one here who, to me, is consistently inconsistent and self-contradictory in nearly every post. He will say one thing then contradict in the next sentence. I don't know how to deal with that. To me it is a sign of a muddled mind and yet he tries to influence others with his negativity. And indeed he does influence others. So what is the proper way to deal with that?? Looking for suggestions!? I suppose I should just let go and ignore him, but I feel he is doing harm just by being here. That's pretty extreme. Have you ever reported one of said person's posts and let the mods deal with it?
bluebell Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 What about "contend earnestly for the faith"? Is that contention such as the scriptures are talking about? If it is, then Peter is telling us to follow satan, right? I don't think that Peter is telling us to do that though, so no, i don't think that the greek word that has been translated as 'contend' has the same meaning as the one in the BOM. 1
mfbukowski Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 Defending yourself, your children, and the innocent from harm is not a sin. Contention is a sin (because nothing 'of the devil' can ever be good). That would seem to mean that defense/war/etc. and contention (such as the scriptures are talking about) are not comparable.Contention is always of the devil? World War 2 was contention. Should we have allowed the other side to win? Is fighting against evil of the devil? 1
bluebell Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 Contention is always of the devil? According to Christ. 1
mfbukowski Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 That's pretty extreme. Have you ever reported one of said person's posts and let the mods deal with it?That is not their job.
mfbukowski Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 (edited) According to Christ.Was overturning the moneychangers tables contentious? Didn't he say he came to divide families if necessary? Plaiting whips and whipping them? Not contentious? Edited October 12, 2015 by mfbukowski
Scott Lloyd Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 If it is, then Peter is telling us to follow satan, right? I don't think that Peter is telling us to do that though, so no, i don't think that the greek word that has been translated as 'contend' has the same meaning as the one in the BOM.The passage is actually from the Book of Jude. What do you think the meaning is if it isn't "contend"?
ttribe Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 That is not their job. I'm confused. How is not the moderator's job to remove bad influences on the board?
jkwilliams Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 The passage is actually from the Book of Jude. What do you think the meaning is if it isn't "contend"? It is entirely possible that the word "contend" in this context doesn't mean the same thing as the "spirit of contention" that is described in the Book of Mormon. Contend can mean to give great effort to overcome an obstacle, just as it can mean to argue. I would imagine the spirit of contention has more to do with the latter, and the "contend for the faith" in Jude is the former. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 It is entirely possible that the word "contend" in this context doesn't mean the same thing as the "spirit of contention" that is described in the Book of Mormon. Contend can mean to give great effort to overcome an obstacle, just as it can mean to argue. I would imagine the spirit of contention has more to do with the latter, and the "contend for the faith" in Jude is the former.So how does expending "great effort to overcome an obstacle" fit the sense of "contend earnestly for the faith"? That does not compute.
bluebell Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 The passage is actually from the Book of Jude. What do you think the meaning is if it isn't "contend"? Thanks for the correction. The Greek lexicon that I have suggest that it is better translated as 'struggle'.
