“You may be in a higher plane of understanding, sure, I get that, and you may then be able to dictate to Tucker what is or is not love. So, in that position above Tucker, you can then do what, being so high above Tucker, to then tell on him to your friends?”
I am not telling on Tucker to my friends. I am talking to you about Tucker advocating the right of every man and every woman loving for as long or as short as they can, will, or may. That is what I am doing. I am not elevating myself above Tucker. I am telling you that those words, just the thought that someone advocates fornication and adultery is way out of my comfort zone. It is beyond my thinking as to why someone would even go that direction. It is not within my understanding. Those things go against God’s plan for human life. So those things are just like lying, stealing, and killing to me. I see red. So I am going to talk about it to my friend, Joe, because Joe sent me a link and I have been talking to Joe for about a year now and this is a problem I am having with anarchism…that one would suggest that it is OK for people to live immorally.
So, now I have to add that to legislation and punishment? I do not want to legislate or punish. But that does not mean that I advocate what Tucker says about love either. I am having a hard time sorting that out. What if all the abortion, rape and sex trafficking are a result of not abiding by God’s law?
“Is your full understanding of what Tucker perceives to be love so well versed, so high above Tucker himself, now that you have read a few words written by Tucker, that you are now in this lofty position to judge his viewpoint to be in error? So be it, a given, true, accurate, perfectly correct, moral, spiritual, and merely passed by you from God himself, and being in that position, so much more able to know what Tucker thinks love is, or is not, what are you going to do as far as Tucker goes, or as far as any person who may also falsely believe that Tucker is right?”
Who says I am judging? Is questioning judging? Is pointing out what seems wrong to me judging? Should I look the other way and say nothing? Can people really love as long as they want, can, will, or may without hurting someone else? Will the love of each individual person involved terminate at exactly the same moment in time so that no one is hurt? Will the man love just long enough until a woman is with child? Who will pay to raise the baby? Will a man only love a virgin for a single night to go and find another virgin to go and find another virgin and have just a one night stand with each? Will disease be spread from one person to the next? Do I not have a right to ask questions when a man shows up on the scene and says: hey you have a right to love at as you may. Which goes against the way it has been from the beginning? So then I can say: hey, that is not the way it is supposed to be.
“Are you going to punish someone who fails to abide by your accurate understanding of what love is, or what love is not?”
Are you going to punish someone who rapes your son because that is what his interpretation of love is?
What are the boundaries?
“That is the point offered, even if you refuse to see it. The point is not which human being is right or wrong in the eyes of God, the point, not that point, is to point out that one man, or one woman, abusing their human POWER to punish people is wrong, not right.”
The point is not to argue over what is or is not love, the point is to point out who is going to do what in order to punish people who do not abide by their version of what is or is not punishable.”
OK, so what is the purpose of Trial by Jury? Who says anything is wrong? How do we determine what is wrong? Is there anything wrong? Who says?
ME: "Love does not exist under the intent of as long or as short as one wills, can do, or may want to. That is not love. It is a false argument. Tucker is not talking about love."
YOU: “Tucker is not arguing, as far as I can tell, and neither am I, so who is doing the arguing, and with who is the argument being conducted since I am not arguing, and Tucker has long since stopped breathing.”
Ok, remove the words “It is a false argument and insert the word you use “strawman.” Tucker can make a strawman and call it love. I can make a strawman and call it love. What is love? Who determines what love is? Love is in the eye of the beholder? Love is in the heart of the individual. What is love? Does love have and end?
“Suppose you are, again, absolutely correct in your understanding of what love is, or is not, and from that point, supposing further that you know exactly what Tucker thinks love is, or is not, and supposing even further that you are then advocating doing something about those people who are claiming to be in love, but are not in love, or any people doing anything you think they should not be doing, what are you willing to do about it?”
I am not going to do anything about it other than try to teach God’s plan for a man and a woman.
“The point pointed out by Tucker has to do with the concept of "collectives rights" to go right ahead and force people to love each other according to what one person, or one group of people agree to be the LEGAL punishment for failure to obey a Man-Made Law.”
OK then, is it ok for a 45 year old man to love a 3 year old girl? I’ve seen pedophilia being floated out as OK recently. Is it OK? Says who? Is it not OK? Says who? Should anyone do anything about it?
“If you do not do so, then as far as I can see your viewpoint agrees with the viewpoint offered by Tucker. If you do willingly, knowingly, and powerfully work toward punishing people with the LAW POWER for their failure to obey what you consider to be God's Law on love, then your viewpoint does not agree with what I think is Tucker's point - which happens to be my point too.”
I do not agree with Tucker that people have a right to love as they will. As far as I can tell, Free Love advocates didn’t just state the right to free love, some also practiced free love. I don’t know if that includes Tucker or not. But the point is I do not advocate free love or practice free love. However, because societal norm has drifted that way I was 12. By the time I was 14, I “dated” a man after my 15 year old friend was done with him. She had moved on to an even older man. By the time I came back to the Lord my 16 year old friend gave birth and put the baby up for adoption. We were all consenting…especially the guys. So, I am not high and mighty lifted up above Tucker. I am speaking from personal experience. I would give nearly anything for a re-do so I could follow God’s plan. Let’s see, those men took us to a drive in one night. I remember horse fornication on the big screen. I took some kind of pills and was drinking. I decided to run away that night. My dad came looking for me the next day at their apartment as I hid in the closet. I eventually went home. I practiced the right to love as long or as short as I could, would or might: The Preacher’s Wife. Oh, and we all knew what statutory rape was: a joke! So as you can see, I did my homework, but it was not your homework. It was Tucker’s homework.
