The Free Talk Live BBS

Free Talk Live => General => Topic started by: ChristianAnarchist on August 11, 2005, 01:13:45 AM

Title: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 11, 2005, 01:13:45 AM
Why would I say that Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer... Let me count the ways...

1.  Most here believe that we have "inailenable rights" although most don't know why our rights
are inailenable.  The old guys who founded this fiction called USA understood them to be so
because they believed we were CREATED with them (by a Creator).  Remember the common
words that most believe in such "All men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain
inalienable rights, among them are..."  Certainly if you cut out a belief in "the Creator" you gut
the authority for rights in the preceeding ideal.  If you cut the Creator, where does the authority
for your creation of rights come from?  Little green men?  The Id?  Do you simply believe they
are "just there"?  Why??  If your rights come from a Creator who is of course great enough to
create you and your rights, then they are truly inailenable due to the fact that someone at least
as "great" as your "Creator" would be needed to destroy them.  Certainly a mere man is not
as great as that which created him so a man would not be "great" enough to destroy what was
"created" by his "creator".

2.  As Christians, the old guys who founded the fiction USA understood the Christian idea that all
men were sinners and none are "good" enough to be entrusted with "ruling" over any other men.
Therefore they tried a "new" idea never before tried in history.  Was it a "republic"?  No, Rome
was a republic as well as others.  The "new" idea was "soverignty", another idea that came from
Christianity.  All men are Kings and Princes in Christ, Paul said (or at least someone who we have
been led to believe was Paul).  So the "experiment" was to put men in the rightful position as
"creator" of the fiction USA.  As "creators", the fiction USA could have no authority over over
it's creators any more than we can have authority over God.  No authority = anarchy.

3.  The "experiment" has failed miserably as man (the rightful authority over the fiction USA)
has "forgotten" that each one is "over" his "servant" fiction USA and has allowed the fiction
to take on a form and power which is simulating a true entity (which it is not).  Man has
neglected his own Creator which is the rightful authority over him and has forsaken his
stewardship of keeping the fiction USA in line. 

4.  Since the fiction USA is no longer within the authority of it's creator man, the fiction ceases
to exist.  It is replaced by REAL MEN who are acting out as if they have some authority from
this "fiction" that allows them to use FORCE over their fellow man.  These real men who use
force are violating the rights of their fellow man.  Most are deceived into believing that the fiction
really exists and gives them some magical power over others. 

5.  Since they have no legitimate power, we are already living in anarchy, you just don't know it.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on August 11, 2005, 01:34:38 AM
I gotta say, when I first heard that name "Christian Anarchist", I thought you were a total kook.  I know now you're indeed very sane, b/c I agree w/ so much of what you're saying but:
Explain to me how capturing criminals (ie- a police force replacement or total lack thereof) and the justice system is supposed to work under anarchy....
If we lived under a Constitutionalist gov't, the officials in power aren't "greater" than us by any means, and they don't delegate rights - they simply recognize their intrinsic nature/existence and help protect them.

Chaos will insue if we have no impartial 3rd party to at least help to work injustices out... I know... I know, not that our system is all that great now - but a complete lack of a system? I can only see that being a step back for justice and peace.

...regardless, my mind's open... so let's see what you have to say...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on August 11, 2005, 07:14:31 AM
Lies, deceptions, half-truths...

There are so many fucked up people in the world, it's no wonder why this "anarchy" movement has taken hold.

Chris..er..sorry, "Grey" -your statements are echoed by myself.  However, I think that the original poster is a nutjob. 
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Yamguy on August 11, 2005, 07:28:53 AM
I understand what your saying, but I'm confused, perhaps you could clear this up for me.

I'm under the impression that according to Christian doctrine that we are all sub-human next to Jesus, and for punishing him we deserve what we're getting. I find it to be a doctrine based on masochism, self-loathing, and voluntary suffering - so I ask, how can a doctrine like this help bring us back our freedom?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Driven on August 11, 2005, 10:11:34 AM
If only our government were argueing that they should protect individual liberties, or dissolve altogether.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 11, 2005, 10:37:51 AM
I gotta say, when I first heard that name "Christian Anarchist", I thought you were a total kook.  I know now you're indeed very sane, b/c I agree w/ so much of what you're saying but:
Explain to me how capturing criminals (ie- a police force replacement or total lack thereof) and the justice system is supposed to work under anarchy....

Anarchy is not without order.  The order would be a natural order and criminals would get their
"just deserts" at the hand of other equals.  Ian asked me on the air if in an anarchistic society
could Jefery Dalmer live next door to me and I told him he certainly could.  I also said that the
first time he did anything that threatened my family, I would blow him away with my 12 ga. -
end of problem.  I would not have to worry about going to jail for it as there would be no jail
(or at least no government jails).  I would have to deal with Jeff's friends and family and that
is the other side of the coin.  In anarchy, my desire to blow away someone who annoys me
is tempered by my desire to stay alive.  If the threat is great enough and the consequences
are small enough, I act.  If I make a mistake in judgement, I might die.  That's life (or death)!

Remember that an armed society is a polite society.  You must be constantly on your guard
to not make too many enemies as you never know who will do you in.  It's not a safe society
but then neither is what we have today.  Just walk down the streets at midnight and see how
safe you are (and you won't likely have a gun to protect you - unless you already subscribe
to the anarchistic idea).

christiananarchist.myblogsite.com
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on August 11, 2005, 10:46:32 AM
You, and all other anarchists are fucking delusional shittards. :lol:

You cannot, EVER have a "society", or whole if each individual is going around doing whatever they want.  The possibilities are endless to what degree of suffering there will be, not to mention the complete and total INCAPABILITY TO PROTECT THE ENTIRE NATION FROM ENEMY INVASION, which dare I even fucking clue you in on : is a reality.

Your perceptions are clouded by the desire to have change, because for too long have we lived in an oppressive society where government has become too corrupt and the people have become too uncaring.  It still does not make your PHILOSOPHIES of anarchy correct.  You are the product of a psychological warfare campaign designed around creating individual thoughts that are aimed toward neglecting the nationality, love and admiration of ones' nation, and the respect and honor that is to be expected from an individual residing in the nation.  WHY?  Because the number one rule for our REAL ENEMY to take over our republic is to destroy all nationalism and replace it with their global government.  Anarchists are anti-national, and are centered solely around the individual and the tribe, or small groups (city states), also known as "Balkanization".

Typical divide and conquer.


I warned you silly anarchists.  Just remember that.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: xAlpha on August 11, 2005, 10:49:25 AM
How can you have Christian Anarchy? If you're an anarchist, how do you force someone else to be a Christian?

I'll stick with my own faith, thanks, you can keep yours.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 11, 2005, 10:51:50 AM
I understand what your saying, but I'm confused, perhaps you could clear this up for me.

I'm under the impression that according to Christian doctrine that we are all sub-human next to Jesus, and for punishing him we deserve what we're getting. I find it to be a doctrine based on masochism, self-loathing, and voluntary suffering - so I ask, how can a doctrine like this help bring us back our freedom?

The Christian "doctrine" is that we are living in a cursed world because of what Adam and Eve did
not because of Jesus' death.  His death was to provide a way to be forgiven so that we can be
redeemed to God.  All are sons of God and blameless because of His blood.  All are "equal" in this
"society" of heaven.  I see no "masochism, self-loathing, and voluntary suffering" required to believe
and serve him.  We regain our freedom by the simple realization that WE are the masters and
the fiction USA is our servant.  There is nothing they can do but kill you and if you have a larger
picture, killing you is only the beginning of the greater picture.  No, we don't believe in a palace
with 100 virgins like some.  What lies beyond the grave is only speculation, but I believe that
it is truly greater than our current existance.  If only 10% of us "Christians" would stand up to
the fiction USA and tell them we will not get our "permission" 501(c) exemption to have our
churches and stop paying our "tithe" to the gov (stolen from our tithe to God) and stop asking
for "permission" to have a business, drive a car, etc, etc, the smoke would clear and we would
see there is NO ONE BEHIND THE CURTAIN...

christiananarchist.myblogsite.com
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 11, 2005, 11:02:12 AM
You, and all other anarchists are fucking delusional shittards. :lol:

You cannot, EVER have a "society", or whole if each individual is going around doing whatever they want.  The possibilities are endless to what degree of suffering there will be, not to mention the complete and total INCAPABILITY TO PROTECT THE ENTIRE NATION FROM ENEMY INVASION, which dare I even fucking clue you in on : is a reality.


Thank you very much for your input.  You do seem to be under the delusion that somehow
you or your "representitives" have some sort of legitimate authority over me.  Please answer the
following:

Do you believe that all men are created equal?    Yes( )   No ( )

Do you have a right to violate the rights of another?    Yes( )    No( )

Do two or more people have a right to violate the rights of another?  Yes( )   No( )

If you answered yes to the above, where does the authority come from to violate my right
to "life, liberty and property"?

If many people can "get together" and violate my rights, can I then get together a larger
group of people to violate your rights??

christiananarchist.myblogsite.com
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on August 11, 2005, 11:07:03 AM
Christian, we can do whatever the hell we want, so long as we do not violate the life, liberty, and property of another American, which is what our constitutional government was set up to protect, and is what we should be fighting to restore.

And, if you were smart, you would not ignore my warning in the previous post.  You only think that you are freely supporting anarchy, but what you are really doing is preparing millions of graves.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 11, 2005, 11:09:35 AM
How can you have Christian Anarchy? If you're an anarchist, how do you force someone else to be a Christian?

I'll stick with my own faith, thanks, you can keep yours.

But Christianity and Anarchy are the perfect combination.  Christ told his deciples (at least I believe
that he told them) to spread the "good news" of salvation with others.  He did not tell them to
"force" them to believe.  Such an idea makes no sence as people are going to believe what they
wish to believe.  Could I force you to believe in little green men or santa claus??  Christ only
acknowledged one "authority" and it wasn't Rome!  This is worldly anarchy with heavenly
authority.   I really can't understand how someone who is a "Christian" can accept a fiction
government has "authority" over them.  It makes no sence.

christiananarchist.myblogsite.com
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 11, 2005, 11:15:43 AM
Christian, we can do whatever the hell we want, so long as we do not violate the life, liberty, and property of another American, which is what our constitutional government was set up to protect, and is what we should be fighting to restore.

And, if you were smart, you would not ignore my warning in the previous post.  You only think that you are freely supporting anarchy, but what you are really doing is preparing millions of graves.

Believe what you want, I'm cetainly not going to try to force you to believe what I believe.  I know you
think that anarchy would result in deaths (indeed there always are with change) but look at the number
of deaths attributed to your "order".  Men, women, and children.  I implore all to embrace "anarchy"
if not for yourselves, at least do it "for the children"...

christiananarchist.myblogsite.com
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on August 11, 2005, 11:24:37 AM
Fucking hell.  And I thought that the radical muslims were a lost cause... :roll:
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Lindsey on August 11, 2005, 05:21:04 PM
At least radical Muslims blow shit up.  Christians just say stupid things.   :P
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: eukreign on August 11, 2005, 05:30:55 PM
Christian, we can do whatever the hell we want, so long as we do not violate the life, liberty, and property of another American, which is what our constitutional government was set up to protect, and is what we should be fighting to restore.

What about taxes? Would there be mandatory taxes in your envisioned society? How would you force people to pay them without violating their "life, liberty and property"?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on August 11, 2005, 05:38:19 PM
Christian, we can do whatever the hell we want, so long as we do not violate the life, liberty, and property of another American, which is what our constitutional government was set up to protect, and is what we should be fighting to restore.

What about taxes? Would there be mandatory taxes in your envisioned society? How would you force people to pay them without violating their "life, liberty and property"?
WTF are you rambling on about?  Taxes?  There is no necessity for taxation, and if Congress decides to levy one, then only they can do so, NOT a privately owned and operated IRS based out of Puert Rico.  Only Congress can tax us, friend.  We, the People comprise Congress.  My only change to the system in this regard is to make it clear that the 14th and 16th amendments are illegal and not ratified, and place term limits on Congress as well as make it impossible for us to deal in fractional reserve banking and borrowing of money, and reinstitute a fully American backed currency with silver only.

Have I lost you yet?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: eukreign on August 11, 2005, 05:40:13 PM
Christian, we can do whatever the hell we want, so long as we do not violate the life, liberty, and property of another American, which is what our constitutional government was set up to protect, and is what we should be fighting to restore.

What about taxes? Would there be mandatory taxes in your envisioned society? How would you force people to pay them without violating their "life, liberty and property"?
WTF are you rambling on about?  Taxes?  There is no necessity for taxation, and if Congress decides to levy one, then only they can do so, NOT a privately owned and operated IRS based out of Puert Rico.  Only Congress can tax us, friend.  We, the People comprise Congress.  My only change to the system in this regard is to make it clear that the 14th and 16th amendments are illegal and not ratified, and place term limits on Congress as well as make it impossible for us to deal in fractional reserve banking and borrowing of money, and reinstitute a fully American backed currency with silver only.

Have I lost you yet?

Without taxes who will fund your military?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on August 11, 2005, 05:40:55 PM
Christian, we can do whatever the hell we want, so long as we do not violate the life, liberty, and property of another American, which is what our constitutional government was set up to protect, and is what we should be fighting to restore.

What about taxes? Would there be mandatory taxes in your envisioned society? How would you force people to pay them without violating their "life, liberty and property"?
WTF are you rambling on about? Taxes? There is no necessity for taxation, and if Congress decides to levy one, then only they can do so, NOT a privately owned and operated IRS based out of Puert Rico. Only Congress can tax us, friend. We, the People comprise Congress. My only change to the system in this regard is to make it clear that the 14th and 16th amendments are illegal and not ratified, and place term limits on Congress as well as make it impossible for us to deal in fractional reserve banking and borrowing of money, and reinstitute a fully American backed currency with silver only.

Have I lost you yet?

Without taxes who will fund your military?
Who funded Lincoln's military?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: eukreign on August 11, 2005, 05:41:42 PM
Who funded Lincoln's military?

I don't know. Who?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on August 11, 2005, 05:46:34 PM
The people of the United States invested in bonds for the greenbacks.  The money in which we printed, NOT the federal reserve. ;)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: eukreign on August 11, 2005, 05:51:34 PM
The people of the United States invested in bonds for the greenbacks.  The money in which we printed, NOT the federal reserve. ;)

Who will pay for the police, judges, public buildings, etc?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on August 11, 2005, 05:56:53 PM
The people of the United States invested in bonds for the greenbacks. The money in which we printed, NOT the federal reserve. ;)

Who will pay for the police, judges, public buildings, etc?
Good questions.  You must understand, that our wealth will be incredible, because there will be no interest on the currency at all.  Perhaps this true story will clue you in a little:

Otto von Bismark chancellor of Germany 1876 On the 12th of April 1861 this economic war began. Predictably Lincoln, needing money to finance his war effort, went with his secretary of the treasury to New York to apply for the necessary loans. The money changers wishing the Union to fail offered loans at 24% to 36%. Lincoln declined the offer. An old friend of Lincoln's, Colonel Dick Taylor of Chicago was put in charge of solving the problem of how to finance the war. His solution is recorded as this. "Just get Congress to pass a bill authorising the printing of full legal tender treasury notes... and pay your soldiers with them and go ahead and win your war with them also."
-Colonel Dick Taylor

When Lincoln asked if the people of America would accept the notes Taylor said. "The people or anyone else will not have any choice in the matter, if you make them full legal tender. They will have the full sanction of the government and be just as good as any money; as Congress is given that express right by the Constitution."
-Colonel Dick Taylor

Lincoln agreed to try this solution and printed 450 million dollars worth of the new bills using green ink on the back to distinguish them from other notes. "The government should create, issue and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the government and the buying power of consumers..... The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is the Government's greatest creative opportunity. By the adoption of these principles, the long-felt want for a uniform medium will be satisfied. The taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest, discounts and exchanges. The financing of all public enterprises, the maintenance of stable government and ordered progress, and the conduct of the Treasury will become matters of practical administration. The people can and will be furnished with a currency as safe as their own government. Money will cease to be the master and become the servant of humanity. Democracy will rise superior to the money power."


One of the greatest moments in the history of the United States.  We can still do it again.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on August 11, 2005, 06:03:08 PM
How did we lose this great opportunity you ask?

Lincoln needed just a bit more money to win the war, and seeing him in this vulnerable state, and knowing that the president could not get the congressional authority to issue more greenbacks, the money changers proposed the passing of the National Bank Act. The act went through. From this point on the entire US money supply would be created out of debt by bankers buying US government bonds and issuing them from reserves for bank notes. The greenbacks continued to be in circulation until 1994, their numbers were not increased but in fact decreased.

"In numerous years following the war, the Federal Government ran a heavy surplus. It could not (however) pay off its debt, retire its securities, because to do so meant there would be no bonds to back the national bank notes. To pay off the debt was to destroy the money supply." -John Kenneth Galbrath

The American economy has been based on government debt since 1864 and it is locked into this system. Talk of paying off the debt without first reforming the banking system is just talk and a complete impossibility. That same year Lincoln had a pleasant surprise. Turns out the Tsar of Russia, Alexander II, was well aware of the money changers scam. The Tsar was refusing to allow them to set up a central bank in Russia. If Lincoln could limit the power of the money changers and win the war, the bankers would not be able to split America and hand it back to Britain and France as planned. The Tsar knew that this handing back would come at a cost which would eventually need to be paid back by attacking Russia, it being clearly in the money changers sights. The Tsar declared that if France or Britain gave help to the South, Russia would consider this an act of war. Britain and France would instead wait in vain to have the wealth of the colonies returned to them, and while they waited Lincoln won the civil war. With an election coming up the next year, Lincoln himself would wait for renewed public support before reversing the National Bank Act he had been pressured into approving during the war. Lincoln's opposition to the central banks financial control and a proposed return to the gold standard is well documented. He would certainly have killed off the national banks monopoly had he not been killed himself only 41 days after being re-elected. The money changers were pressing for a gold standard because gold was scarce and easier to have a monopoly over. Much of this was already waiting in their hands and each gold merchant was well aware that what they really had could be easily made to seem like much much more. Silver would only widen the field and lower the share so they pressed for...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on August 11, 2005, 06:05:33 PM
THE RETURN OF THE GOLD STANDARD (1866 - 1881)
"Right after the Civil War there was considerable talk about reviving Lincoln's brief experiment with the Constitutional monetary system. Had not the European money-trust intervened, it would have no doubt become an established institution."-W.Cleon Skousen.

Even after his death, the idea that America might print its own debt free money set off warning bells throughout the entire European banking community. On April 12th in 1866, the American congress passed the Contraction Act, allowing the treasury to call in and retire some of Lincoln's greenbacks, With only the banks standing to gain from this, it's not hard to work out the source of this action. To give the American public the false impression that they would be better off under the gold standard, the money changers used the control they had to cause economic instability and panic the people. This was fairly easy to do by calling in existing loans and refusing to issue new ones, a tried and proven method of causing depression. They would then spread the word through the media they largely controlled that the lack of a single gold standard was the cause of the hardship which ensued, while all this time using the Contraction Act to lower the amount of money in circulation. It went from
$1.8 billion in circulation in 1866 allowing $50.46 per person,
to $1.3 billion in 1867 allowing $44.00 per person,
to $0.6 billion in 1876 making only $14.60 per person and down
to $0.4 billion only ten years later leaving only $6.67 per person
and a continually growing population. Most people believe the economists when they tell us that recessions and depressions are part of the natural flow, but in truth the money supply is controlled by a small minority who have always done so and will continue to do so if we let them. By 1872 the American public was beginning to feel the squeeze, so the Bank of England, scheming in the back rooms, sent Ernest Seyd, with lots of money to bribe congress into demonetising silver. Ernest drafted the legislation himself, which came into law with the passing of the Coinage Act, effectively stopping the minting of silver that year.