mfbukowski Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 I'm confused. How is not the moderator's job to remove bad influences on the board?Are you serious??? This board is about debating and discussing religion. How is attempting to convince people your religion, or lack thereof, is correct, a "bad influence"?? Who is supposed to determine which religion is a bad influence but those discussing the issues? Do you understand what apologetics is?? It is defending one's faith because one feels the other is presenting a "bad influence". That is why the board exists. The mods do not take sides- it is not their job to get into the discussions making their own points. Why would you think that?? 1
jkwilliams Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 So how does expending "great effort to overcome an obstacle" fit the sense of "contend earnestly for the faith"? That does not compute. It could be something akin to enduring to the end, which involves making an effort against great obstacles to continue and grow in faith. 1
Bobbieaware Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 I like some feedback on how we compare these two verses: Jude 1:33 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.and 3 Nephi 11:2929 For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another. I don't find them confusing, since I do understand the difference. My question is how do you personally determine how much contending is too much. Goodness knows we get a little contentious in these parts (myself included). How do we know when we've stopped contending for the faith and developed the spirit of contention?As paradoxical as it might seem, Jude 1:3 and 3 Nephi 11:29 are BOTH examples of leaders of the Church earnestly contending for the faith. In Jude 1:3, the apostle Jude was encouraging the leaders of the Church to put down the apostates who even then were perverting the Gospel of Christ and its holy ordinances. Meanwhile in 3 Nephi 11, the Savior (the supreme Leader of the Church) is seen contending against those members of the Church who had previously perverted the ordinance of baptism (no doubt in opposition to their duly-authorized prophetic leaders). Later on in the Book of Mormon narrative, the prophet Mormon himself also engages in earnestly contending for the faith when he condemned, in the strongest possible terms, those nominal members of the Church who were perverting the Gospel by baptizing infants. The moral? There is nothing wrong and everything right when the authorized leaders of the Church contend against those who refuse to submit to those God places at the head of the Church and who in open rebellion pervert the Gospel of Christ. 3
ttribe Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 Are you serious??? This board is about debating and discussing religion. How is attempting to convince people your religion, or lack thereof, is correct, a "bad influence"?? Who is supposed to determine which religion is a bad influence but those discussing the issues? Do you understand what apologetics is?? It is defending one's faith because one feels the other is presenting a "bad influence". That is why the board exists. The mods do not take sides- it is not their job to get into the discussions making their own points. Why would you think that?? Whoa there, fella. No need to get so angry. I'm trying to understand where you are coming from with stating that one of the members of this board is a bad influence simply by his or her presence. That can be interpreted a number of ways. Does this person post relatively innocuous statements, but has a secret agenda that you think will influence some innocent soul (which I can't imagine how the mods would ferret out)? Is there something that this person has a habit of posting that you perceive as being damaging to people here (which, if it's borderline on the rules, would be something the mods could take action on and, indeed have, with other posters)? Look, you brought this issue up, that there's someone on this board you feel compelled to confront because their mere "presence" is somehow harmful. I'm just trying to understand where you are coming from with this. Harmful how? To whom? In what way? It's a serious charge and it seems to be one of your justifications for supporting the notion that "contention" is a worthy practice in apologetics (if I read you correctly).
Scott Lloyd Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 (edited) Thanks for the correction. The Greek lexicon that I have suggest that it is better translated as 'struggle'.OK. So let's plug in your word, "struggle" as we view the passage in its context. ... that ye should earnestly [struggle] for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God unto lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. This phrase is in the context of protecting the faith from and fending off the influences of adversaries and antagonists, i.e. "ungodly men" who are engaged in nefarious activity, "ravening wolves," as they are called in another passage of scripture. I think folks here are missing the obvious answer: "Contend for" in this context means to defend or protect. Just as it is perfectly justifiable to use force to defend oneself or others from physical attack, it is perfectly justifiable and praiseworthy to use the tools we have at our disposal -- logic, knowledge, information, understanding, eloquence -- to defend the faith against intellectual attack or sophistry. Edited October 12, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Senator Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 Are you serious??? This board is about debating and discussing religion. How is attempting to convince people your religion, or lack thereof, is correct, a "bad influence"?? Who is supposed to determine which religion is a bad influence but those discussing the issues? Do you understand what apologetics is?? It is defending one's faith because one feels the other is presenting a "bad influence". That is why the board exists. The mods do not take sides- it is not their job to get into the discussions making their own points. Why would you think that?? Is this an apologetics board? I thought it was a dialogue and discussion board And btw, it is the moderator's job to tell people to "go away". Not yours.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 It could be something akin to enduring to the end, which involves making an effort against great obstacles to continue and grow in faith.Nah. Taken in context, I don't see it.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 (edited) Is this an apologetics board? I thought it was a dialogue and discussion board And btw, it is the moderator's job to tell people to "go away". Not yours.It is a dialogue and discussion board in which apologetics is tolerated and, from what I can tell, encouraged. Edited October 12, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 1
Senator Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 It is a dialogue and discussion board in which apologetics is tolerated and, from what I can tell, encouraged. Didn't it used to be called an apologetics board, and now is not. If I recall it would seem purpose for the renaming of the board was to encourage more dialogue and discussion and less debate and apologetics. 1
Recommended Posts