"When one puts will, can or may as a right in front of the person to be loved, love is negated."
“In terms of reality I see no such thing happening. Love will happen. Love can happen. Love may happen. The context of "right", unless I am mistaken, has to do with "LEGAL" rights in the context of Anarchism, Warren, Andrews, Tucker, Spooner, or myself.”
So, I suppose there were laws about fornication and adultery? If there were laws against it, then do people have a legal right to break the law? Who made those laws? Can I have my own town and have my own laws and just because you move to my town I have to change my laws that all the rest of the people in the town want to have as the law?
“To me the help of scripture is such that Man-made-Law is inferior to God's Law, or Natural Law, and so the concept of one man dictating to another man, is unnatural, or as you put it: negated.
You appear to refuse to acknowledge the context of the words in view, which are words that address the concept of Man-Made-Laws or "Legal" POWER.”
But Josf, it is God’s law not to commit adultery or to fornicate. So it is not a man-made law, it is the Creator’s law.
Genesis 2:18 And the LORD God said , It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. 19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. 21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept : and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
“You then, repeatedly, as if you can wish away the facts, claim that Tucker speaks about something other than "Lagal" POWER or "rights", as if the whole concept of man made laws vanish like a Emperor's nakedness.”
Tucker is speaking against the Law of God.
“You place these false clothes upon Tucker, and it is troublesome, but for who, and why, and should I care?”
I don’t know. I hope you will try to help me work this out and talk about it.
“First, in my opinion, define as best you can, with few words, your definition of love.”
To stay pleased with
“Second, define as best you can, with few words, your version of what you think Tucker thinks is Love.”
To be pleased with.
“Now you have two definitions.”
Me: To stay pleased with
Tucker: To be pleased with
“Third, take Tucker's sentence that troubles you. Take out the word love, put in your definition of love, then have that adjusted sentence, and see if the sentence can work, or not.”
They [anarchist] acknowledge and defend the right of any man and woman, or any men and women, to STAY PLEASED WITH [love] each other for as long or as short a time as they can, will, or may.
“Fourth, take Tucker's sentence that troubles you. Take out the word love, put in your version of what you think Tucker thinks is love, then have that adjusted sentence, ans see if the sentence still works.”
They [anarchist] acknowledge and defend the right of any man and woman, or any men and women, to BE PLEASED WITH [love] each other for as long or as short a time as they can, will, or may
“I can be the one that is wrong here, but to me you place into the sentence words that are not intended. That work, offered, four possible steps to take, may move closer to your goal.”
God’s intent is that a man be pleased with his wife as long as they live, not just as long as they will, can, or may. However, man’s heart is hard so divorce is the remedy given.
Proverbs 5:18 Let thy fountain be blessed : and rejoice with the wife of thy youth.19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love. 20 And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a strange woman , and embrace the bosom of a stranger? 21 For the ways of man are before the eyes of the LORD, and he pondereth all his goings. 22 His own iniquities shall take the wicked himself, and he shall be holden with the cords of his sins. 23 He shall die without instruction; and in the greatness of his folly he shall go astray .
In verse 19 notice the word “always.” What does always mean?
“One question I can ask, may move closer to your goal.
What are you willing to do to stop someone from failing to obey God's law as far as you understand God's law to exist in fact?”
I am not willing to do anything.
To the woman caught in adultery, Jesus said:
John 8:10 he [Jesus] said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? 11 She said , No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go , and sin no more.
“Again, and again, and again, the context of the Tucker, and Warren, and Andrews, and Spooner offerings of ideas, thoughts, suggestions, has to do with "The Legal Means" of reaching goals, as in "their aught to be a law" and then there is a law, and that law, when it is an involuntary association is a "law" that is essentially counter to God's Law, and why you don't see this, I don't know.”
Does a failure to conform to God’s law actually facilitate involuntary associations when people commit crimes upon other people because they are not pleased with their spouse for life?
ME: "Why don’t anarchist just say people can live with each other without any attachment if they feel like it and when they don’t feel like it they can quit, or not, or to live as a group of men and women who share the same bed."
YOU: “Ask one. If you ask one, will you actually listen to the answer?”
I am asking. Can you answer? Do you know? Are you one?
“Where did anyone say that love was temporary?”
Tucker says love can, may, will be as long or as SHORT as one can, will, or may. Therefore, if it is not permanent it can be temporary.
“any man and woman, or any men and women, to BE PLEASED WITH [love] each other for as long OR AS SHORT A TIME AS THEY CAN, will, or may”
How long is as short a time as they can?
“If someone is falsely perceiving love, is that love?”
If someone loves as short a time as they can, is that love?
Jesus said to me, Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more. Why should I agree with a man named Tucker who promotes sin as a right? I know better, personally. Been there, done that, figured it out on my own with lots of pain to boot.
The Anarchists believe in the family; they only insist that free competition and experiment shall always be allowed in order that it may be determined what form of family best secures this object.
Gee, thanks for the opportunity to experiment. It did me wonders. Wish I had just listened to The Creator. It would have saved a lot of heart-ache. I was able to beg my sisters not to travel my path even though they had a right to experiment for themselves. I love my sisters.