The Euopean bankers WOULD NOT stand for an America that could print its own money.  And the rest is history...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on August 11, 2005, 06:11:32 PM
References:

1. Lincoln By Emil Ludwig 1930, containing a letter from Lincoln, also reprinted in Glory to God and the Sucker Democracy A Manuscript Collection of the Letters of Charles H. Lanphier compiled by Charles C. Patton.
2. Abraham Lincoln. Senate document 23, Page 91. 1865.
3. Senator Daniel of Virginia, May 22, 1890, from a speech in Congress, to be found in the Congressional Record, page 5128, quoting from the Bankers Magazine of August, 1873
4. from a circular issued by authority of the Associated Bankers of New York, Philadelphia, and Boston signed by one James Buel, secretary, sent out from 247 Broadway, New York in 1877, to the bankers in all of the States

See also: http://www.wealth4freedom.com/creature.htm  For more in depth accounts further through history, including the creation of the Federal Reserve.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: eukreign on August 11, 2005, 06:14:11 PM
"Just get Congress to pass a bill authorising the printing of full legal tender treasury notes... and pay your soldiers with them and go ahead and win your war with them also."
-Colonel Dick Taylor

Backed by what?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on August 11, 2005, 06:20:33 PM
"Just get Congress to pass a bill authorising the printing of full legal tender treasury notes... and pay your soldiers with them and go ahead and win your war with them also."
-Colonel Dick Taylor

Backed by what?
*sigh*  You really have no clue, do you?

It was a FIAT currency.  But, we printed it, and the American people used it faithfully until the year of our lord 1994 a.d.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: eukreign on August 11, 2005, 06:25:51 PM
"Just get Congress to pass a bill authorising the printing of full legal tender treasury notes... and pay your soldiers with them and go ahead and win your war with them also."
-Colonel Dick Taylor

Backed by what?
*sigh*  You really have no clue, do you?

It was a FIAT currency.  But, we printed it, and the American people used it faithfully until the year of our lord 1994 a.d.

There is no way in hell I would fight for having FIAT currency. Especially since the government would control how much of it is in circulation, how would they know how much of it should be in circulation?!

This is crazy!
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on August 11, 2005, 06:28:19 PM
It won the war.  It brought the most prosperous times in our history.  And, it still is the longest used currency ever in our history.

Don't be too quick to judge.  Educate yourself.  And thanks for the questions. ;)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Yamguy on August 11, 2005, 06:49:49 PM
Gene - one more query:

Let us suppose that we lived in a christian anarchist nation, in which ~99% of people where christian. Lets suppose for a moment that I was a luciferian - a sect of people that already face huge intolerance in the United States as is. Do you honestly believe that people would be "good" enough not to kill me for my beliefs? If a persons spiritual beliefs arent up to them, then how can a society claim to be just or free?


Your advocating a tribal society based on mob rule. Whoever has the most guns and the most people to shoot them would be the dominant party. I hate to say it but I would rather live in todays world as it is right now then live in this delusional max mad world of christians.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: eukreign on August 11, 2005, 07:26:49 PM
It won the war.  It brought the most prosperous times in our history.  And, it still is the longest used currency ever in our history.

Don't be too quick to judge.  Educate yourself.  And thanks for the questions. ;)

So, ten billion dollars are printed to build a military in one year. So far so good. Next year 200 million is printed to upkeep the military, same the year after that, etc. After several hundred years we have A LOT of money. Bread will cost $25,000. Or am I missing something?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 11, 2005, 10:52:41 PM
Gene - one more query:

Let us suppose that we lived in a christian anarchist nation, in which ~99% of people where christian. Lets suppose for a moment that I was a luciferian - a sect of people that already face huge intolerance in the United States as is. Do you honestly believe that people would be "good" enough not to kill me for my beliefs? If a persons spiritual beliefs arent up to them, then how can a society claim to be just or free?


Your advocating a tribal society based on mob rule. Whoever has the most guns and the most people to shoot them would be the dominant party. I hate to say it but I would rather live in todays world as it is right now then live in this delusional max mad world of christians.

I am indeed advocating a tribal society but not based on mob rule.  The rule would be your own and you could band together with other like minded people for protection and fellowship.  The situation you envision could never happen as you could never get 99% of the people to believe anything.  Most groups would be extremely small consisting of perhaps 10-100 like minded people.  Any group growing too big would likely fail from within due to infighting and power struggles.

Look, we already follow our own internal laws.  No one follows law they "disagree" with.  If you see a stop sign in the middle of the desert with clear visibility in all directions with no oncoming traffic, do you stop?  Are you crazy?  Most of us do not commit murder because we have determined for ourselves that murder is wrong.  Same with all our other values.  If someone passes a "law" stating you must sacrifice your first born son to an image of King George (Bush) would you meekly comply?  I think not.  Likewise if I decide that murder is good and I want to murder someone, I don't worry about doing it, only I avoid getting caught by someone who will hurt me (either friends or family of the murderee or the large "gang" of blue crips). 

The anarchy I advocate is not a fantasy, it already exists all around us.  Most of us are in denial.

christiananarchist.myblogsite.com
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on August 11, 2005, 11:03:58 PM
It won the war.  It brought the most prosperous times in our history.  And, it still is the longest used currency ever in our history.

Don't be too quick to judge.  Educate yourself.  And thanks for the questions. ;)

So, ten billion dollars are printed to build a military in one year. So far so good. Next year 200 million is printed to upkeep the military, same the year after that, etc. After several hundred years we have A LOT of money. Bread will cost $25,000. Or am I missing something?

that's the essence of inflation, yes... so you're pretty much right on w/ that comment.

Ron Paul has said:
http://goldinfo.net/ronpaul.html

"Fed policies do indeed have adverse political ramifications. Fiat currency and big government go hand-in-hand. Without a gold standard, Congress is free to spend recklessly and fall back on monetary expansion to pay the bills. Politically, it's easier to print new dollars than raise taxes or borrow overseas. The Fed in essence creates paper reserves that enable Congress to undertake spending measures that far exceed tax revenues. The ill effects of this process are not felt by the politicians, who can always find popular support for new spending. Average Americans suffer, however, when their dollars are "confiscated through inflation," as Mr. Greenspan termed it."
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on August 12, 2005, 03:40:20 AM
You're not seeing the big picture.  There will be no "FED".  There will be no big government.  There will be no standing army. 

The FIAT currency that is backed by the people, printed by our own government, and even supplimented with silver (but not gold), can really change our lives and our prosperity for ever.  And we would not want to go onto the gold standard again because gold is too easily controlled, and can be hoarded quite easily.  Silver is far more abundant, and therefore a better suppliment for the FIAT currency.

"The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is the Government's greatest creative opportunity. By the adoption of these principles, the long-felt want for a uniform medium will be satisfied. The taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest, discounts and exchanges. The financing of all public enterprises, the maintenance of stable government and ordered progress, and the conduct of the Treasury will become matters of practical administration. The people can and will be furnished with a currency as safe as their own government. Money will cease to be the master and become the servant of humanity. Democracy will rise superior to the money power." -Abraham Lincoln
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: eukreign on August 12, 2005, 10:32:21 AM
Who's going to pay to mow the lawn in front of the white house? Who's going to pay for the utilities bill of the congress? Those are annual expenses! Every four years we hold election, who's going to pay to run the elections and to people counting the votes?

There is no way around it. Since the government doesn't produce anything it will have to print money to pay for its expenses.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on August 12, 2005, 11:26:11 AM
Who's going to pay to mow the lawn in front of the white house? Who's going to pay for the utilities bill of the congress? Those are annual expenses! Every four years we hold election, who's going to pay to run the elections and to people counting the votes?

There is no way around it. Since the government doesn't produce anything it will have to print money to pay for its expenses.
You just don't get it, do you? :lol:  The system pays for itself.  The interest collected by government investments alone will more than pay off any requirement.  This doesn't even mention the thousands of other avenues of profit that come with printing our own money.  Why do you think we prospered after the civil war?  It was because we were using our own currency, providing a stable economy, and was backed only by our own potential.  There is no interest charged on the American people, no debt, no forclosures.  Understand this simple fact, and you can begin to see why the foreign bankers were so adamant about killing our banks and instituting their own.  To say that our own monetary system will not be successful is the same as saying that European bankers don't run the world.

Now tell me, how do you think they managed to do that?




Ahhh....the mind toils.  Don't fight this, man.  It's really a simple reality.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: eukreign on August 12, 2005, 03:51:49 PM
You just don't get it, do you? :lol:  The system pays for itself.  The interest collected by government investments alone will more than pay off any requirement.  This doesn't even mention the thousands of other avenues of profit that come with printing our own money.  Why do you think we prospered after the civil war?  It was because we were using our own currency, providing a stable economy, and was backed only by our own potential.  There is no interest charged on the American people, no debt, no forclosures.  Understand this simple fact, and you can begin to see why the foreign bankers were so adamant about killing our banks and instituting their own.  To say that our own monetary system will not be successful is the same as saying that European bankers don't run the world.

How much money will be printed to accurately represent our current potential? Who will get to decide? Also, will more money be printed/taken away when our potential changes (more people being born than dying or vice versa)? How will money be taken out of circulation to prevent inflation? Who will get to decide where the government invests its money? What if the investments fail, where will the government get money?

I might not get it yet but I am listening.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on August 12, 2005, 04:19:13 PM
All of your questions are second nature, and will be explained by further research on your own.  I cannot sit here and dictate all the answers to a political system to you in the detail that you deserve.  I know that you have good intentions, and I know that you should hear my responses, btu to be fair to you (and to myself), I really, really need to finish typing my book on this subject.  If I sit here typing it all out to you on a forum, then what's the use of me writing a book on the subject? :lol:

Just read and re-read what I have posted thus far, and do a little research on your own.  Have patience.  It's not like we are going to convert to this system any time soon, lol.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: eukreign on August 12, 2005, 05:54:34 PM
All of your questions are second nature, and will be explained by further research on your own.  I cannot sit here and dictate all the answers to a political system to you in the detail that you deserve.  I know that you have good intentions, and I know that you should hear my responses, btu to be fair to you (and to myself), I really, really need to finish typing my book on this subject.  If I sit here typing it all out to you on a forum, then what's the use of me writing a book on the subject? :lol:

Just read and re-read what I have posted thus far, and do a little research on your own.  Have patience.  It's not like we are going to convert to this system any time soon, lol.

A link or two to some articles would be helpful.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on August 12, 2005, 07:30:13 PM

A link or two to some articles would be helpful.
Here is a search with some great references (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22lincoln+greenback%22&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Bishop on August 12, 2005, 07:36:26 PM
With all this talk of money, i was wondering one thing.  Are liberty dollars taxable?  Like if you buy a 20 dollar item with a liberty dollar, do you have to pay taxes too? I was thinking this, because since the liberty dollar isn't considered "money" by the government, it would be like bartering with someone, and no money would have changed hands.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: eukreign on August 12, 2005, 07:39:39 PM
With all this talk of money, i was wondering one thing.  Are liberty dollars taxable?  Like if you buy a 20 dollar item with a liberty dollar, do you have to pay taxes too? I was thinking this, because since the liberty dollar isn't considered "money" by the government, it would be like bartering with someone, and no money would have changed hands.

That would be awesome!
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on August 12, 2005, 07:40:28 PM
With all this talk of money, i was wondering one thing. Are liberty dollars taxable? Like if you buy a 20 dollar item with a liberty dollar, do you have to pay taxes too? I was thinking this, because since the liberty dollar isn't considered "money" by the government, it would be like bartering with someone, and no money would have changed hands.
The liberty dollars aren't being taxed, the merchandise you "buy" is.  So, therefore, you will have to pay whatever price the seller asks, unless you strike a deal with them.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: eukreign on August 12, 2005, 07:52:18 PM
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul125.html

"Fiat dollars allow us to live beyond our means, but only for so long. History shows that when the destruction of monetary value becomes rampant, nearly everyone suffers and the economic and political structure becomes unstable. Spendthrift politicians may love a system that generates more and more money for their special interest projects, but the rest of us have good reason to be concerned about our monetary system and the future value of our dollars." - Dr. Ron Paul
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Bishop on August 12, 2005, 08:09:56 PM
With all this talk of money, i was wondering one thing. Are liberty dollars taxable? Like if you buy a 20 dollar item with a liberty dollar, do you have to pay taxes too? I was thinking this, because since the liberty dollar isn't considered "money" by the government, it would be like bartering with someone, and no money would have changed hands.
The liberty dollars aren't being taxed, the merchandise you "buy" is.  So, therefore, you will have to pay whatever price the seller asks, unless you strike a deal with them.

Ok, but between individuals would it be legal to trade liberty dollars for another item without paying taxes?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on August 13, 2005, 03:28:53 AM
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul125.html

"Fiat dollars allow us to live beyond our means, but only for so long. History shows that when the destruction of monetary value becomes rampant, nearly everyone suffers and the economic and political structure becomes unstable. Spendthrift politicians may love a system that generates more and more money for their special interest projects, but the rest of us have good reason to be concerned about our monetary system and the future value of our dollars." - Dr. Ron Paul

Exactly, and that is why we need to compliment the FIAT currency with smaller government that is only limited by the constitution.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on August 13, 2005, 03:30:36 AM
With all this talk of money, i was wondering one thing. Are liberty dollars taxable? Like if you buy a 20 dollar item with a liberty dollar, do you have to pay taxes too? I was thinking this, because since the liberty dollar isn't considered "money" by the government, it would be like bartering with someone, and no money would have changed hands.
The liberty dollars aren't being taxed, the merchandise you "buy" is. So, therefore, you will have to pay whatever price the seller asks, unless you strike a deal with them.

Ok, but between individuals would it be legal to trade liberty dollars for another item without paying taxes?
It is already legal to do that, even with the Federal Reserve Notes.  Only Congress may levy a tax upon you, and as far as I know, the only ones who are being taxed by Congress at this moment constitutionally, are illegal aliens and corporations.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: MobileDigit on August 13, 2005, 06:46:59 PM
Exactly, and that is why we need to compliment the FIAT currency with smaller government that is only limited by the constitution.

Brokor, to think that you can "limit" "government"(a company that uses mass extortion to provide a "service") is delusional. Why do you believe such things? Are you really farther gone than Islamist radicals?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: dead_hobbit on August 13, 2005, 08:47:34 PM
Christianity has a lot of potential good, but there's just one slight problem....


Jesus didn't fulfill a single Messianic prophecy.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Lindsey on August 14, 2005, 12:01:59 AM
I can be open to the possibility of Jesus as a historical figure, but not as divine.  That's where it gets just plain ridiculous.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: dead_hobbit on August 14, 2005, 12:12:46 AM
I can be open to the possibility of Jesus as a historical figure, but not as divine.  That's where it gets just plain ridiculous.

Word.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Lindsey on August 14, 2005, 12:16:55 AM
Rock on.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on August 14, 2005, 03:43:11 AM
Exactly, and that is why we need to compliment the FIAT currency with smaller government that is only limited by the constitution.

Brokor, to think that you can "limit" "government"(a company that uses mass extortion to provide a "service") is delusional. Why do you believe such things? Are you really farther gone than Islamist radicals?
I probably am just a ranting lunatic.

But I'm not wrong ;)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: MobileDigit on August 14, 2005, 03:51:13 AM
So you can "limit" "government"? The burden of proof is on you.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Puke on August 14, 2005, 08:56:13 AM
Christian Anarchy?
Fuck that, the christians are the reason for this fucked country being so fucked up.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Lindsey on August 14, 2005, 09:41:38 AM
I agree with Puke. :P
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Yamguy on August 14, 2005, 09:59:02 AM
Christian Anarchy?
Fuck that, the christians are the reason for this fucked country being so fucked up.

This is quite incorrect.

Christians, along with Muslims, Hindus, and Jews, are responsible for the world being so fucked up.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on August 14, 2005, 12:06:11 PM
Christian Anarchy?
Fuck that, the christians are the reason for this fucked country being so fucked up.

I must have missed something here...

So who's stripping away more and more of our freedoms? Running up a horrendously-high back breakin debt? Invading other countries illegally, killing thousands of innocents while creating more enemies in the meantime? using a inflationatory Fiat money system? and treating us more like slaves everyday than ever before? oh right.... the government.  :P
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on August 14, 2005, 02:06:17 PM
So you can "limit" "government"? The burden of proof is on you.
Wrong.  The burden of proof is in the constitution.  You know?  That document that nobody takes the time to learn anymore...

Besides enshrining our most basic rights, not granting them, the constitution serves as the primary obstacle for government.  You say that "I" need to somehow magically prove to you how government could be limited, and all I have to do is point to the constitution.  It is up to the people, however, to keep vigilant and to hold their government accountable.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on August 14, 2005, 02:09:18 PM
Christian Anarchy?
Fuck that, the christians are the reason for this fucked country being so fucked up.

I must have missed something here...

So who's stripping away more and more of our freedoms? Running up a horrendously-high running up a back breakin debt? Invading other countries illegally, killing thousands of innocents while creating more enemies in the meantime? using a inflationatory Fiat money system? and treating us more like slaves everyday than ever before? oh right.... the government. :P
Exactly.  But, it's the government who SAYS they are "religious", when in actuality they are worshipping 40-foot stone owls and making sacrifices to ancient Babylonian gods.

There really is a battle between darkness and light.  The truly sad thing is, most of these people are being deceived by the dark forces, believing that religion is "bad"...when they cannot even see what they are doing to each other.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Russ84 on August 14, 2005, 04:43:24 PM
But, it's the government who SAYS they are "religious", when in actuality they are worshipping 40-foot stone owls and making sacrifices to ancient Babylonian gods.

That was pretty funny when Alex Jones started asking that one senator about the grove, and the senator started freaking out like he was about to cry. If I was Alex I would have been like, "What's wrong? Can't handle a little Q & A... Awwww you gonna cry... Pussy!"  :lol:
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: dead_hobbit on August 14, 2005, 06:45:24 PM
Christian Anarchy?
Fuck that, the christians are the reason for this fucked country being so fucked up.

This is quite incorrect.

Christians, along with Muslims, Hindus, and Jews, are responsible for the world being so fucked up.

Don't forget Atheists.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: dead_hobbit on August 14, 2005, 06:46:12 PM
Christian Anarchy?
Fuck that, the christians are the reason for this fucked country being so fucked up.

Christians are one of the reasons this country exists.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Bishop on August 14, 2005, 07:11:30 PM
Christian Anarchy?
Fuck that, the christians are the reason for this fucked country being so fucked up.

I'd say governemnt is more to blame than anything.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on August 14, 2005, 07:20:36 PM
Christian Anarchy?
Fuck that, the christians are the reason for this fucked country being so fucked up.

I'd say governemnt is more to blame than anything.
And more precise: the European Bankers, who have conspired since our conception to take over our monetary system, and have quite obviously succeeded. 

Oh, a kingdom for Andrew Jackson!
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on August 14, 2005, 07:54:15 PM
Christian Anarchy?
Fuck that, the christians are the reason for this fucked country being so fucked up.

I must have missed something here...

So who's stripping away more and more of our freedoms? Running up a horrendously-high running up a back breakin debt? Invading other countries illegally, killing thousands of innocents while creating more enemies in the meantime? using a inflationatory Fiat money system? and treating us more like slaves everyday than ever before? oh right.... the government. :P
Exactly.  But, it's the government who SAYS they are "religious", when in actuality they are worshipping 40-foot stone owls and making sacrifices to ancient Babylonian gods.

There really is a battle between darkness and light.  The truly sad thing is, most of these people are being deceived by the dark forces, believing that religion is "bad"...when they cannot even see what they are doing to each other.

so true.

hey, did you join the rest of us on revolutionaryleft.com...? we're goin in kinda undercover, you could say... appearing leftist at first, then gradually poking holes in their belief system....
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Puke on August 14, 2005, 09:03:12 PM
 :lol:
/me throws stones at the hornets nest!
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 15, 2005, 12:30:09 AM
Christian Anarchy?
Fuck that, the christians are the reason for this fucked country being so fucked up.

I'd say governemnt is more to blame than anything.
And more precise: the European Bankers, who have conspired since our conception to take over our monetary system, and have quite obviously succeeded. 

Oh, a kingdom for Andrew Jackson!

Writings of Andrew Jackson...

"Go to the Scriptures...the joyful promises it contains will be a balsam to all your troubles. That book...is the rock on which our republic rests."

"Sir, I am in the hands of a merciful God. I have full confidence in His goodness and mercy...The Bible is true. I have tried to conform to its spirit as near as possible. Upon that sacred volume I rest my hope for eternal salvation, through the merits and blood of our blessed Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ."
[May 29th, 1845, just a few weeks before he died]

You see, blaming Christians for messing up this country (or the world) shows only that
one hasn't read what this country (fiction USA) is founded upon.  Christian principles
based upon the Bible is what the common law (the root of this Constitution) is responsible
for this failed experiment fiction USA.  Indeed, the failure to adhere to God's rules is the
sole reason for the failure.

I tried to find the quote about only a moral society can maintain a republic, but I couldn't
find it...

christiananarchist.myblogspot.com
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Bishop on August 15, 2005, 02:06:24 AM
Yeah, i'm on the left wing site now, same name as here, bishop.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on August 15, 2005, 02:28:43 AM
Actually, I was referring more to the fact that Andrew Jackson killed the banks and stopped the Eurpoean bankers from monopolising our currency, not his religious affiliations, Christiananarchist.

But, in any case, if you do a search you will find some great topics on our founding principles.  For as many "religious" founders we had, there were atheists as well.  To simply state that America is a religious nation would be a mistake, even though I personally have some respect for religion.  The founders were very careful not to appear to be too overly religious, and only paved the way for freedom of religion, not the requirement of it.

And I am gonna have to check out that site, Grey. Thx ;)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on August 15, 2005, 05:48:11 AM

And I am gonna have to check out that site, Grey. Thx ;)

Well, I am Political_Punk on there, and already I've been banned to the "alt. POV" section.

What bullshit - I was completely respectful and such, but apparently I too (along w/ most others on here who went on) were poking too many holes in their arguments, and banished me.

Yup, just the commie assholes in real life, you will be banned/censored/eliminated if you offer any dissenting views.

I no longer even give credence to the idea that "communism is good in theory" POV, anymore... since even when reasoned w/ they will shut you down. Fuckers.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 15, 2005, 08:35:45 AM
Actually, I was referring more to the fact that Andrew Jackson killed the banks and stopped the Eurpoean bankers from monopolising our currency, not his religious affiliations, Christiananarchist.

But, in any case, if you do a search you will find some great topics on our founding principles.  For as many "religious" founders we had, there were atheists as well.  To simply state that America is a religious nation would be a mistake, even though I personally have some respect for religion.  The founders were very careful not to appear to be too overly religious, and only paved the way for freedom of religion, not the requirement of it.

There is no proof of any writings by any of the founders that take the position of athiest.  Sorry, but if you research, you find that most were Christian (by their own writings).  There may have been 3 who were diest, but even a diest believes in a Creator, a requirement to believe that "all men are CREATED equal"...

Check this link for "Christian" quotes by the founders
http://www.errantskeptics.org/FoundingFathers.htm

christiananarchist.myblotsite.com
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on August 15, 2005, 12:59:58 PM
Actually, I was referring more to the fact that Andrew Jackson killed the banks and stopped the Eurpoean bankers from monopolising our currency, not his religious affiliations, Christiananarchist.

But, in any case, if you do a search you will find some great topics on our founding principles. For as many "religious" founders we had, there were atheists as well. To simply state that America is a religious nation would be a mistake, even though I personally have some respect for religion. The founders were very careful not to appear to be too overly religious, and only paved the way for freedom of religion, not the requirement of it.

There is no proof of any writings by any of the founders that take the position of athiest. Sorry, but if you research, you find that most were Christian (by their own writings). There may have been 3 who were diest, but even a diest believes in a Creator, a requirement to believe that "all men are CREATED equal"...

Check this link for "Christian" quotes by the founders
http://www.errantskeptics.org/FoundingFathers.htm

christiananarchist.myblotsite.com

Dude, we have done the research on these forums already, and if Shanek finds this thread, and your statement, you will see what I mean.  I haven't the time, nor the desire to argue with your silliness.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 15, 2005, 06:16:37 PM

There is no proof of any writings by any of the founders that take the position of athiest. Sorry, but if you research, you find that most were Christian (by their own writings). There may have been 3 who were diest, but even a diest believes in a Creator, a requirement to believe that "all men are CREATED equal"...

Check this link for "Christian" quotes by the founders
http://www.errantskeptics.org/FoundingFathers.htm

christiananarchist.myblotsite.com

Dude, we have done the research on these forums already, and if Shanek finds this thread, and your statement, you will see what I mean.  I haven't the time, nor the desire to argue with your silliness.

I don't see any silliness in coming to the conclusion that for men to write the phrase "we believe these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, endowed by thier creator with certain inalienable rights, among them..." REQUIRES a belief in a CREATOR.  Otherwise it is indeed a silly statement if made by an athiest...

christiananarchist.myblogsite.com
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: eukreign on August 15, 2005, 07:07:36 PM
I don't see any silliness in coming to the conclusion that for men to write the phrase "we believe these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, endowed by thier creator with certain inalienable rights, among them..." REQUIRES a belief in a CREATOR.  Otherwise it is indeed a silly statement if made by an athiest...

Don't know about any of you people but my mom and dad created me.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: dead_hobbit on August 15, 2005, 07:27:46 PM
I don't see any silliness in coming to the conclusion that for men to write the phrase "we believe these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, endowed by thier creator with certain inalienable rights, among them..." REQUIRES a belief in a CREATOR.  Otherwise it is indeed a silly statement if made by an athiest...

You're pretty much correct. Many of the founding fathers were, in fact, Christians. Many of them were also very much Agnostic Theists/Diests as well.

But, to play Devil's Advocate, one could think of their parents as their "creator"
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on August 15, 2005, 11:45:43 PM
I don't see any silliness in coming to the conclusion that for men to write the phrase "we believe these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, endowed by thier creator with certain inalienable rights, among them..." REQUIRES a belief in a CREATOR. Otherwise it is indeed a silly statement if made by an athiest...

You're pretty much correct. Many of the founding fathers were, in fact, Christians. Many of them were also very much Agnostic Theists/Diests as well.

The part I disagree with you about, Mr. Anarchist -is your perception that they were all happy little christians, when in fact they weren't.  Please keep your religious shit in your own fucking head, and try to keep your conversations logical.  That's all I am saying.  There is no mention in our declaration or constitution that ever mentions A PARTICULAR GOD, or A SINGLE RELIGION, but allows, instead for the recognition of the fact that We the People do have freedom to worship how we severally choose.  So please get off your christian high-horse and take a break, buddy.  No single religion has any more credence than any other in this nation.

And Jesus was black.

Bitch. :lol:
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 16, 2005, 01:11:12 AM

The part I disagree with you about, Mr. Anarchist -is your perception that they were all happy little christians, when in fact they weren't.  Please keep your religious shit in your own fucking head, and try to keep your conversations logical.  That's all I am saying.  There is no mention in our declaration or constitution that ever mentions A PARTICULAR GOD, or A SINGLE RELIGION, but allows, instead for the recognition of the fact that We the People do have freedom to worship how we severally choose.  So please get off your christian high-horse and take a break, buddy.  No single religion has any more credence than any other in this nation.

And Jesus was black.

Bitch. :lol:

Thank you for taking the time to respond.  I would like to point out that you may have missed the two references to God in the Declaration of Independence ("the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them," and "with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.".  It is easy to miss as there are only the two mentions, but then the DOI is a very short document.  I can and will if you insist provide numerous references to Christian ideals and biblical authority in writings by the founders and decisons in the early courts.  Early documents make clear that the final authority recognized was God (a non-denominational "God").  Doctrine was avoided as it brings conflict, but the acknowledgement of "God" was very frequent.

Anyway, it is not important to me other than in an attempt to be historically accurate.  As the Christian Anarchist, I don't feel bound by such documents.  Indeed, the founders of this fiction USA did not bind men by their documents, only their fiction creation.

christiananarchist.myblogsite.com
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on August 16, 2005, 01:34:19 AM
You ignorant, incorrigible fucking retard.

I already stated that there is quite obviously the word "GOD" written in the declaration.  Never is the word "JESUS MOTHERFUCKING CHRIST" written, you son of a motherfucking goat herder.

Quote
As the Christian Anarchist, I don't feel bound by such documents.  Indeed, the founders of this fiction USA did not bind men by their documents, only their fiction creation.
I HATE YOU.  PLEASE DIE.


Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ljossberir on August 16, 2005, 01:48:05 AM
Lies, deceptions, half-truths...

There are so many fucked up people in the world, it's no wonder why this "anarchy" movement has taken hold.

Chris..er..sorry, "Grey" -your statements are echoed by myself.  However, I think that the original poster is a nutjob. 
What's this? Brokor as the voice of.... reason?! For once, we are in agreement. I am enjoying the moment.


It's funny, but "The Christian Anarchist" happens to find himself in agreement with the most unlikely person of all, at least... an agreement on the consistency of Christianity and Anarchy...

Quote
One may assert an absolute equivalence between Christian and anarchist: their purpose, their instinct is set only on destruction. For the proof of this proposition, one has only to read history, which displays it with frightful clarity.

Quote
The Christian and the anarchist: both decadents, both incapable of producing anything but dissolution, poisioning, degeneration, both blood-suckers, both with the deadly hatred towards anything that stands erect, that towers grandly up, that possesses duration, that promises life a future...
-Friedrich Nietzsche, The Anti-Christ, 58

In fairness, however: as I'm sure many of you know, anarchists were, without a doubt, quite different in the mid-late 19th century than they are now.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on August 16, 2005, 02:29:41 AM
All anarchists are pussies. 
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: dead_hobbit on August 16, 2005, 02:49:00 AM
Quote
I can and will if you insist provide numerous references to Christian ideals and biblical authority in writings by the founders and decisons in the early courts.

One can equally pull up numerous writings and decisions in early courts testifying to the opposite. Some of which flat out say "we are not a Christian country" (paraphrase, but the real quote is pretty close to that IIRC).
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 16, 2005, 11:04:35 AM
You ignorant, incorrigible fucking retard.

I already stated that there is quite obviously the word "GOD" written in the declaration.  Never is the word "JESUS MOTHERFUCKING CHRIST" written, you son of a motherfucking goat herder.

Quote
As the Christian Anarchist, I don't feel bound by such documents.  Indeed, the founders of this fiction USA did not bind men by their documents, only their fiction creation.
I HATE YOU.  PLEASE DIE.



I thank you again for taking the time to respond to my post.  I do however, see a conflict with libertairian ideals in that while you seem to support freedom for yourself, you seem to want to deny mine.  I'm not sure if you are even claiming to be a libertarian but since this is a so-called libertarian venue, I am assuming you are.  Even judges from this fiction USA have stated that the protection for free speach has to extend to unpopular speech as "popular" speech, by the very fact that it is "popular", needs no protection.

christiananarchist.myblogsite.com
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 16, 2005, 11:19:52 AM
Quote
I can and will if you insist provide numerous references to Christian ideals and biblical authority in writings by the founders and decisons in the early courts.

One can equally pull up numerous writings and decisions in early courts testifying to the opposite. Some of which flat out say "we are not a Christian country" (paraphrase, but the real quote is pretty close to that IIRC).

I would like to see any that are prior to the 20th century.  Can you cite any?  I am always ready to learn.

christiananarchist.myblogsite.com
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Lindsey on August 16, 2005, 03:12:28 PM
You can't learn.  There's still something fundamentally flawed inside your mind.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: MobileDigit on August 16, 2005, 03:40:40 PM
Hey now, hes smarter than you!


/me watches karma fly down.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Lindsey on August 16, 2005, 03:49:59 PM
Why would you say he's smarter than I am?  Because I'm younger than he is?  Because I'm still in school?  Because you agree with his ideas and not mine?

Fuck your karma, I'm not spending the time on you.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Lupus on August 16, 2005, 04:00:37 PM
Wow... what a thread... with I had seen this earlier. I have alot to say concerning religious people, Christians in particular.

I've heard you on the show several times Mr. Christian Anarchist.

let's break the mold some....

Quote
Do you believe that all men are created equal?    Yes( )   No ( )

This is a misnomer.  While it's a nice IDEA, it's clearly not the case. Some men in fact are created so unequally that they die before birth.  I think most men do in fact. I bet this includes the women too.. not just the men.

Saying that men are created equal is just being nice to men.  It's nice to say men are all equal.  But in reality it's not the case. Some men are smarter, some men are taller, some men have bigger dicks than others. There is no magical leveling stick that makes sure everyone is equal.

Saying the world is like a RPG game, where a set amount of ability points is distributed for each man is just insane, and idiotic.

Quote
Do you have a right to violate the rights of another?    Yes( )    No( )

This is a trick question. Rights? How do you define that? I SHOUOLDN'T be able to violate the 'rights' (as you call it of another).  Because what this generally entails is being mean to somone else.  Typically it's just not nice to be mean to people.

There is no such thin as inalienable rights. This is just some crap that some guys made up. Much like your god. You can do ANYTHING you want to do. But the people around you may feel the need to respond to the things you do.

Going around claiming that some invisible guy who lives in the sky says that you can do certian things only makes me think you are mentally unstable.

Quote
Do two or more people have a right to violate the rights of another?  Yes( )   No( )

Since I really have no rights, and neither do you, this is impossible. If I'm mean to you, then it's likely that sombody it going to be mean to me back. That is all nothing more.

Your so called rights, are just what I call the golden rule. Whoever makes the gold, makes the rules.... wait.. wrong one...
Do unto others and you would have them do unto you.

This is all there is. I don't like people poking me in the eye with sticks, so I don't go around poking other people's eyes with sticks.  But, this doesn't mean that I am doing it because some deity told me to.

People who need an invisible man in the sky, to tell them that if they are mean to other peope, they are going to go to hell... or whatever... are just weak willed and unintellegent.

God, religion... is all guesses.  And not even good ones at that. Religion is a tool used to control people. To keep them down. Religion in many ways is far worse than government. Government just points a gun at me. Religion claims that it will keep a gun pointed at me, even after I am worm food.

Religion has started more wars than anything else on the planet. Religion is responsible for more murder and hatred that ANYTHING ELSE.... EVER.

Religion is EVIL.

You are an idiot for believing in this crap. The fact that you have been duped by some ruler from 2000+ years ago makes me laugh. I would pity you... if it wasn't so funny.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: fisher on August 16, 2005, 04:21:55 PM
Why would you say he's smarter than I am?
cus U R dumb.  :P
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Lindsey on August 16, 2005, 04:23:36 PM
Lupus, in regards to religion, you rock my socks.   :D

Now, regarding my intelligence.  There's not much that will offend me.  You can call me fat, you can call me ugly, you can insult my mother, and say whatever you want to me.  I am a lot of things, but one thing I am not, in any form, is stupid.  And I get extremely hostile when people call me stupid.  I don't care if you're joking, I do not enjoy having my intelligence insulted.  Especially when I said nothing that justifies being called stupid.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Lupus on August 16, 2005, 04:25:38 PM
Lupus, in regards to religion, you rock my socks.   :D

 8)

Quote
Now, regarding my intelligence.  There's not much that will offend me.  You can call me fat, you can call me ugly, you can insult my mother, and say whatever you want to me.  I am a lot of things, but one thing I am not, in any form, is stupid.  And I get extremely hostile when people call me stupid.  I don't care if you're joking, I do not enjoy having my intelligence insulted.  Especially when I said nothing that justifies being called stupid.

You've clearly demostrated  by your previous statement that you're damn smart.  ;)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: fisher on August 16, 2005, 04:26:32 PM
Lupus, in regards to religion, you rock my socks.   :D

Now, regarding my intelligence.  There's not much that will offend me.  You can call me fat, you can call me ugly, you can insult my mother, and say whatever you want to me.  I am a lot of things, but one thing I am not, in any form, is stupid.  And I get extremely hostile when people call me stupid.  I don't care if you're joking, I do not enjoy having my intelligence insulted.  Especially when I said nothing that justifies being called stupid.
This post you just typed.....it was stupid.  :lol:
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: fisher on August 16, 2005, 04:29:20 PM
Do unto others and you would have them do unto you.
So you want me to call you an idiot and unintelligent?  8)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Lupus on August 16, 2005, 04:33:39 PM
Do unto others and you would have them do unto you.
So you want me to call you an idiot and unintelligent?  8)

I would have you call it as you see it. If you think I'm being an idiot, then go ahead and call me one. But, I bet I'll call you one back.

Unless of course I was being an idiot. Which would be something incredible. ;)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: fisher on August 16, 2005, 04:35:32 PM
Do unto others and you would have them do unto you.
So you want me to call you an idiot and unintelligent?  8)

I would have you call it as you see it. If you think I'm being an idiot, then go ahead and call me one. But, I bet I'll call you one back.

Unless of course I was being an idiot. Which would be something incredible. ;)
Did you join the FSP?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Lindsey on August 16, 2005, 04:38:16 PM
Wow.  Let's stereotype and say that since you're probably older than I am, that automatically makes you smarter.  Thusly, I should be the one making sophomoric jokes.  But you're the callow one who decides to play with synonyms and do something that I've politely asked not to be done.

It always seems to happen that way on this BBS.  I ask you to consider common courtesies, and you always have to turn them around be completely obnoxious.  And by you, I mean the people who post three or four times in a row because I asked them not to, and report posts to me because I've made a comment about my e-mail being full of unnecessarily reported posts.  Just stop acting like children.  

I'm not the one acting like a child and calling people stupid for no good reason.  Grow up.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Lupus on August 16, 2005, 04:43:11 PM
Did you join the FSP?

I'm joined as a friend. I have yet to come to terms with moving someplace colder than I am. I imagine I'll end up in NH eventually.

Why do you ask?

But, I don't see what this has to do with god (or the lack thereof) or being an anarchist.

Nor the slamming on Lindsey... but I digress.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Lindsey on August 16, 2005, 04:44:18 PM
It's because I'm the moderator.  They all love me.  Or maybe it's because of my stunning good looks and sparkling personality.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Lupus on August 16, 2005, 04:48:09 PM
It's because I'm the moderator.  They all love me.  Or maybe it's because of my stunning good looks and sparkling personality.

I bet it's cause they are jelous because you get to see boobs everyday and they don't.  :shock:


;)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Lindsey on August 16, 2005, 04:49:28 PM
Hah, yeah, that could be it too.   :P
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: mikehz on August 16, 2005, 04:56:41 PM
I agree with that great philosopher, Forest Gump: "Stupid is as stupid does."

One sure-fire sign of stupidity is rudeness.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Lupus on August 16, 2005, 05:02:12 PM
I agree with that great philosopher, Forest Gump: "Stupid is as stupid does."

One sure-fire sign of stupidity is rudeness.

Define rude. What I consider rude is likely not what you consider rude. As a matter of fact, I can practically guarantee it.

Symantec arguments always fail.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: fisher on August 16, 2005, 05:04:30 PM
Did you join the FSP?

I'm joined as a friend. I have yet to come to terms with moving someplace colder than I am. I imagine I'll end up in NH eventually.

Why do you ask?

But, I don't see what this has to do with god (or the lack thereof) or being an anarchist.

Nor the slamming on Lindsey... but I digress.
It has to do with whether or not I call you an idiot.
Since you have only endorsed the FSP, I will only call you a "sucker" for now. Let me know when/if you join, so I can upgrade you to "idiot".
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Lupus on August 16, 2005, 05:08:01 PM
It has to do with whether or not I call you an idiot.
Since you have only endorsed the FSP, I will only call you a "sucker" for now. Let me know when/if you join, so I can upgrade you to "idiot".

 :P haha... okay.

While you are free to call me an idiot if/when I join, it is highly unlikely that I'll remember and/or take the time to infrom you.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: dead_hobbit on August 16, 2005, 07:26:09 PM
I would like to see any that are prior to the 20th century.  Can you cite any?  I am always ready to learn.

Yes. For example, the Treaty of Tripoli.

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

That being said, I am not denying that many of the founding fathers were faithful Christians. I recognize - and honor - the contributions that Christians made to this country. My great great.... grandfather, who got arrested on a Sunday (for preaching Baptist doctrine!) was one of them.

But I equally recognize that many of the Founding Fathers were diests (and some even atheists)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on August 16, 2005, 07:27:42 PM
God, religion... is all guesses.  And not even good ones at that. Religion is a tool used to control people. To keep them down. Religion in many ways is far worse than government. Government just points a gun at me. Religion claims that it will keep a gun pointed at me, even after I am worm food.

Religion has started more wars than anything else on the planet. Religion is responsible for more murder and hatred that ANYTHING ELSE.... EVER.

Religion is EVIL.

You are an idiot for believing in this crap. The fact that you have been duped by some ruler from 2000+ years ago makes me laugh. I would pity you... if it wasn't so funny.

I just don't know where to start.
You have all these ignoramouses (which is true, b/c by definition an ignorant person is one who lacks knowledge) who are so full of hate and bigotry they can not open their minds to anything counter to their pre-conceived notions.
"Religion is evil"... are you really this bigoted? That's like saying all blacks are evil, shopping is evil or drinking is evil.  No, none of those things are evil.  It is evil to abuse those things, yes... quite another story.
And as for the tired line, "well look at the wars caused by religion"... please... I've had to report this fact on this BBS umpteen times on here before, and I don't mind I suppose, you are indeed new, so I understand you haven't seen it.

You want to talk about wars?  How about all the wars/murder caused by totalitarian, dictatorial, atheistic psychotics such as Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler (who hated Christianity), Mao (also hated Christianity), Hussein, Kim Jong Ill... These are all men who just in this past century murdered 10's and 10's of millions of christians, gays, minorities or any kind of dissenter.  None of these were Christian (although Hitler was apparently religious b/c of his love of the new age movement).
Regardless, all these men killed more in the name of a secular, collectivist, self-absorbed belief that some people are less-human than others.  Clearly they were all opposed to religion (except for maybe Hitler's brand of new ageism) but all definitely had great hatred toward anyone who was remotely Xian.

Furthermore, that shows the problem w/ your belief that we have no rights; this is the cornerstone of collectivism.  It states that any group can suffer or even die for the "greater good".  

Therefore, given the expendable nature that collectivism puts on humans, I believe if anyone wants true freedom they must first abide by the law that we are all equal. That doesn't mean we all deserve the same luxuries in life - we reap what we sew - it simply means we all have the right not to have anyone else infringe on ourselves or our property.

Democracy/Collectivism is oppressive.  Individualism is the way to a more freer and wealthier society.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on August 16, 2005, 07:33:30 PM
I tend to agree with Grey.  I do not fully support any particular religion, and I personally dislike extremists in any of them...but, we are after all talking about PEOPLE here.  A 'religion' never harmed anybody.  Just like idiots who blame the 'gun' for killing a person, it is the individual  to blame -NOT the gun.  PEOPLE kill PEOPLE, and religions should be no different than anything else.

We all have the ability to be great, to do wonderful things.  For as many blights upon humanity that are blamed on the religious zealots, I can find a horror from our past that was started by greedy atheists or pragmatics.  It is the individual that is to blame, not the ideology that has been taken to the extreme.

And just for the record; all modern wars since the French Revolution were created by elitist bankers for profit, not 'religious folk'.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: dead_hobbit on August 16, 2005, 07:43:44 PM
Why would you say he's smarter than I am?
cus U R dumb.  :P

|/\|0|/\| U R $|\/|@|27!!!! (not)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: dead_hobbit on August 16, 2005, 07:45:54 PM
It's because I'm the moderator.  They all love me.  Or maybe it's because of my stunning good looks and sparkling personality.

It's the latter, of course.  :wink:
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Lindsey on August 16, 2005, 07:47:23 PM
Why would you say he's smarter than I am?
cus U R dumb.  :P

|/\|0|/\| U R $|\/|@|27!!!! (not)

What the Hell does that actually say?   :lol:
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: dead_hobbit on August 16, 2005, 07:48:31 PM
You want to talk about wars?  How about all the wars/murder caused by totalitarian, dictatorial, atheistic psychotics such as Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler (who hated Christianity), Mao (also hated Christianity), Hussein, Kim Jong Ill... These are all men who just in this past century murdered 10's and 10's of millions of christians, gays, minorities or any kind of dissenter.  None of these were Christian (although Hitler was apparently religious b/c of his love of the new age movement).
Regardless, all these men killed more in the name of a secular, collectivist, self-absorbed belief that some people are less-human than others.  Clearly they were all opposed to religion (except for maybe Hitler's brand of new ageism) but all definitely had great hatred toward anyone who was remotely Xian.

Word.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: dead_hobbit on August 16, 2005, 07:49:10 PM
Why would you say he's smarter than I am?
cus U R dumb.  :P

|/\|0|/\| U R $|\/|@|27!!!! (not)

What the Hell does that actually say?   :lol:

It says "You are Smart!!!! (not)"
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 16, 2005, 11:41:23 PM
Lupus, in regards to religion, you rock my socks.   :D

Now, regarding my intelligence.  There's not much that will offend me.  You can call me fat, you can call me ugly, you can insult my mother, and say whatever you want to me.  I am a lot of things, but one thing I am not, in any form, is stupid.  And I get extremely hostile when people call me stupid.  I don't care if you're joking, I do not enjoy having my intelligence insulted.  Especially when I said nothing that justifies being called stupid.

Sorry, I disagree.  Your reliance on profanity when you can't think of anything inteligent to say speaks volumes of your "intelligence".  Now please respond to this post with your usual profanity to prove the point...


Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Lindsey on August 16, 2005, 11:51:46 PM
"Profanity" is just words.  Why is one word more significant than another?  Book is a four letter word.  For crying out loud...word is a four letter word.

Just because I don't agree with you, it doesn't mean I'm stupid.  And I don't see how "profanity" reflects on anybody's intelligence.  Not just my own.  Once again, they're just WORDS.  Who are you to dictate to me what is right and what is wrong?

I know I'm highly intelligent, and I don't need you to let me know otherwise.  I know I think your ideas and beliefs are wrong.  Big deal.  People disagree.  Open your mind and deal with it.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 17, 2005, 12:09:20 AM
God, religion... is all guesses.  And not even good ones at that. Religion is a tool used to control people. To keep them down. Religion in many ways is far worse than government. Government just points a gun at me. Religion claims that it will keep a gun pointed at me, even after I am worm food.

Religion has started more wars than anything else on the planet. Religion is responsible for more murder and hatred that ANYTHING ELSE.... EVER.

Religion is EVIL.

You are an idiot for believing in this crap. The fact that you have been duped by some ruler from 2000+ years ago makes me laugh. I would pity you... if it wasn't so funny.

You mistake the actions of Men (real flesh and blood people) for religions.  Religions are no more "real" than the fiction USA that certain men use as an excuse to apply force to their fellow man.  Religions are also "fictions" existing only in the mind of those who promote their imagined greatness.  I do not believe in any religion.  I do however believe that someone Created me and it is in this Creator I offer myself as servant.  I struggle to understand what he wants me to do to serve him, but I use what I believe are "clues" that He left for man to discover in both nature and in the writings of other men who have explored this subject in the past (or even the present.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: dead_hobbit on August 17, 2005, 02:07:34 AM
"Profanity" is just words.  Why is one word more significant than another?  Book is a four letter word.  For crying out loud...word is a four letter word.

Most people don't know it, but God's name (according to the bible) is also a four-letter word!
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on August 17, 2005, 02:11:35 AM
Using Gawd to formulate an anarchist manifesto I sorta get the image of the Anabaptists[Menonites and Amish] wearing black clothes with red armbands, armed with sickles and old patent leather bibles...  :P

Sorry, but I'm an evil minarchist I prefer private 'government' over a State regime, but it's not anarchy, it's just private voluntary association. o_O

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on August 17, 2005, 03:20:42 AM
^ This chick is fucking awesome! ^
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Lupus on August 17, 2005, 10:28:23 AM
"Religion is evil"... are you really this bigoted? That's like saying all blacks are evil, shopping is evil or drinking is evil.  No, none of those things are evil.  It is evil to abuse those things, yes... quite another story.

Religion was created by man for 2 purposes:
1: To control people, through force. Controlling peple through force is something that I consider breaking my golden rule, and thus evil in my book.

2: To lie to people about the origins of the world. I also find lieing to people conrary to my golden rule. Therefore lieing to people is evil in my book.

You argument is flawed. Religion was created by man, man has the choice to participate in religion. The Black people were born black, and can't change it. Therefore my argument is NOTHING like saying blacks are evil.  Are you suggesting that black people were created solely for the purpose of controlling other people through force?

Quote
And as for the tired line, "well look at the wars caused by religion"... please... I've had to report this fact on this BBS umpteen times on here before, and I don't mind I suppose, you are indeed new, so I understand you haven't seen it.

You want to talk about wars?  How about all the wars/murder caused by totalitarian, dictatorial, atheistic psychotics such as Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler (who hated Christianity), Mao (also hated Christianity), Hussein, Kim Jong Ill... These are all men who just in this past century murdered 10's and 10's of millions of christians, gays, minorities or any kind of dissenter.  None of these were Christian (although Hitler was apparently religious b/c of his love of the new age movement).
Regardless, all these men killed more in the name of a secular, collectivist, self-absorbed belief that some people are less-human than others.  Clearly they were all opposed to religion (except for maybe Hitler's brand of new ageism) but all definitely had great hatred toward anyone who was remotely Xian.

Hitler in particular makes my point.  Hitler killed for religious reason. Therefore religion was the root cause of WWII thus furthering my point that religion is inheriently evil and dangerous.

And I suppose saying wars may have been a bit presumptious. Conflict may be a better word. Terrorists, abortion bombers... the crusades are a few religious based wars.  I think a good portion of the problems in Africa can be traced back to religion.


Quote
Furthermore, that shows the problem w/ your belief that we have no rights; this is the cornerstone of collectivism.  It states that any group can suffer or even die for the "greater good".  

Therefore, given the expendable nature that collectivism puts on humans, I believe if anyone wants true freedom they must first abide by the law that we are all equal. That doesn't mean we all deserve the same luxuries in life - we reap what we sew - it simply means we all have the right not to have anyone else infringe on ourselves or our property.

Democracy/Collectivism is oppressive.  Individualism is the way to a more freer and wealthier society.

Just because I don't think you have any RIGHTS given to you by some invisible man, doesn't mean I'm a collectivist. In fact quite the opposite. I agree that what people call rights should be given to people. But you must understand these so called rights are given and taken away from individuals by society. Not some mystical invisible man.

If there were given to me by some invisible man, why doesn't he come down and enforce it when man takes them away from me?  This is one layer of proof against the rights given by god argument.

Christian Anarchist:
Quote
You mistake the actions of Men (real flesh and blood people) for religions.  Religions are no more "real" than the fiction USA that certain men use as an excuse to apply force to their fellow man.  Religions are also "fictions" existing only in the mind of those who promote their imagined greatness.  I do not believe in any religion.  I do however believe that someone Created me and it is in this Creator I offer myself as servant.  I struggle to understand what he wants me to do to serve him, but I use what I believe are "clues" that He left for man to discover in both nature and in the writings of other men who have explored this subject in the past (or even the present.

You label yourself the "Christian" Anarchist. This implies that you follow the christian religion. If your above statement is to be considered true, then you have grossly mislabeled yourself. You should change your name to the CreatorBelievingAnarchist. Also, this entire thread was started on your basing your argument on how the christian religion combined with anarchy is the only sensable answer.

You need to make up your mind. If we are to have an engaging debate, your are going to have to decide what you believe, and then be consistent about it.

Quote
Sorry, I disagree.  Your reliance on profanity when you can't think of anything inteligent to say speaks volumes of your "intelligence".  Now please respond to this post with your usual profanity to prove the point...

Blah blah blah.... you religious people and your aversion to the combinations of certian sounds. Why does the combinations of some sounds offend you? I have a friend who is a devout catholic. And he also claims the evils of so called profanity. But he goes around using words such as Shiznit, and Biatch.

I would think that was is offensive about the words is the implied meaning. Not the actualy combinations of sounds. But, you religious people rarely make any rational sense... so I dirgress.

I am not inclined to be persuaded by a so called "ChristianAnarchist" on my vocabulary choice. If a "fuck" is appropiate, I will use it. You may think it makes me sound less intellegent, but hey, at least I don't belive in magical invisible people who live in the sky.

To continue this debate... Mr "Christian" (oh wait, that's just Creator Beliver) "Anarchist" (Anarchist, provided noone uses any combinations of sounds that offend you)... let's lay down some base beliefs..

Do you believe in a specific creator... if so... who?
Is this creator omipotent.... does he know everything.. past and future?
Is this creator perfect, or infaliable?  You know.. can do everything, and never makes mistakes?
Is this creator still active, or has be ever been active in the history of the world?

Man.. I love debates with religious people... can we keep this on topic from here on out?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 17, 2005, 04:16:26 PM
"Profanity" is just words.  Why is one word more significant than another?  Book is a four letter word.  For crying out loud...word is a four letter word.

Just because I don't agree with you, it doesn't mean I'm stupid.  And I don't see how "profanity" reflects on anybody's intelligence.  Not just my own.  Once again, they're just WORDS.  Who are you to dictate to me what is right and what is wrong?

I know I'm highly intelligent, and I don't need you to let me know otherwise.  I know I think your ideas and beliefs are wrong.  Big deal.  People disagree.  Open your mind and deal with it.

The reference to you using profanity as an example of ignorance is simply to show that when a response does not enter your mind, you resort to profanity as a release.  It really isn't important what the sylables are, you could use "fizbit" as your "profanity" and it just shows you have no intellegent response.  If you can use profanity and make an intelligent statement which addresses the topic at hand, go for it - it's a free country (at least some think so).
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 17, 2005, 04:20:36 PM
Using Gawd to formulate an anarchist manifesto I sorta get the image of the Anabaptists[Menonites and Amish] wearing black clothes with red armbands, armed with sickles and old patent leather bibles...  :P

Sorry, but I'm an evil minarchist I prefer private 'government' over a State regime, but it's not anarchy, it's just private voluntary association. o_O

-- Bridget

Sorry to break your bubble, but so do I... But I also believe in Christ.  If you don't want to believe, that's fine, politically it sounds like we are in agreement.  I would even go farther as an anarchist, and state that the only "governent" that is legitimate is my own ruling over myself.  If you try to impose your minarchist "government on me, I will resist.


Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 17, 2005, 04:31:28 PM

You label yourself the "Christian" Anarchist. This implies that you follow the christian religion. If your above statement is to be considered true, then you have grossly mislabeled yourself. You should change your name to the CreatorBelievingAnarchist. Also, this entire thread was started on your basing your argument on how the christian religion combined with anarchy is the only sensable answer.

You need to make up your mind. If we are to have an engaging debate, your are going to have to decide what you believe, and then be consistent about it.
ve debates with religious people... can we keep this on topic from here on out?

You misunderstand my position.  I call myself "Christian" as I believe in Christ as God made flesh.  I disagree with pretty much everyone on what that exactly means and if you want to know more you can look at my blog site as I'm sure most here don't want to hear it (but I will follow up if there is interest).  I call myself "anarchist" as I hold the belief that no "fiction USA" or any other government created by man can have any legitimate authority over me (don't confuse "force" with "authority").  If you still think I'm inconsistant, please show me where.  I have never told others that they have to live by "my" rules, whatever they are (since I've never disclosed them here).  I have stated that I have a belief in a Creator who became flesh in the form of a man 2000 years ago who went by the names usually associated with "Christian".  If you choose not to believe as I do, I certainly don't intend to force you to.  I also will say whatever I want to say as I believe that one cannot be injured by "words" so what I say cannot hurt you.  I also expect you to say whatever you want to say and certainly would do nothing to prevent you from it.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Lupus on August 17, 2005, 04:45:35 PM
You misunderstand my position.  I call myself "Christian" as I believe in Christ as God made flesh.  I disagree with pretty much everyone on what that exactly means and if you want to know more you can look at my blog site as I'm sure most here don't want to hear it (but I will follow up if there is interest).  I call myself "anarchist" as I hold the belief that no "fiction USA" or any other government created by man can have any legitimate authority over me (don't confuse "force" with "authority").  If you still think I'm inconsistant, please show me where.  I have never told others that they have to live by "my" rules, whatever they are (since I've never disclosed them here).  I have stated that I have a belief in a Creator who became flesh in the form of a man 2000 years ago who went by the names usually associated with "Christian".  If you choose not to believe as I do, I certainly don't intend to force you to.  I also will say whatever I want to say as I believe that one cannot be injured by "words" so what I say cannot hurt you.  I also expect you to say whatever you want to say and certainly would do nothing to prevent you from it.

I don't want to get into a symantic debate about what "Christian" means.  But the term usually is used to define association with one of the many christian churches. I read your use the term "Christian" as misleading to people. Saying your christian brings a lot of preconcieved notions about you.

When you claim that you are christian I assume you belive in the god as depicted by the modern day king james bible, and all of the conventions that come along with that.

Unless you are more specific as to your beliefs cocerning religion, it will be impossilbe to debate, as any point I make you will just say.. "Oh *I* don't belive that... sure EVERY other 'christian does' but in *my* case it's not true". This all sounds like a cop out to me... your christian but you don't follow the church.. your christian but you interpet the dogma differently that everyone else. Sounds to me like you just want the power of the lable, when in fact it does not represent you or your beliefs. You attached this label to yourself. I did not give it to you.

I stand by my claim, that you would be better named CreatorBelieverAnarchist.

So... explain your beliefs... it would likely be more helpful if you describe the differences in your belief as oppsed to every other Christian out there, then at least I'll be able to debunk something that you claim.

I won't argue with you politically, because I thinkw e would agree on many issues.  But I do find it odd, that a man so committed to freedom would shackle himself with archaic believes of mystical dieties. When it comes to freedom, nothing is more restrictive, repressive, or troublesome than the idea of religion and invisible men living in the sky.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: dead_hobbit on August 17, 2005, 05:27:07 PM
^ This chick is fucking awesome! ^

Word
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 17, 2005, 05:52:18 PM

So... explain your beliefs... it would likely be more helpful if you describe the differences in your belief as oppsed to every other Christian out there, then at least I'll be able to debunk something that you claim.

I won't argue with you politically, because I thinkw e would agree on many issues.  But I do find it odd, that a man so committed to freedom would shackle himself with archaic believes of mystical dieties. When it comes to freedom, nothing is more restrictive, repressive, or troublesome than the idea of religion and invisible men living in the sky.

Gladly.  I maintain that the term "Christian" is exactly what I am.  I do indeed get most of my "doctrine" from the King James version of what is called "the Bible".  I agree with many things of what one calls the "churches" today but that term is also misused.  Christ used the term "church" to refer to his followers.  Therefore, I am a member of his "church".  The greatest ideals of what we call the fiction USA were popularized by this belief in Christ as He came to redeem all mankind from the path of destruction "they" had been on.  His love was great in that He laid down His life as a sacrifice for the sins of all, thereby making us EQUAL to Him in the eyes (figuratively) of the Creator.  Such love and EQUALITY are what some old guys about 235? years ago were trying to set up as a fictious government where all men would be soverign and equal.  The "great experiment" that was the fiction USA was in the shared soverign-ity of the equal members of society.  As creators of this government, it was to be their servant as they were servants of their creator.  If not servants, they certainly recognized the superior nature of the Creator.  This master-servant relationship was to be duplicated in the great experiment.  I believe the relationship went as planned for about 3 minutes.  The founding documents recognized the right of the People to keep and bear arms for the sole purpose of throwing off any goverment infringment, but then one of the first things to be passed by congress was the anti-sedition act.  Now as to my belief being restrictive, it is quite the opposite.  As I see man burdened down with sin there is nothing more liberating that to be allowed by ones Creator to share in His vision of what should be.  I am the first one to admit that I don't know all that He has for me to learn, but I'm trying.  There have been many times when I thought I had something figured out only to have to re-think the position later in life and come to what may be an opposite view.  The most liberating aspect of this belief in a merciful God is that even if I get it wrong, I don't have to be too concerned as He will take care of it in the end.  Call it a cop-out if you will, but since we are all so fallible and imperfect, I'll stick with this belief untill I believe He leads me in a different direction.  One thing I know for certain is that the gov did NOT create me so I certainly won't worship them as most of the people are doing lately.  Other men did NOT create me so I will not acknowledge them as having lordship over me either.  As far as the authority of any "Church", that is a voluntary thing that you can opt out of at any time.  You CHOOSE to belong to a church and you can just as easily choose to not belong.  How much more freedom could you have?  No one tells me what to do.  I voluntarilly agree with God to follow what I believe to be His laws and if I should "offend", He is not only my Judge, but my Counsellor as well.  Better than in the fiction USA courts where your "judge" is your "prosecutor" as well.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Lindsey on August 17, 2005, 07:16:48 PM
"Profanity" is just words.  Why is one word more significant than another?  Book is a four letter word.  For crying out loud...word is a four letter word.

Just because I don't agree with you, it doesn't mean I'm stupid.  And I don't see how "profanity" reflects on anybody's intelligence.  Not just my own.  Once again, they're just WORDS.  Who are you to dictate to me what is right and what is wrong?

I know I'm highly intelligent, and I don't need you to let me know otherwise.  I know I think your ideas and beliefs are wrong.  Big deal.  People disagree.  Open your mind and deal with it.

I could stick the word fuck into Einstein's theory of relativity, and that wouldn't make it any less of what it is.  And by the way, it's spelled syllable.
The reference to you using profanity as an example of ignorance is simply to show that when a response does not enter your mind, you resort to profanity as a release.  It really isn't important what the sylables are, you could use "fizbit" as your "profanity" and it just shows you have no intellegent response.  If you can use profanity and make an intelligent statement which addresses the topic at hand, go for it - it's a free country (at least some think so).

Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on August 18, 2005, 10:28:37 AM
"Religion is evil"... are you really this bigoted? That's like saying all blacks are evil, shopping is evil or drinking is evil.  No, none of those things are evil.  It is evil to abuse those things, yes... quite another story.

Religion was created by man for 2 purposes:
1: To control people, through force. Controlling peple through force is something that I consider breaking my golden rule, and thus evil in my book.

2: To lie to people about the origins of the world. I also find lieing to people conrary to my golden rule. Therefore lieing to people is evil in my book.

Ok, well, if you think it's a big conspiracy - then I really doubt I'll be able to convince you otherwise.  But from my experiences (ie- church attendance/talking to really religious people) that is not the case.
And also you talking about lying... again, how about all those secular dictators who killed 10's of millions of ppl based on a lie (ie- there is a lesser race).  Clearly, (if you want to talk the numbers game) most deaths were caused by the egocentric, selfish, secular idea that one person is somehow less than another.
And what is this? You know 100% about the origins of the world huh? Please prove it. (rhetorical question). You can't.  No one can, actually...and no, let's not talk about the genesis of the world, as we all just finished a huge discussion in another room.

Quote
You argument is flawed. Religion was created by man, man has the choice to participate in religion. The Black people were born black, and can't change it. Therefore my argument is NOTHING like saying blacks are evil.  Are you suggesting that black people were created solely for the purpose of controlling other people through force?
Actually no, yours is... Ok, let me clarify here, when I am talking about religion, I am talking specifically about Xianity (and sometimes, even more specifically Catholicism I will specify though).  You completely missed my point - you said that religion in and of itself is evil.  I say that's like labelling anything evil.  Again, I am talking about Xianity... by itself, it is just an idea, but it's when people act on it that you can only even begin to decide whether it's good or evil.  The very basis of Xianity is to love your neighbour as your yourself.  No where is it a tenet of the faith to kill, harm or otherwise force people to do what you please.  We all have free will, and it's quite immoral (and pointless) to try and get someone to believe something through force.
And what the hell is this about blacks?? No, I'm saying that: It is wrong to prejudge and assume all blacks are evil. (ie- racism)... pay attention now.  B/c you ignorantly labelled all religions as evil... yes, some indeed are (ie- Hitler's).  But stop lumping other legitimate, moral ones under that same umbrella.  That is simply ignorant and bigoted.

Quote
Hitler in particular makes my point.  Hitler killed for religious reason. Therefore religion was the root cause of WWII thus furthering my point that religion is inheriently evil and dangerous.

And I suppose saying wars may have been a bit presumptious. Conflict may be a better word. Terrorists, abortion bombers... the crusades are a few religious based wars.  I think a good portion of the problems in Africa can be traced back to religion.
I question whether you knew if Hitler was even "religious" - had it not been my point of bringing that up.  Do you also realize that Hilter was raised by Catholic parents, but then for whatever reason, got sucked into some brand of new ageism, and at the peak of his terrorism also targeted Catholics as much as Jews.  I've already said some religions are evil.  I simply can't believe that someone could be so ignorant to call all religions evil, b/c this clearly is not the case, at all. 
How convenient, you simply glaze over all the other examples of dictators whose evils were based on a very secular, selfish brand of egocentrism and hate.
The Crusades paled in comparison (numbers wise) to the 10's of millions of victims killed by these sadistic killers in a fraction of the time.  It's sad you simply focus on the smaller, more distant atrocities to base your views.
Also, on the subject of WWII, I would like to point out this fact - that Xianity (specifically, Catholicism) was one of the greatest (if not the greatest) heroes at the time:
In his meticulously researched 1967 book "Three Popes and the Jews," Israeli historian and diplomat Pinchas Lapide concludes that the Vatican under Pius XII "was instrumental in saving at least 700,000, but probably as many as 860,000 Jews from certain death at Nazi hands"— more than all other rescue organizations combined.


Quote
Furthermore, that shows the problem w/ your belief that we have no rights; this is the cornerstone of collectivism.  It states that any group can suffer or even die for the "greater good". 

Therefore, given the expendable nature that collectivism puts on humans, I believe if anyone wants true freedom they must first abide by the law that we are all equal. That doesn't mean we all deserve the same luxuries in life - we reap what we sew - it simply means we all have the right not to have anyone else infringe on ourselves or our property.

Democracy/Collectivism is oppressive.  Individualism is the way to a more freer and wealthier society.

Just because I don't think you have any RIGHTS given to you by some invisible man, doesn't mean I'm a collectivist. In fact quite the opposite. I agree that what people call rights should be given to people. But you must understand these so called rights are given and taken away from individuals by society. Not some mystical invisible man.

If there were given to me by some invisible man, why doesn't he come down and enforce it when man takes them away from me?  This is one layer of proof against the rights given by god argument.
Quote

Actually, there are many atheists who believe we, as humans, have inherent rights.
Either you believe rights are intrinsic (you are born w/ them) or extrinsic (you earn them/they are given to you by the gov't).  I say, (along w/ many secular individualists) that rights are intrinsic.  We believe that there's something inherently wrong w/ extrinsic rights, b/c if the gov't can give them to you, it can also take them away.  That was also the belief of the worst dictators of our time - that rights were imaginary and relative.
Once you start believing that rights are intrinsic - and granted by no one - can you start to believe in a truly just and free society.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 19, 2005, 12:19:47 AM

Just because I don't think you have any RIGHTS given to you by some invisible man, doesn't mean I'm a collectivist. In fact quite the opposite. I agree that what people call rights should be given to people. But you must understand these so called rights are given and taken away from individuals by society. Not some mystical invisible man.

If there were given to me by some invisible man, why doesn't he come down and enforce it when man takes them away from me?  This is one layer of proof against the rights given by god argument.

Actually, there are many atheists who believe we, as humans, have inherent rights.
Either you believe rights are intrinsic (you are born w/ them) or extrinsic (you earn them/they are given to you by the gov't).  I say, (along w/ many secular individualists) that rights are intrinsic.  We believe that there's something inherently wrong w/ extrinsic rights, b/c if the gov't can give them to you, it can also take them away.  That was also the belief of the worst dictators of our time - that rights were imaginary and relative.
Once you start believing that rights are intrinsic - and granted by no one - can you start to believe in a truly just and free society.


Of course if we attribute the origin of rights to society, then society can easily take them away.  If I'm black, and society again creeps into a slavery mode, then I'm going to disagree with any in "society" who want to make me a slave.  I would be justified to use lethal force to protect my rights.  If the rights come from society, I would be wrong in resisting as society granted my right in the first place and is justified in taking it away...

Quote
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on August 19, 2005, 08:10:38 PM

Of course if we attribute the origin of rights to society, then society can easily take them away.  If I'm black, and society again creeps into a slavery mode, then I'm going to disagree with any in "society" who want to make me a slave.  I would be justified to use lethal force to protect my rights.  If the rights come from society, I would be wrong in resisting as society granted my right in the first place and is justified in taking it away...


Yes, exactly, and that is why it's actually irrelevant whether you can prove the existence of intrinsic rights.  It's more important (and just) to believe such an ideal, b/c as shown, the alternative simply leads to genocide or some other form of harm.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 20, 2005, 08:33:11 AM
Yes, exactly, and that is why it's actually irrelevant whether you can prove the existence of intrinsic rights.  It's more important (and just) to believe such an ideal, b/c as shown, the alternative simply leads to genocide or some other form of harm.


I would offer as "proof" that certian rights are inailienable the simple fact that man possess the ability to retain his rights (by force).  This is not to say that all men have this "ability" as some are crippled or otherwise disabled, but mankind as a whole is created with the ability towards "freethought" and "resistance" to control by others.  I would use this same argument to maintain that animals do not have these same rights as they cannot resist our ability to control them.  If one does not believe in a "Creator" then I guess the "force" part of this argument would explain the inailienable rights origin.  I believe that our "rights" end with our "Creator".  Since he created us and since we cannot resist him by force, He has the right to take our life.  It is another law of nature that cannot be broken.  That which is created is subject to that which created it.  If I create a chair out of wood, I have the right to burn it if I want to.  The chair never has the right to burn me.  If I created a "fiction USA" I have the right to abolish it, the "fiction USA" never has the right to use force against me as it's purpose is to serve it's creator.

Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on August 20, 2005, 08:51:33 AM
Yes, exactly, and that is why it's actually irrelevant whether you can prove the existence of intrinsic rights.  It's more important (and just) to believe such an ideal, b/c as shown, the alternative simply leads to genocide or some other form of harm.


I would offer as "proof" that certian rights are inailienable the simple fact that man possess the ability to retain his rights (by force).  This is not to say that all men have this "ability" as some are crippled or otherwise disabled, but mankind as a whole is created with the ability towards "freethought" and "resistance" to control by others.  I would use this same argument to maintain that animals do not have these same rights as they cannot resist our ability to control them.  If one does not believe in a "Creator" then I guess the "force" part of this argument would explain the inailienable rights origin.  I believe that our "rights" end with our "Creator".  Since he created us and since we cannot resist him by force, He has the right to take our life.  It is another law of nature that cannot be broken.  That which is created is subject to that which created it.  If I create a chair out of wood, I have the right to burn it if I want to.  The chair never has the right to burn me.  If I created a "fiction USA" I have the right to abolish it, the "fiction USA" never has the right to use force against me as it's purpose is to serve it's creator.



Actually, there's a grave error in your judgement that an authority, being a creator or a ruler, makes rights 'right'. It is more correct to state that rights represent moral principles that are objective to each person when it comes to ensuring each person has the capacity to meet their goals/values[with the exception of depraved murderers, rapists, hitlers, and etc]. All you do with 'Christian Anarchism' is push the buck up to 'God' instead of realizing that the authority of control rests with each individual on their own lives, not that of some etheric being floating in the sky making happy happy thoughts. There's only here and now, where the meat meets the metal, thusly our choices are based on what happens in this realm.

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on August 20, 2005, 03:45:54 PM
Bridget is awesome.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 21, 2005, 12:13:04 AM

Actually, there's a grave error in your judgement that an authority, being a creator or a ruler, makes rights 'right'. It is more correct to state that rights represent moral principles that are objective to each person when it comes to ensuring each person has the capacity to meet their goals/values[with the exception of depraved murderers, rapists, hitlers, and etc]. All you do with 'Christian Anarchism' is push the buck up to 'God' instead of realizing that the authority of control rests with each individual on their own lives, not that of some etheric being floating in the sky making happy happy thoughts. There's only here and now, where the meat meets the metal, thusly our choices are based on what happens in this realm.

-- Bridget

I would say that there's an error in your judgement in that if rights represent moral principles that are objective to each person then who gives you the right to determine that there is an "exception" for "depraved murderers, rapists, hitlers, and etc".  After all, in the animal kingdom, rape is the rule, not the exception.  Murder is simply called "survival of the fittest" and hitlers are simply the "dominant male"...

Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on August 21, 2005, 12:59:04 AM
I would say that there's an error in your judgement in that if rights represent moral principles that are objective to each person then who gives you the right to determine that there is an "exception" for "depraved murderers, rapists, hitlers, and etc".  After all, in the animal kingdom, rape is the rule, not the exception.  Murder is simply called "survival of the fittest" and hitlers are simply the "dominant male"...

Quote from: Ayn Rand
"Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where the gun begins."

This quote properly illustrates my view on this issue. But to explain further, I see no morality for those that violate it. If a person seeks to kill me, that person has declared by that s/he is up to be killed in turn. And the list goes on[rape, theft, etc]. When you act outside of morality you are exempt from its protection. It's like breaking a promise or a contract, once you do so you lose all privileges once appended.

Also, to compare human behavior to non-human behavior is actually retarded due to the fact that humans kill for sport, other animals[with the exception of the apes and other sapient animals] do not. Thus by comparing our cruelty to their natural state is actually depriving the non-human animals of this planet of their own roles. Would you call your cat cruel for toying with its prey? How about a dog that picks fights with other dogs? Clearly not since they cannot envision moral principles.

Thus concludes my pwnage of your silly intrinsicist Christian bunkery. :)

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 21, 2005, 10:33:24 AM
I would say that there's an error in your judgement in that if rights represent moral principles that are objective to each person then who gives you the right to determine that there is an "exception" for "depraved murderers, rapists, hitlers, and etc".  After all, in the animal kingdom, rape is the rule, not the exception.  Murder is simply called "survival of the fittest" and hitlers are simply the "dominant male"...

This quote properly illustrates my view on this issue. But to explain further, I see no morality for those that violate it. If a person seeks to kill me, that person has declared by that s/he is up to be killed in turn. And the list goes on[rape, theft, etc]. When you act outside of morality you are exempt from its protection. It's like breaking a promise or a contract, once you do so you lose all privileges once appended.

Also, to compare human behavior to non-human behavior is actually retarded due to the fact that humans kill for sport, other animals[with the exception of the apes and other sapient animals] do not. Thus by comparing our cruelty to their natural state is actually depriving the non-human animals of this planet of their own roles. Would you call your cat cruel for toying with its prey? How about a dog that picks fights with other dogs? Clearly not since they cannot envision moral principles.

Thus concludes my pwnage of your silly intrinsicist Christian bunkery. :)

-- Bridget

But you say that "rights represent moral principles that are objective to each person" but then you follow that with "exceptions".  Who get to make this list of "exceptions"?  The Aztecs thought it was "moral" and even a blessing to offer their children as sacrifices to their gods.  Today we call this infantcide/murder but then it was a good thing.  I agree with you that there are "exceptions" but the list was made long ago by our Creator.  We do not have the "authority" to make nor alter such a list and then impose it upon others.  The "authority" comes from the "Creator" just as our "authority" over our gov comes from that fact that we are the posterity of those who were the "creators" of it.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on August 21, 2005, 02:38:26 PM
But you say that "rights represent moral principles that are objective to each person" but then you follow that with "exceptions". Who get to make this list of "exceptions"?  The Aztecs thought it was "moral" and even a blessing to offer their children as sacrifices to their gods.
Actually, they offered other tribes' own children as offerings, thus clearly showing the evil of the act. Try again.

Quote
I agree with you that there are "exceptions" but the list was made long ago by our Creator.
You have to prove the Creator first to make the Creator a valid option. You have not done so.

Quote
We do not have the "authority" to make nor alter such a list and then impose it upon others.  The "authority" comes from the "Creator" just as our "authority" over our gov comes from that fact that we are the posterity of those who were the "creators" of it.

Fallacy, you haven't proven the Creator's own existence or the necessity of a Creator. Therefore, any other conclusions in themselves are based on false premises can be thrown out. Also, you claiming to be an ANARCHIST yet claiming the AUTHORITY of the CREATOR is what makes the 'rules.' You can't do that for two simple reasons. Anarchism comes from the idea that there is no ARCHONS[Rulers/kings/etc], therefore by calling Creator an 'Authority' you made him an ARCHON, thus you are NOT AN ANARCHIST. You are simply a Divine Right Stater, get over it. You sit the authority of governance in the hands of an INVISIBLE HANK. Which you have no proof, and no right to declare a special 'conduice.'

So please reassess your premises and TRY AGAIN.

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 21, 2005, 06:10:52 PM
But you say that "rights represent moral principles that are objective to each person" but then you follow that with "exceptions". Who get to make this list of "exceptions"?  The Aztecs thought it was "moral" and even a blessing to offer their children as sacrifices to their gods.
Actually, they offered other tribes' own children as offerings, thus clearly showing the evil of the act. Try again.


I understood they sacrificed children from members of the tribe, but I don't have research to prove it so let's assume then that it's O.K. to sacrifice other peoples children...

Quote
Quote
I agree with you that there are "exceptions" but the list was made long ago by our Creator.
You have to prove the Creator first to make the Creator a valid option. You have not done so.

I only have to "prove" His existance to me since I am only taking the position that I recognize His authority.  If you don't want to acknowledge Him, that's up to you.

Quote
Quote
We do not have the "authority" to make nor alter such a list and then impose it upon others.  The "authority" comes from the "Creator" just as our "authority" over our gov comes from that fact that we are the posterity of those who were the "creators" of it.

Fallacy, you haven't proven the Creator's own existence or the necessity of a Creator. Therefore, any other conclusions in themselves are based on false premises can be thrown out. Also, you claiming to be an ANARCHIST yet claiming the AUTHORITY of the CREATOR is what makes the 'rules.' You can't do that for two simple reasons. Anarchism comes from the idea that there is no ARCHONS[Rulers/kings/etc], therefore by calling Creator an 'Authority' you made him an ARCHON, thus you are NOT AN ANARCHIST. You are simply a Divine Right Stater, get over it. You sit the authority of governance in the hands of an INVISIBLE HANK. Which you have no proof, and no right to declare a special 'conduice.'

So please reassess your premises and TRY AGAIN.

-- Bridget

Again, I only have to make the decision for myself.  You get to make the decision for yourself.  That's anarchy as their is no earthly ruler, king, etc.  You live your life as you see fit, I live mine.  If you cross me in some way, I deal with it by whatever set of "rules" I see fit.  If I cross you in some way, you would deal with me by whatever set of "rules" you see fit.  Perfect anarchy.  This is reality anyway.  As I've pointed out in the past, everyone runs by their own set of rules anyway.  If the gov tells you to do something, you weigh the option of "obeying" some stupid rule that you know is bunk (drug war anyone?) or taking on the beast.  If it's 3 a.m. and you come to a 4 way stop in the middle of nowhere with unobstructed view in all directions revealing that there is no cars approaching, do you stop anyway??  If so, why?  Also, if a Jeffery Dalmer has his way with your loved one, do you "do the right thing" and let him live another 20 years while the fiction USA or fiction State deals with him or do you take an oportunity to "make him dissapear" like Jimmy Hoffa?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on August 21, 2005, 06:18:26 PM
I understood they sacrificed children from members of the tribe, but I don't have research to prove it so let's assume then that it's O.K. to sacrifice other peoples children...
Fallacy yet again. I never stated that child sacrafice let alone human sacrafice was moral. It causes harm for the sake of others therefore it is objectively immoral. Causing harm against another's will in a situation where another has caused no harm in turn is immoral. It's very simple, you should try to read some of Ayn Rand's points on objective morality, it clarifies it fully.

Quote
I only have to "prove" His existance to me since I am only taking the position that I recognize His authority.  If you don't want to acknowledge Him, that's up to you.

Again, you have to prove God exists. Nature is Absolute and Immutable, thus no need for a God or Creator. You need to prove the affirmative of a Creator or simply admit you are assuming a belief, not a fact.

Quote
Again, I only have to make the decision for myself.  You get to make the decision for yourself.  That's anarchy as their is no earthly ruler, king, etc.  You live your life as you see fit, I live mine.  If you cross me in some way, I deal with it by whatever set of "rules" I see fit.  If I cross you in some way, you would deal with me by whatever set of "rules" you see fit.  Perfect anarchy.  This is reality anyway.  As I've pointed out in the past, everyone runs by their own set of rules anyway.  If the gov tells you to do something, you weigh the option of "obeying" some stupid rule that you know is bunk (drug war anyone?) or taking on the beast.  If it's 3 a.m. and you come to a 4 way stop in the middle of nowhere with unobstructed view in all directions revealing that there is no cars approaching, do you stop anyway??  If so, why?  Also, if a Jeffery Dalmer has his way with your loved one, do you "do the right thing" and let him live another 20 years while the fiction USA or fiction State deals with him or do you take an oportunity to "make him dissapear" like Jimmy Hoffa?

And the State can declare itself arbiter of God by your reasoning, especially if a proven prophet[see Old Testiment/Torah for proofs of a prophet. I believe... Deuteronomy.]. Hegel proved that the State can become God's Image on earth by virtue of its 'necessity' to exist; that each person is a 'sinner' and thus needs 'God' to keep them 'in line.' Declaring yourself a Christian Anarchist doesn't mean each idealogy is logically consistent. You must prove it is.

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 21, 2005, 08:30:01 PM
I understood they sacrificed children from members of the tribe, but I don't have research to prove it so let's assume then that it's O.K. to sacrifice other peoples children...
Fallacy yet again. I never stated that child sacrafice let alone human sacrafice was moral. It causes harm for the sake of others therefore it is objectively immoral. Causing harm against another's will in a situation where another has caused no harm in turn is immoral. It's very simple, you should try to read some of Ayn Rand's points on objective morality, it clarifies it fully.

Not fallacy at all.  The point was that you stated rights are related to morality in some way.  I pointed out that it was moral in some society to kill babies.  I never stated nor do I believe that you think it is.  "Stay on target... stay on target !!!).


Quote
Quote
I only have to "prove" His existance to me since I am only taking the position that I recognize His authority.  If you don't want to acknowledge Him, that's up to you.

Again, you have to prove God exists. Nature is Absolute and Immutable, thus no need for a God or Creator. You need to prove the affirmative of a Creator or simply admit you are assuming a belief, not a fact.


Again, I have to do no such thing.  I'm not trying to prove to you that God exists.  If you seek Him you will find Him.  I believe He does so that's my position.  I also believe that we are here on good old planet earth.  Existential thinking would deny both.


Quote
Quote
Again, I only have to make the decision for myself.  You get to make the decision for yourself.  That's anarchy as their is no earthly ruler, king, etc.  You live your life as you see fit, I live mine.  If you cross me in some way, I deal with it by whatever set of "rules" I see fit.  If I cross you in some way, you would deal with me by whatever set of "rules" you see fit.  Perfect anarchy.  This is reality anyway.  As I've pointed out in the past, everyone runs by their own set of rules anyway.  If the gov tells you to do something, you weigh the option of "obeying" some stupid rule that you know is bunk (drug war anyone?) or taking on the beast.  If it's 3 a.m. and you come to a 4 way stop in the middle of nowhere with unobstructed view in all directions revealing that there is no cars approaching, do you stop anyway??  If so, why?  Also, if a Jeffery Dalmer has his way with your loved one, do you "do the right thing" and let him live another 20 years while the fiction USA or fiction State deals with him or do you take an oportunity to "make him dissapear" like Jimmy Hoffa?

And the State can declare itself arbiter of God by your reasoning, especially if a proven prophet[see Old Testiment/Torah for proofs of a prophet. I believe... Deuteronomy.]. Hegel proved that the State can become God's Image on earth by virtue of its 'necessity' to exist; that each person is a 'sinner' and thus needs 'God' to keep them 'in line.' Declaring yourself a Christian Anarchist doesn't mean each idealogy is logically consistent. You must prove it is.

-- Bridget

How can a fiction "declare" anything??  There are certian men in black robes who claim to represent this fiction who can declare anything they want but that doesn't make it so.  There are other men who claim to be my "representitives" although I have never met them who write things down on paper and claim they are "law", whatever that is, but again, so what? 

Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on August 21, 2005, 08:41:26 PM
I understood they sacrificed children from members of the tribe, but I don't have research to prove it so let's assume then that it's O.K. to sacrifice other peoples children...
Fallacy yet again. I never stated that child sacrafice let alone human sacrafice was moral. It causes harm for the sake of others therefore it is objectively immoral. Causing harm against another's will in a situation where another has caused no harm in turn is immoral. It's very simple, you should try to read some of Ayn Rand's points on objective morality, it clarifies it fully.

Not fallacy at all.  The point was that you stated rights are related to morality in some way.  I pointed out that it was moral in some society to kill babies.  I never stated nor do I believe that you think it is.  "Stay on target... stay on target !!!).
I am on target, you just lost by virtue of the fact you have not validated how rights are not moral principles. :) So prove it don't say it.


Quote
Again, I have to do no such thing.  I'm not trying to prove to you that God exists.  If you seek Him you will find Him.  I believe He does so that's my position.  I also believe that we are here on good old planet earth.  Existential thinking would deny both.
Ummm what the heck does Existentialism have to do with an objective basis for morality, rights, and self-governance? NONE. And what does it have to do with God? Nothing.

Obfuscation won't be tolerated by me. If you can't prove God's existence then the rest of your argument FAILS. It's that simple.

Here I'll illustrate it for you.

A1) God exists.
A2) God's power/authority is absolute.
A3) Man's power/authority is relative.
Conclusion: Only God has authority, and Mankind has no authority amongst itself.

Problem A1 is Pre-supposed to be a true axiom, and a truism in general. A1 cannot be validated like most axioms but it states nothing as to why A3[The relative authority of Man] is true. It simply is mental window dressing that doesn't validate anarchistic thinking. You must explain WHY GOD and WHY ANARCHISM. Without an explanation, you're basically bullcrapping the board into your belief. You're starting to sound like Gene Ray from Time Cube.

Again, I demand you EXPLAIN WHY GOD and WHY ANARCHISM is RELATED TO GOD. If you cannot, RETRACT YOUR STATEMENTS AND ADMIT YOU HAVE FAILED.

Quote
How can a fiction "declare" anything??  There are certian men in black robes who claim to represent this fiction who can declare anything they want but that doesn't make it so.  There are other men who claim to be my "representitives" although I have never met them who write things down on paper and claim they are "law", whatever that is, but again, so what?
Obfuscation! You are evading the point which was made. That any MAN that declares himself THE VOICE OF GOD becomes an AUTHORITY ON EARTH for ALL MEN, if that MAN can PROVE that HE IS THE VOICE OF GOD through...PROPHECY as ACCORDED IN THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. If you claim to be a Christian you must SUBMIT TO THE DOCTRINE, otherwise YOU ARE A HERETIC, period and end of story!

So please READ what I POST before ASSuming more PRESUPPOSITIONAL BULLCRAP. Okay? Think, don't react, THINK.

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Yamguy on August 21, 2005, 10:10:48 PM
Bridget just pwned the christian anarchist.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 22, 2005, 12:12:07 AM

(snip)
(paraphrase)
(A great deal of run-around logic claiming that I must either prove that God exists or disprove that rights are not moral principles...)

-- Bridget

As I have stated, I don't need to "prove" God's existance and indeed we both know that it is an impossibility just as it is an impossibility to prove that He doesn't exist.  Indeed, you are the one making claims here so I ask you to prove your statements. 

A.  Prove God does not exist.
B.  Prove that rights are moral principals.

Don't waste time with this ping-pong.  You are the one with the statement that rights are moral principals.  I won't even ask that you prove A because we all know that such is not possible just as proving God's existance is also not possible so lets not waste time. 

I stated a "law of nature" that a creator is always greater than it's creation and gave examples to support this law.  If you have examples that prove that a "creation" can be greater than it's "creator" then put it forth.  I'm listening.

Also, what I have put forth by starting this thread is a discussion about what I believe.  I don't expect to convince anyone who doesn't want to believe but I do hope to get people thinking about the subject.

I never claimed to be a "prophet" nor the "voice of God" so I don't know how you got that far off topic but I will explain to you that I don't claim to be either.  I have shared what I believe.  I have made it quite clear what my points are.  If you are looking for "proof" you are wasting time in a discussion group.  All of my previous posts are there for you to study and if you find that I made such claims, please post them here.

Thank you for your participation in this discussion.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Lindsey on August 22, 2005, 12:20:18 AM
Major pwnage.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: bendis on August 22, 2005, 12:23:31 AM
Great exchange.

Stpud question #1:
Do offspring count as creations?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: dead_hobbit on August 22, 2005, 12:36:08 AM
To the Christian Anarchist:

True or False:

Genocide is Immoral.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on August 22, 2005, 05:42:55 AM
I hate religious debates.  You would think that by now, thousands of years later we would have figured out a way to be more tolerant.


Arguing religion is kind of like cheering on a couple of retards at the special olympics.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Tracy Saboe on August 22, 2005, 06:44:46 AM
Is this Gene?

Tracy
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on August 22, 2005, 07:25:31 AM
As I have stated, I don't need to "prove" God's existance and indeed we both know that it is an impossibility just as it is an impossibility to prove that He doesn't exist.  Indeed, you are the one making claims here so I ask you to prove your statements.
Fallacy.... Look up Karl Popper's Falsifiability, it applies to all situations. If God cannot be falsified, therefore it's not a valid assertion. So please stop bsing and admit you have a faith, not a rational assertion.
Quote
A.  Prove God does not exist.
Prove God exists, if you cannot affirm then it is not a valid assertion by virtue of the fact that if one cannot be validated it cannot be invalidated. That makes God in the field of sophistry, and nothing more.

Quote
B.  Prove that rights are moral principals.
Rights are moral principles due to the fact that rights ensure that each person is free from each other; meaning I cannot demand of you what you cannot demand of me making you and me SOVEREIGNS[not citizens].

If God exists then no human is a sovereign at all. In fact, that would make you a Divine State Worshipper, CA, due to the quotations from The Bible declaring Jesus the King of Kings, Lord of Lords, and all that tripe. Furthmore, the Jews called this 'divine kingish' the MONAD[Do a little research before you wrestle with a former Christian, CA, you might find yourself on the intellectual floor picking up your teeth.] and many other 'kingly' names. If I am not a SOVEREIGN, and you are a SOVEREIGN, then NO ONE HAS RIGHTS or moral existence(s). Rand once said that civilization was built on the idea of privacy, and not the public square. That the civilized man is a private man.

If morality holds us not to obligations for others, but for ourselves then rights become the default principle to liberty. Whereas your belief in Invisible Hank makes us all slaves to some Divine Monad that must bow to in this life and the here after.  You must choose your loyalties, CA, you are either loyal to your own life or to the life of Invisible Hank; you can have both, kiddo. :)


Quote
Don't waste time with this ping-pong.  You are the one with the statement that rights are moral principals.  I won't even ask that you prove A because we all know that such is not possible just as proving God's existance is also not possible so lets not waste time.
Then stop ASSuming that God is real as the key premise of your fallacious reasoning. Admit you are wrong, and that you must premise your moral living on the idea that all human beings are SOVEREIGNS with no eternal creators or authorities from the aether.


Quote
I stated a "law of nature" that a creator is always greater than it's creation and gave examples to support this law.  If you have examples that prove that a "creation" can be greater than it's "creator" then put it forth.  I'm listening.
Fallacy again! There are no laws in Nature. 'Laws of Nature' are merely the concepts describing the uniform qualities of specific physical phenomena. Concepts are NOT their CONCRETES, but you wouldn't know that would you?


Quote
I never claimed to be a "prophet" nor the "voice of God" so I don't know how you got that far off topic but I will explain to you that I don't claim to be either.  I have shared what I believe.  I have made it quite clear what my points are.  If you are looking for "proof" you are wasting time in a discussion group.  All of my previous posts are there for you to study and if you find that I made such claims, please post them here.

Thank you for your participation in this discussion.

Ahhhh running away after you been smacked around? How COWARDLY, go away if you can't prove any of your points. You lost, now give me my BJ and no teeth please.

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 22, 2005, 08:39:10 AM
Ahhhh running away after you been smacked around? How COWARDLY, go away if you can't prove any of your points. You lost, now give me my BJ and no teeth please.

-- Bridget

Hardly running away, just thanking you for participating in my discussion.  As to Karl Popper's Falsifiability, he is no more authority than me or you so why do you submit him as though his words or ideas are supreme??  Think for yourself.  You can certainly use the writtings of others to help get the brain cells churning, but his thoughts are no more valid than yours or mine.

I have always admitted that I have faith and not a "rational assertion".  Pay attention to my words and don't read into them what is't there.  "I believe" is what I have said over and over...


"Rights are moral principles due to the fact that rights ensure that each person is free from each other; meaning I cannot demand of you what you cannot demand of me making you and me SOVEREIGNS[not citizens]."  How do you come to such a conclusion??  You say it is because rights ensure that everyone is free but everyone is not free in this world.  Slavery exists in many parts of the globe and even here we are "indentured servants" to our fiction USA through the IRS.

And sorry, but I have stated that I cannot prove God's existance other than the fact of our existance leading one to the conclusion that there is something that created us.  If you want more "proof" try another source.




Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on August 22, 2005, 09:10:33 AM
Hardly running away, just thanking you for participating in my discussion.  As to Karl Popper's Falsifiability, he is no more authority than me or you so why do you submit him as though his words or ideas are supreme??
No, but his ideas are sound. The fact that all assertions are testable makes them real for human reasoning. Those that are not testable, or even have internalized tests, are not regarded as valid. And never are valid by virtue of having no means to test as part of Nature. 
Quote
Think for yourself.  You can certainly use the writtings of others to help get the brain cells churning, but his thoughts are no more valid than yours or mine.
Then by that view all arguments are not valid because what authority to you speak from? None, according to you, and thusly I can say your argument is wrong because you have no valid authority on the subject. But that in itself is a fallacy due to that would not disprove your argument. Yet, I have disproven your argument that Christianity and Anarchy are logical cohorts, by virtue of the facts at hand[being God is a divine king according to all monotheist literature and that Anarchy asserts no rulers(divine or mundane)].

Also, stating that quoting other people of similar minds as not thinking for myself is actually fallacious due to the fact that many arguments can start from a famous quote, or a common truism which were uttered by other people famous and not. The fact of the matter, my quotations and citations prove one thing: proven assertions can be uttered by anyone and thusly verified independently. If you cannot accept the reality that quotation and citation is valid, then maybe you can suck my left nut after you're done with my right because I have nothing to state after this post due to your lack of mental fortitude to follow any reasonable points what-so-ever.




Quote
And sorry, but I have stated that I cannot prove God's existance other than the fact of our existance leading one to the conclusion that there is something that created us.  If you want more "proof" try another source.
Good, then your false Christian brand of Anarchy is not logical. And I would suggest that you study some Praxaeology by Ludwig Von Mises, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand, and Isaac Asimov's books on the Bible before you tangle with me, otherwise you'll keep getting pwned, babe.

Ciao!

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 22, 2005, 10:25:48 AM
Hardly running away, just thanking you for participating in my discussion.  As to Karl Popper's Falsifiability, he is no more authority than me or you so why do you submit him as though his words or ideas are supreme??
No, but his ideas are sound. The fact that all assertions are testable makes them real for human reasoning. Those that are not testable, or even have internalized tests, are not regarded as valid. And never are valid by virtue of having no means to test as part of Nature. 
Quote
Think for yourself.  You can certainly use the writtings of others to help get the brain cells churning, but his thoughts are no more valid than yours or mine.
Then by that view all arguments are not valid because what authority to you speak from? None, according to you, and thusly I can say your argument is wrong because you have no valid authority on the subject. But that in itself is a fallacy due to that would not disprove your argument. Yet, I have disproven your argument that Christianity and Anarchy are logical cohorts, by virtue of the facts at hand[being God is a divine king according to all monotheist literature and that Anarchy asserts no rulers(divine or mundane)].

Also, stating that quoting other people of similar minds as not thinking for myself is actually fallacious due to the fact that many arguments can start from a famous quote, or a common truism which were uttered by other people famous and not. The fact of the matter, my quotations and citations prove one thing: proven assertions can be uttered by anyone and thusly verified independently. If you cannot accept the reality that quotation and citation is valid, then maybe you can suck my left nut after you're done with my right because I have nothing to state after this post due to your lack of mental fortitude to follow any reasonable points what-so-ever.




Quote
And sorry, but I have stated that I cannot prove God's existance other than the fact of our existance leading one to the conclusion that there is something that created us.  If you want more "proof" try another source.
Good, then your false Christian brand of Anarchy is not logical. And I would suggest that you study some Praxaeology by Ludwig Von Mises, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand, and Isaac Asimov's books on the Bible before you tangle with me, otherwise you'll keep getting pwned, babe.

Ciao!

-- Bridget

Look, I have a reference too (whatever good that does) http://www.hccentral.com/eller12/index.html#toc

Read what Eller says about Christian Anarchy and it will explain to you how Anarchy and Christianity go so well together.  You are good at re-directing the issue away from the point at hand (as fully explained in the link above) and trying to make me prove some "authority".  I have none and I acknowledge that.  I also challenge anyone to show me that they have any authority.  You don't have any that I can see.  "W" doesn't have any as far as I'm concerned.  Of course one must be careful and not confuse "force" and "authority".  There are other links on my blog site in the first posted message there if you are interested in "Christian Anarchy".  It is not something I invented although I started using the phrase before I found out others had long before me.

"Many regard Leo Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God is Within You [1] (1894), read alongside the Bible, to be the founding text for Christian anarchism. Tolstoy called for a society based on compassion, nonviolent principles and freedom. Leo Tolstoy's work inspired Mahatma Gandhi's nonviolent resistance movement in the 1930's."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anarchism

(Wow - Tolstoy and Gandhi in the same sentence!!  Must be true!!)


Here are the links from my blog site just to make it easier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anarchism
http://members.aol.com/XianAnarch/homepage.htm
http://www.hccentral.com/eller12/part1.html
http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/ellul/
http://www.answers.com/topic/christian-anarchism
http://christian-anarchist.org/

And no, these people don't have any authority either...
 




Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on August 22, 2005, 10:35:38 AM
Look, I have a reference too (whatever good that does) http://www.hccentral.com/eller12/index.html#toc
Good for you! Now, again how do these links defeat my current argument? How is my understanding of Christian doctrine invalid? Have you even read the Bible? Paul's letters and the Gnostic Gospels? Clearly, the 'framers' of Christiandom were dead set on the idea of a divine kingship or Monad[as the Jews, Gnostics, and Early Christians called it]. The very fact that kingship, rulership, and authority are all referenced within the Bible as qualities of God invalidates any affirmation you may claim for Anarchism. Anarchy is being without ANY RULERS, divine or otherwise. Whether you accept that is of your own concern and not mine. So again, validate how God is not a ruler or king of the Universe; if he exists at all.


-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 22, 2005, 12:40:14 PM
Look, I have a reference too (whatever good that does) http://www.hccentral.com/eller12/index.html#toc
Good for you! Now, again how do these links defeat my current argument? How is my understanding of Christian doctrine invalid? Have you even read the Bible? Paul's letters and the Gnostic Gospels? Clearly, the 'framers' of Christiandom were dead set on the idea of a divine kingship or Monad[as the Jews, Gnostics, and Early Christians called it]. The very fact that kingship, rulership, and authority are all referenced within the Bible as qualities of God invalidates any affirmation you may claim for Anarchism. Anarchy is being without ANY RULERS, divine or otherwise. Whether you accept that is of your own concern and not mine. So again, validate how God is not a ruler or king of the Universe; if he exists at all.


-- Bridget

You may define anarchy as no rulers divine or otherwise, but if you read the links provided, there is reference to another definition of anarchy which is no earthly rulers.  The person uses latin and greek to come up with his definition.  Where do you get your definition of anarchy?  I do not use your definition.  Indeed, how can one define anarchy to include anything other than "peers" as not being their "rulers"?  If you were in the jungles of Africa and a big mean lion came up would you discuss with him whether he rules the jungle or (assuming you are not armed) would you just try to get away?  Anyway, I don't accept your definition of anarchy but it would be nice if you provide a link to your definition.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: dead_hobbit on August 22, 2005, 07:23:20 PM
I hate religious debates.  You would think that by now, thousands of years later we would have figured out a way to be more tolerant.

Arguing religion is kind of like cheering on a couple of retards at the special olympics.

There's nothing wrong with arguing religion, as long as the parties involved aren't at each others throats.

But the same is true of any type of debate, be it politics, religion, or otherwise.

Believe it or not, but I study the Bible daily (whenever possible, in the original language)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Bishop on August 22, 2005, 07:36:55 PM
I hate religious debates.  You would think that by now, thousands of years later we would have figured out a way to be more tolerant.

Arguing religion is kind of like cheering on a couple of retards at the special olympics.

There's nothing wrong with arguing religion, as long as the parties involved aren't at each others throats.

But the same is true of any type of debate, be it politics, religion, or otherwise.

Believe it or not, but I study the Bible daily (whenever possible, in the original language)

I think its much harder to discuss religion on a bbs than in person too.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: dead_hobbit on August 22, 2005, 07:40:48 PM
Yes and No.

I generally do not discuss religion with anyone in "real" life. It has always caused me problems.

However, if you look for them you can find boards where you can discussion religion in a (mostly) friendly context. When the trolls come, I just learn to use the "ignore" button.

My favorite religous discussions are with a Zionist Orthodox Jew in Israel and an interesting Orthodox Christian (American).

I hate religious debates.  You would think that by now, thousands of years later we would have figured out a way to be more tolerant.

Arguing religion is kind of like cheering on a couple of retards at the special olympics.

There's nothing wrong with arguing religion, as long as the parties involved aren't at each others throats.

But the same is true of any type of debate, be it politics, religion, or otherwise.

Believe it or not, but I study the Bible daily (whenever possible, in the original language)

I think its much harder to discuss religion on a bbs than in person too.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Bishop on August 22, 2005, 07:44:33 PM
This is true, and while a bbs gives you more time to formulate a response, in person its much harder, because you must be know what you are talking about without running to google.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: fisher on August 22, 2005, 08:07:05 PM
You lost, now give me my BJ and no teeth please.
So you are a chick with a dick?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Bishop on August 22, 2005, 08:09:22 PM
You lost, now give me my BJ and no teeth please.
So you are a chick with a dick?

In the words of quagmire, pre-op or post-op?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Russ84 on August 22, 2005, 10:50:26 PM
Believe it or not, but I study the Bible daily (whenever possible, in the original language)

Reading right to left, that would turn me into a dyslexic.  :lol:

Question... Why is it when religious Jewish people pray they do that shaking thing?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: dead_hobbit on August 22, 2005, 11:07:51 PM
Believe it or not, but I study the Bible daily (whenever possible, in the original language)

Reading right to left, that would turn me into a dyslexic.  :lol:

Question... Why is it when religious Jewish people pray they do that shaking thing?

To quote JewFaq.org:

"The words barukh and berakhah are both derived from the Hebrew root Bet-Resh-Kaf, meaning "knee," and refer to the practice of showing respect by bending the knee and bowing."

barukh = praised/blessed

berakah = blessing

It was once universal amongst Jewry to practice full prostration (you know, like the Muslims do...), but nowadays it is only practiced (not counting Rosh HaShannah and Yom Kippur) by a very tiny group of "apikorsim" ("heretical" jews)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Russ84 on August 22, 2005, 11:13:15 PM
Oh, ok. Thanks for the explanation. I visited a sinagogue once with a friend who is religious and saw that, but I pussied out on asking.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on August 23, 2005, 07:49:29 AM
Look, I have a reference too (whatever good that does) http://www.hccentral.com/eller12/index.html#toc
Good for you! Now, again how do these links defeat my current argument? How is my understanding of Christian doctrine invalid? Have you even read the Bible? Paul's letters and the Gnostic Gospels? Clearly, the 'framers' of Christiandom were dead set on the idea of a divine kingship or Monad[as the Jews, Gnostics, and Early Christians called it]. The very fact that kingship, rulership, and authority are all referenced within the Bible as qualities of God invalidates any affirmation you may claim for Anarchism. Anarchy is being without ANY RULERS, divine or otherwise. Whether you accept that is of your own concern and not mine. So again, validate how God is not a ruler or king of the Universe; if he exists at all.


-- Bridget

You may define anarchy as no rulers divine or otherwise, but if you read the links provided, there is reference to another definition of anarchy which is no earthly rulers.  The person uses latin and greek to come up with his definition.  Where do you get your definition of anarchy?  I do not use your definition.  Indeed, how can one define anarchy to include anything other than "peers" as not being their "rulers"?  If you were in the jungles of Africa and a big mean lion came up would you discuss with him whether he rules the jungle or (assuming you are not armed) would you just try to get away?  Anyway, I don't accept your definition of anarchy but it would be nice if you provide a link to your definition.

I don't care how others define the word Anarchy. The word has been defined by the Greeks FOR US. So stop being like the Lefties, trying to call yourself 'progressive' when in reality you're just like them: often mistaken. :)

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Lindsey on August 23, 2005, 09:38:13 AM
PWNED.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 23, 2005, 09:55:20 AM

I don't care how others define the word Anarchy. The word has been defined by the Greeks FOR US. So stop being like the Lefties, trying to call yourself 'progressive' when in reality you're just like them: often mistaken. :)

-- Bridget

Sorry, again you make statements but don't back them with anything substantial.  Here's a definition of Anarchy as found in The Encyclopaedia Britannica 1910:  "the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived withouth government -  harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups..."

One such group might be those of us who call themselves "Christians" and one such group might be called "Biker Chicks".  It is unimportant what groups are called, but agreements would be entered into in the interest of self--preservation.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 23, 2005, 10:02:30 AM

You may define anarchy as no rulers divine or otherwise, but if you read the links provided, there is reference to another definition of anarchy which is no earthly rulers.  The person uses latin and greek to come up with his definition.  Where do you get your definition of anarchy?  I do not use your definition.  Indeed, how can one define anarchy to include anything other than "peers" as not being their "rulers"?  If you were in the jungles of Africa and a big mean lion came up would you discuss with him whether he rules the jungle or (assuming you are not armed) would you just try to get away?  Anyway, I don't accept your definition of anarchy but it would be nice if you provide a link to your definition.

I don't care how others define the word Anarchy. The word has been defined by the Greeks FOR US. So stop being like the Lefties, trying to call yourself 'progressive' when in reality you're just like them: often mistaken. :)

-- Bridget
Quote

Oh yeah, here's another definition from http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/dward/classes/Anarchy/finalprojects/flores/anarchy.html. ""Anarchy is any social relationship that involves neither dominance nor submission. It is the absence of social hierarchy, with no one imposing their will on another by force or threat of punishment. Anarchy means "without a ruler", or "without government". Government here is meant in the sense of "governing over" and forcing compliance through coercion. Such order is violent order. Anarchy, by contrast, is inherently cooperative- people relating to one another as equals."

I was unable to find any definition that included "divine" but if you find me one, I'll check it out.

Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 23, 2005, 10:16:01 AM

I don't care how others define the word Anarchy. The word has been defined by the Greeks FOR US. So stop being like the Lefties, trying to call yourself 'progressive' when in reality you're just like them: often mistaken. :)

-- Bridget

Man, I should have done this long ago, the definitions just keep coming.  Here's a link to some research on the subject (O.K. I'll just paste it here so you won't have to click the link) http://www.anarchismsite.com/

Anarchy is derived from a Greek root “archos”, which means ‘ruler”, “chief” or “authority” and the prefix “an” meaning “not”. In essence, anarchy is “no ruler”, “no authority”. It can be said “contrary to authority” as Peter Kroptokin defined it.

There is also another school of thought attributed to Benjamin Tucker, which defines anarchy as “not necessarily absence of order, as is generally supposed, but an absence of rule.” 

Merriam Webster Dictionary describes: 

Anarchism as:

Date: 1642

1: a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups

2: the advocacy or practice of anarchistic principles 

Anarchist as:

Date: 1678

1: one who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power

2: one who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy; especially: one who uses violent means to overthrow the established order 

Anarchy as:

Date: 1539

Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler.

1 a: absence of government b: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c: a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

2 a: absence or denial of any authority or established order b: absence of order 

Anarchism as defined in Oxford Dictionary, is “The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are unnecessary, oppressive, and undesirable and should be abolished.” 

Anarchism in its pure form is a political theory, which primarily aims in establishing a society, which is bereft of political, economic or social hierarchies. Enrichment of individual liberty, freedom, equality in society, are the utopian beliefs of anarchism. 

There is always a misconception that anarchism means a state of flux, devastation, destruction, chaos and disorderliness. But the anarchist always defends that anarchism is based on sound principles of individual enrichment without the coercive intervention of a government or authority.

 
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on August 23, 2005, 12:55:48 PM
Ummm wrong yet again....
Quote from: Etymologyonline.com
anarchy Look up anarchy at Dictionary.com 1539, from M.L. anarchia, from Gk. anarkhia "lack of a leader," noun of state from anarkhos "rulerless," from an- "without" + arkhos "leader." Anarchist (1678) got a boost into modernity from the French Revolution. Anarcho-syndicalism is first recorded 1913.

Quote from: Wikipedia.org
The word anarchy comes from the Greek word αναρχία (anarchia), which means "without a ruler" (an- meaning "without", arch- root denoting "rule", and -ia corresponding to the English suffix "-y" in "monarchy"). It originated from the word anarchos which means either "without head or chief" or "without beginning"(Liddell & Scott's Greek-English Lexicon). Anarchos was a description often applied to God - to be "uncaused" was considered divine. A King or founder might be called the archegos (αρχηγός, from archē + agein, "to lead") or just the archōn (άρχων, participle of archein, "to rule") or the archos (αρχός, from archein + -os, masculine ending) which mean "ruler." Athenian democracy was not considered anarchia because, like modern England, Athens had Kings. In fact there were nine archontes led by an archōn (Liddell & Scott). These "rulers" served mainly religious and magisterial purposes, but their existence precluded the Athenians from calling their government anarchia. Instead of calling themselves anarchos, the Athenians described their situation as eleutheros ("free").

So please stop attempting to pwn me because you keep losing! :)

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on August 23, 2005, 12:57:28 PM
Oh btw, the most sensible answer is Objectivist Minarchism. Not this God ruler bullcrap k? Each to there own and according TO THEIR VALUES. Not Each according to GAWD or Jeebus. :-P

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: bailey228 on August 23, 2005, 03:18:11 PM
Religion has started more wars than anything else on the planet. Religion is responsible for more murder and hatred that ANYTHING ELSE.... EVER.

Religion is EVIL.

I completly agree, there have been more people killed and more wars started in the name of religion than for any other reason. Even today, our "christian" government doesn't really like the muslim religion so they go over to the middle east and start messing with them, overthrowing their rulers. There are many different religions out there and every single one of them beileves that what they beileve is correct. Obviously this can't be true, how can there be both only one god and many gods at the same time. So who is right? The christians have to be the worst religon of them all when it comes to killing people in the name of religion. They are self righteous and beleive that they were granted some pass by god to force other people to belive what they do. I can honestly say that I've never had a muslim come up and try to convert me to their religion, threating me with damnation if I refuse. Nor do any indians chide me for not praying to the sun god thanking him for making the sun rise every day. Only a  christian would be knocking at my door early in the morning asking me if I know god, or stopping me at the airport trying to "save" me. When I try to say, no thanks I don't want your god, they threaten me and tell me they'll pray for me. No thanks, if I want to "be saved" I'll do it on my own, don't waste your breath. Christians are the most hypocritical people I've ever met. they regularly break almost all of their commandments. espically the one, thou shalt not kill. hmmm... somehow they took that to mean, well I won't kill anyone that believes what I do, but it's ok to kill whole races of people because they don't believe in god. They also think it's ok to let their priests rape little boys and then cover it up (yes I know that's catholics, but they all believe in the same things, they just pick a different part of the bible to preach from). Oh and they're real big on not gossiping yet walk into any church and all the little church ladies there will be running their mouths about all the evils their neighbors or other members of the church are commiting. I grew up in a christian home, it was never forced apon me, we stopped going to church when I was 8 but a few years later I returned on my own. I used to think that christians were good people and completly justified in trying to teach others about god, but now I see them for what they really are, brainwashed self righteous bastards that kill in the name of god. I'm just sorry that before I learned the truth after I convinced my mom to go back to church, she is just as brainwashed as the rest of them now.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Lindsey on August 23, 2005, 03:21:29 PM
You rock my socks.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: eukreign on August 23, 2005, 03:29:07 PM
Word.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 23, 2005, 03:49:46 PM
Ummm wrong yet again....
Quote from: Etymologyonline.com
anarchy Look up anarchy at Dictionary.com 1539, from M.L. anarchia, from Gk. anarkhia "lack of a leader," noun of state from anarkhos "rulerless," from an- "without" + arkhos "leader." Anarchist (1678) got a boost into modernity from the French Revolution. Anarcho-syndicalism is first recorded 1913.

Quote from: Wikipedia.org
The word anarchy comes from the Greek word αναρχία (anarchia), which means "without a ruler" (an- meaning "without", arch- root denoting "rule", and -ia corresponding to the English suffix "-y" in "monarchy"). It originated from the word anarchos which means either "without head or chief" or "without beginning"(Liddell & Scott's Greek-English Lexicon). Anarchos was a description often applied to God - to be "uncaused" was considered divine. A King or founder might be called the archegos (αρχηγός, from archē + agein, "to lead") or just the archōn (άρχων, participle of archein, "to rule") or the archos (αρχός, from archein + -os, masculine ending) which mean "ruler." Athenian democracy was not considered anarchia because, like modern England, Athens had Kings. In fact there were nine archontes led by an archōn (Liddell & Scott). These "rulers" served mainly religious and magisterial purposes, but their existence precluded the Athenians from calling their government anarchia. Instead of calling themselves anarchos, the Athenians described their situation as eleutheros ("free").

So please stop attempting to pwn me because you keep losing! :)

-- Bridget

O.K your first "definition" above is completely in line with those I provided.  Your second "definition" is 90% in line with those I provided.  Anarchos may have described God as Ruler, but it certainly is not a word that can be translated to "god" or "God".  Try this: http://ancienthistory.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=ancienthistory&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.perseus.tufts.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fenggreek%3F
O.K. it's kinda long but it is just the greek word search tool at about.com.  You can sort the results of "god" either alphebetically or by common usage.  No such meaning can be found there.  Perhaps you have a better source.  I notice a trend by you to simply say it without giving any source so we can check it which is O.K. by me since I don't recognize "authority" anyway so "Rock On".

So you see if something can "describe" god it does not mean the same as "god".  You can "describe" god as "powerful" but that doesn't mean that "powerful" can mean "god".

Thank you for your comments.  Keep them coming...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Eli on August 23, 2005, 04:27:40 PM
Anarchism is a broad and deep political theory with a number of disparate proponent and understandings.  Bridget, if you really want to let CA hang himself, lets assume for the moment that there is an omniscient, omnipotent being, given to meddling in pissant mortal affairs.  Let’s even assume, it's the christian god.  IF those things are true, than only certain forms of anarchism would be in line with the Gospel teachings, which are largely about eschewing the temporal world.  "Render unto Ceaser..."  Anarchocapitilism is certainly right out for anarchochristians.  Only anarchosocialism has the level of self sacrifice necessary to be the economic component of an anarchochristian political world view.  This selflessness, along with the disgusting sense of elitism and morally superiority were precisely why I left the faith myself, and they really don't jive with any understanding of society that allows for self defense and defense of property.

CA, Thanks for the thread.

<stumbles away from angry hornets>
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Lindsey on August 23, 2005, 04:31:20 PM
I kinda like them thar new folk.   :P
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 23, 2005, 05:36:26 PM
Anarchism is a broad and deep political theory with a number of disparate proponent and understandings.  Bridget, if you really want to let CA hang himself, lets assume for the moment that there is an omniscient, omnipotent being, given to meddling in pissant mortal affairs.  LetÂ’s even assume, it's the christian god.  IF those things are true, than only certain forms of anarchism would be in line with the Gospel teachings, which are largely about eschewing the temporal world.  "Render unto Ceaser..."  Anarchocapitilism is certainly right out for anarchochristians.  Only anarchosocialism has the level of self sacrifice necessary to be the economic component of an anarchochristian political world view.  This selflessness, along with the disgusting sense of elitism and morally superiority were precisely why I left the faith myself, and they really don't jive with any understanding of society that allows for self defense and defense of property.

CA, Thanks for the thread.

<stumbles away from angry hornets>


Your're Welcome. 

By the way, many of us "Christians" are well armed and willing to die for defence of self, family and property.  Turning the other cheek only goes so far...

Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Lupus on August 23, 2005, 05:55:05 PM
Why do we need to argue the definition of words?

Does that really mean anything?  A word's usage is based on understood definition.

What I consider anarchy may just be disorganized chaos to you.

Argue over the issues, or topic, and not the meaning of a word.

To stop this argument, just add a supplimentry definition of what YOU meant when you said anarchy.. or whatever.

Quote
A.  Prove God does not exist.
B.  Prove that rights are moral principals.

I can prove god doesn't exist.

The existance of an all power all knowing being is paradoxical. It doesn't matter if he calls himself god, God, or dog. He just can't exist.

Point 1a: Infaliable omnipotence is paradoxical
If god is all powerful, can he create a rock that is too heavy for him to pick up?

If he can create the rock, then he can not pick it up... therefore he is not all powerful.

If he can not create the rock, then he is again not all powerful.

1b
God can not create a $1 bill

The only thing that can produce a true US$1 bill is the united states mint.  By definition the bill has to be made by the mint to be a valid bill. Therefore if god created an exact atom by atom duplicate of a bill it would in fact not be a US$1 bill.

The same argument can be applied to an acorn.

Point 2: No free will
I believe, and most christians will also believe that people have free will. We can choose to do what we want when we want. If god exists, and is all knowing, that means he knew long before I was born that I was going to type out this message. Which means it was predestined. Which means I did not choose to type this message, it was already laid out for me.

Point 3: The bibles text is flawed, filled with inconsistency and contradictory information.
The bible, which is the word, or "breath" of god should be perfect if we are to belive the myth. Since the most important document for christians is inately flawed, therefore so must god be flawed as well.

Point 4: People are flawed
People are not perfect. I admit it, christians admit it.

"Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth,” (Gen. 1:26)

God (and his buddies apparently) according to christian doctrine created man in his (read as plural) image, and to his (again read as plural) likeness. If god is so infalliable and perfect, why are people so screwed up?

Let's take allergies as an example. When one has a serious allergic reaction to something, essentiall your body attacks itself. It will close off your throat and you will die.

How about a fever... if you get a bad enough fever, for long enough, you will get brain damage and die.

Both of these functions are common bodily functions.  Both are flaws in the human machine. In both cases, the body damages (or kills) itself. If *I* designed a machine, and it blew itself up, clearly the machine was flawed.

Therefore if god can not create man who is not full of imperfections, I refuse to believe that a perfect god can exist.

Point 5: Who created god?
Let's pretend that I had a high fever, and got brain damage, and now I believe in god. Well.. who created him? Super God? Is thechristian god, god II? What about Super God.. who created him? Ub3r God? What about him, who created him?

Just because you can't explain who created man, doesn't give you reason to create up some stories.

Point 6: Where The Hell is this god anyways?
If god exists, and he loves us so damn much, where the hell is he? Back in biblical days he used to throw miracles around like they were going out of style.  Apparetly they have... as I haven't see any lately.

The End
There... 6 points all of which point to the fact that god, as described by christians just can't exist.

It just doesn't make sense. Anyone with any reasonable, rational thought sees the flaws of christianity. Those flaws point out the fictious nature of god. And create significant doubt that any invisible men exist.

I challenge you to provide 6 pieces of evidence that suggest god does exist. And retort these if you so choose. Again, god is just a tool by the elite to keep you.. the sheep herded together and in line. Allowing yourself to be herded by idle threats and invisible men is honestly embarassing.

I challenge you, send your god to my house.. hell he knows everything, he should be able to find it... when he shows up, I'll let you know... and then we can stop all this debating.

Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on August 23, 2005, 05:59:23 PM
Lupus, I am by far no expert on religions, but your last post was perhaps the single most idiotic bit of reading I have ever encountered, even surpassing that which has been spewn by CristianAnarchist.

Quote from: Lupus
How about a fever... if you get a bad enough fever, for long enough, you will get brain damage and die.
Yup.  I'm convinced, God doesn't exist :lol:
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Bishop on August 23, 2005, 06:19:10 PM
...Moron

Quote
Point 1a: Infaliable omnipotence is paradoxical
If god is all powerful, can he create a rock that is too heavy for him to pick up?

If he can create the rock, then he can not pick it up... therefore he is not all powerful.

If he can not create the rock, then he is again not all powerful.

The two conditions you gave are contrary to each other, also known as a fallacy of contradictory premises.  You might as well ask, can god make a round square.  The definition of the two words contradict each other.

1b
God can not create a $1 bill

The only thing that can produce a true US$1 bill is the united states mint.  By definition the bill has to be made by the mint to be a valid bill. Therefore if god created an exact atom by atom duplicate of a bill it would in fact not be a US$1 bill.

The same argument can be applied to an acorn.

What is this suppose to prove.  God could force a person to operate the press and print off a $1 US bill if he wanted, or he could make his own.  Why does this even matter?

Quote
Point 2: No free will
I believe, and most christians will also believe that people have free will. We can choose to do what we want when we want. If god exists, and is all knowing, that means he knew long before I was born that I was going to type out this message. Which means it was predestined. Which means I did not choose to type this message, it was already laid out for me.

Knowing that when i hit the 'A' key on my computer will type an 'A' on the screen doesn't cause it to happen.  The action of hitting the key and the interpertation of the signal from the keyboard causes it to happen.  Knowledge of the future doesn't cause it to happen.  I know that if i start a fire it will eventually go out.  This won't cause it to happen.

Quote
Point 3: The bibles text is flawed, filled with inconsistency and contradictory information.
The bible, which is the word, or "breath" of god should be perfect if we are to belive the myth. Since the most important document for christians is inately flawed, therefore so must god be flawed as well.

And i claim your arguements are flawed.  How about an example or some proof?

Quote
Point 4: People are flawed
People have free will.  Without free will, how could you choose to follow or not follow God?

Quote
Point 5: Who created god?

He always existed.  You would have the same problem asking about the origins of the universe.  you can always keep asking what caused it, you can give a reason, then apply the question again to the new reason.  There is no way to prove either though.

Quote
Point 6: Where The Hell is this god anyways?
If god exists, and he loves us so damn much, where the hell is he? Back in biblical days he used to throw miracles around like they were going out of style.  Apparetly they have... as I haven't see any lately.

Just recently in my church an eldery gentleman had a stroke and was declared brain dead.  About a month ago he went up in front of the church and gave his testimony.  For reasons the doctors do not know, he was healed.  Anyway lack of miracles doesn't prove god doesn't exist.  No more than i could claim a lack of macroevoluion seen in the past 2000 years proves evolution wrong.


If you feel the need to continue on these type of discussions please read an introduction to philosophy book.

Lupus, I am by far no expert on religions, but your last post was perhaps the single most idiotic bit of reading I have ever encountered, even surpassing that which has been spewn by CristianAnarchist.

Indeed.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: bonerjoe on August 23, 2005, 08:28:57 PM
Arguing about how many angels are on the tip of a needle, everyone?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 23, 2005, 10:30:39 PM
I challenge you to provide 6 pieces of evidence that suggest god does exist. And retort these if you so choose. Again, god is just a tool by the elite to keep you.. the sheep herded together and in line. Allowing yourself to be herded by idle threats and invisible men is honestly embarassing.

I challenge you, send your god to my house.. hell he knows everything, he should be able to find it... when he shows up, I'll let you know... and then we can stop all this debating.



These are all old tired arguments that presupose that God can defeat God (which has not been proven as His existence has not been proven so His nature could not be divined).  I will address your point about it being illogical and a sign of ignorance to believe in a god or God.  I give you Stephen W. Hawkings in his book "A Brief History Of TIme".  Paraphrasing he states that even if you can explain the universe with a "big bang" (which he later proposed was NOT the case), or any other mechanism which brought about the "begining", you still must fall back upon some sort of "creator" to create this mecainism.  I recommend the book.  It's a great read.

Here's a link to some quotes from the book.  Just find "God" in the page...
http://www.generationterrorists.com/quotes/abhotswh.html
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Russ84 on August 23, 2005, 10:42:14 PM
I give you Stephen W. Hawkings in his book "A Brief History Of TIme". Paraphrasing he states that even if you can explain the universe with a "big bang" (which he later proposed was NOT the case), or any other mechanism which brought about the "begining", you still must fall back upon some sort of "creator" to create this mecainism.

Why should there be a creator? Human beings are so fearful and insecure about life and death that they crave for a higher being, therefore they create one. Simple as that...

We live in a never-ending universe, it was never created and it will never decease.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 23, 2005, 10:44:41 PM
I give you Stephen W. Hawkings in his book "A Brief History Of TIme". Paraphrasing he states that even if you can explain the universe with a "big bang" (which he later proposed was NOT the case), or any other mechanism which brought about the "begining", you still must fall back upon some sort of "creator" to create this mecainism.

Why should there be a creator? Human beings are so fearful and insecure about life and death that they crave for a higher being, therefore they create one. Simple as that...

We live in a never-ending universe, it was never created and it will never decease.

Too bad Hawkings isn't still alive, he could have learned alot from you...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on August 23, 2005, 10:45:03 PM
These are all old tired arguments that presupose that God can defeat God (which has not been proven as His existence has not been proven so His nature could not be divined).  I will address your point about it being illogical and a sign of ignorance to believe in a god or God.  I give you Stephen W. Hawkings in his book "A Brief History Of TIme".  Paraphrasing he states that even if you can explain the universe with a "big bang" (which he later proposed was NOT the case), or any other mechanism which brought about the "begining", you still must fall back upon some sort of "creator" to create this mecainism.  I recommend the book.  It's a great read.

A beginning to the CURRENT state of the Universe/Multiverse does not infer GAWD, it simply means that the whole thing is MODAL; moving from one state to another without exact predictibility by anyone[dig up some chaos theory, kiddo]. The fact remains your whole argument is retarded and you know it. You're just another Jeebus Geek trying to hide the fact that Jeebus called Gentiles DOGS[Gospel of Mark] and that 'he' came for the 'jews.' All in all, I have NO TIME for debating an ignorant little man. So until you can make a case for GAWD, appending Anarchism or any other political theory is...SHALLOW.

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on August 23, 2005, 10:46:53 PM
I give you Stephen W. Hawkings in his book "A Brief History Of TIme". Paraphrasing he states that even if you can explain the universe with a "big bang" (which he later proposed was NOT the case), or any other mechanism which brought about the "begining", you still must fall back upon some sort of "creator" to create this mecainism.

Why should there be a creator? Human beings are so fearful and insecure about life and death that they crave for a higher being, therefore they create one. Simple as that...

We live in a never-ending universe, it was never created and it will never decease.
Too bad Hawkings isn't still alive, he could have learned alot from you...
Ummm retard...Professor Hawking is very much alive... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking)
Quote
Stephen William Hawking, CH, CBE, FRS (born January 8, 1942, in Oxford, England) is one of the world's leading theoretical physicists.
NOTICE NO DATE OF DEATH? :P

-- Bridget

Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Russ84 on August 23, 2005, 10:51:13 PM
 :lol: :lol: :lol:
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 23, 2005, 10:58:04 PM
I give you Stephen W. Hawkings in his book "A Brief History Of TIme". Paraphrasing he states that even if you can explain the universe with a "big bang" (which he later proposed was NOT the case), or any other mechanism which brought about the "begining", you still must fall back upon some sort of "creator" to create this mecainism.

Why should there be a creator? Human beings are so fearful and insecure about life and death that they crave for a higher being, therefore they create one. Simple as that...

We live in a never-ending universe, it was never created and it will never decease.
Too bad Hawkings isn't still alive, he could have learned alot from you...
Ummm retard...Professor Hawking is very much alive... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking)
Quote
Stephen William Hawking, CH, CBE, FRS (born January 8, 1942, in Oxford, England) is one of the world's leading theoretical physicists.
NOTICE NO DATE OF DEATH? :P

-- Bridget



Omygosh! you are right!  Actually, he had died, but was raised from the dead by a Catholic Priest.  That explains my confusion.  Anyway, now Russ84 can e-mail him and straighten him out...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on August 23, 2005, 11:01:26 PM
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Hawking.html <-- Wrong again Christian Anarchist, look at the SITES, there's NO GOOGLE NEWS REPORT ON PROFESSOR HAWKING'S DEATH. Asshole!

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 23, 2005, 11:04:11 PM
These are all old tired arguments that presupose that God can defeat God (which has not been proven as His existence has not been proven so His nature could not be divined).  I will address your point about it being illogical and a sign of ignorance to believe in a god or God.  I give you Stephen W. Hawkings in his book "A Brief History Of TIme".  Paraphrasing he states that even if you can explain the universe with a "big bang" (which he later proposed was NOT the case), or any other mechanism which brought about the "begining", you still must fall back upon some sort of "creator" to create this mecainism.  I recommend the book.  It's a great read.

A beginning to the CURRENT state of the Universe/Multiverse does not infer GAWD, it simply means that the whole thing is MODAL; moving from one state to another without exact predictibility by anyone[dig up some chaos theory, kiddo]. The fact remains your whole argument is retarded and you know it. You're just another Jeebus Geek trying to hide the fact that Jeebus called Gentiles DOGS[Gospel of Mark] and that 'he' came for the 'jews.' All in all, I have NO TIME for debating an ignorant little man. So until you can make a case for GAWD, appending Anarchism or any other political theory is...SHALLOW.

-- Bridget

Actually, you propose (along with others) that it is modal.  You also will have to wait until someone (unlikely in our lifetimes) proves the chaos theory.  Funny thing about theories.  They are just that.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Russ84 on August 23, 2005, 11:05:01 PM
Anyway, now Russ84 can e-mail him and straighten him out...

I'm sure my e-mail will get lost in one of his black holes.

Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on August 23, 2005, 11:07:46 PM
These are all old tired arguments that presupose that God can defeat God (which has not been proven as His existence has not been proven so His nature could not be divined).  I will address your point about it being illogical and a sign of ignorance to believe in a god or God.  I give you Stephen W. Hawkings in his book "A Brief History Of TIme".  Paraphrasing he states that even if you can explain the universe with a "big bang" (which he later proposed was NOT the case), or any other mechanism which brought about the "begining", you still must fall back upon some sort of "creator" to create this mecainism.  I recommend the book.  It's a great read.

A beginning to the CURRENT state of the Universe/Multiverse does not infer GAWD, it simply means that the whole thing is MODAL; moving from one state to another without exact predictibility by anyone[dig up some chaos theory, kiddo]. The fact remains your whole argument is retarded and you know it. You're just another Jeebus Geek trying to hide the fact that Jeebus called Gentiles DOGS[Gospel of Mark] and that 'he' came for the 'jews.' All in all, I have NO TIME for debating an ignorant little man. So until you can make a case for GAWD, appending Anarchism or any other political theory is...SHALLOW.

-- Bridget

Actually, you propose (along with others) that it is modal.  You also will have to wait until someone (unlikely in our lifetimes) proves the chaos theory.  Funny thing about theories.  They are just that.


Actually Lorenz proved it when he tried to model weather and climate. In the end, his equations are correct thus far. You have to know refute their validity since not only does Chaos Theory deals with weather; it also deals with life, thermodynamics, electrodynamics, geophysics, and etc. :)

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 23, 2005, 11:08:08 PM
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Hawking.html <-- Wrong again Christian Anarchist, look at the SITES, there's NO GOOGLE NEWS REPORT ON PROFESSOR HAWKING'S DEATH. Asshole!

-- Bridget

Actually, his resurection and exorcism was done in secret in an ancient castle in the Swiss alps.  Kept very low key, it's not likely you were notified.  Maybe next time though...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 23, 2005, 11:11:21 PM

Actually Lorenz proved it when he tried to model weather and climate. In the end, his equations are correct thus far. You have to know refute their validity since not only does Chaos Theory deals with weather; it also deals with life, thermodynamics, electrodynamics, geophysics, and etc. :)

-- Bridget

O.K. then it's settled, it's no longer a theory but now graduated to "fact".  I'll update all my textbooks right away...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on August 23, 2005, 11:12:21 PM
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Hawking.html <-- Wrong again Christian Anarchist, look at the SITES, there's NO GOOGLE NEWS REPORT ON PROFESSOR HAWKING'S DEATH. Asshole!

-- Bridget

Actually, his resurection and exorcism was done in secret in an ancient castle in the Swiss alps.  Kept very low key, it's not likely you were notified.  Maybe next time though...


Umm got any proof? Has Professor Hawking validated this claim? Remember, trash reporters believe that Jamie Lee Curtis is intersexed despite the fact the doctors have proven otherwise. So the next time you read the Weekly World News, realize it was written to be humorous, NOT FACTUAL.

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on August 23, 2005, 11:15:01 PM

Actually Lorenz proved it when he tried to model weather and climate. In the end, his equations are correct thus far. You have to know refute their validity since not only does Chaos Theory deals with weather; it also deals with life, thermodynamics, electrodynamics, geophysics, and etc. :)

-- Bridget

O.K. then it's settled, it's no longer a theory but now graduated to "fact".  I'll update all my textbooks right away...


Dumb fuck, a theory is A PROVEN HYPOTHESIS. But you don't know that do you, Jeebus Moron? :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory


Lemme give you a link, fucktard.

Quote
In the sciences, a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework describing the behaviour of a certain natural or social phenomenon (thus either originating from observable facts or supported by observable facts). (In contrast, a hypothesis is a statement which has not been tested yet). Theories are formulated, developed and evaluated according to the scientific method.

Now eat your HUMBLE PIE, BOY.

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 23, 2005, 11:17:48 PM
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Hawking.html <-- Wrong again Christian Anarchist, look at the SITES, there's NO GOOGLE NEWS REPORT ON PROFESSOR HAWKING'S DEATH. Asshole!

-- Bridget

Actually, his resurection and exorcism was done in secret in an ancient castle in the Swiss alps.  Kept very low key, it's not likely you were notified.  Maybe next time though...


Umm got any proof? Has Professor Hawking validated this claim? Remember, trash reporters believe that Jamie Lee Curtis is intersexed despite the fact the doctors have proven otherwise. So the next time you read the Weekly World News, realize it was written to be humorous, NOT FACTUAL.

-- Bridget

Impecible sources.  National Inquirer about two years ago.  It was right across the page from the story about Bush actually having a brain...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 23, 2005, 11:25:21 PM

Actually Lorenz proved it when he tried to model weather and climate. In the end, his equations are correct thus far. You have to know refute their validity since not only does Chaos Theory deals with weather; it also deals with life, thermodynamics, electrodynamics, geophysics, and etc. :)

-- Bridget

O.K. then it's settled, it's no longer a theory but now graduated to "fact".  I'll update all my textbooks right away...


Dumb fuck, a theory is A PROVEN HYPOTHESIS. But you don't know that do you, Jeebus Moron? :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory


Lemme give you a link, fucktard.

Quote
In the sciences, a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework describing the behaviour of a certain natural or social phenomenon (thus either originating from observable facts or supported by observable facts). (In contrast, a hypothesis is a statement which has not been tested yet). Theories are formulated, developed and evaluated according to the scientific method.

Now eat your HUMBLE PIE, BOY.

-- Bridget


Great Link.  Did you get to this part?

"According to Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time, "a theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations." He goes on to state..."Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory.""

(Munch, munch, munch..)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 23, 2005, 11:27:10 PM

Nothing really, just wanted to be post 200...

Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Bishop on August 23, 2005, 11:28:28 PM
You are turning into a troll....
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on August 23, 2005, 11:36:11 PM
"Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory.""

In the end, you either accept the certainty of knowledge or turn to Existentialism. This doesn't mean knowledge cannot change, but it does mean it can be known whether you like it or not.

I'm just going to give up on your little mind, CA, just keep worshipping Invisible Hank. Just remember, I won't tolerate you trying to teach your Invisible Hank Meme to my friends or family. I'll be there to debunk you. I'll be there to defeat you. :) Enjoy, being a troll, CA.

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Eli on August 24, 2005, 08:46:27 AM
Wow, looks like Hawking has read Hume.

Bridget.  It is not a choice between Existentialism and science.  Quite the opposite actually.  Most good theorist know that no theory is absolute, just a best guess that we use to understand and operate from.  You trust the theory because it works and discard it when it no longer explains observable reality.  The third path, between Mystical religiosity and a religious adoption of reason, is a healthy skepticism about everything.  Just my opinion, not divine wisdom, but faith has few answers for the physical world, and reason has few answers for the big question.  Neither provides a satisfying whole (for me) nor have I found a satisfying way of joining the two.

CA.  Some Christians may have guns and be willing to do harm, but christ had some pretty specific things to say about defense.  As I recall he reprimanded the disciple and healed the aggressor.  His final act of teaching before his crucifixion right?  Christ also had a lot to say against personal property.

So,  for the sake of argument, I'll assume the correctness and divinity of christ, and the accuracy of the gospels over the apocrypha.  What then should you Christian Anarchy look like and why is it the only sensible answer?

-E

PS Bishop. Who were you calling a troll?  The whole Science v religion thing seemed kind of trollish and I couldn't tell who you meant. <Wry grin>

PPS Favorite WWN cover:  Sadaam used dinosaurs, and Bush knew!
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 24, 2005, 09:04:38 AM
"Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory.""

In the end, you either accept the certainty of knowledge or turn to Existentialism. This doesn't mean knowledge cannot change, but it does mean it can be known whether you like it or not.

I'm just going to give up on your little mind, CA, just keep worshipping Invisible Hank. Just remember, I won't tolerate you trying to teach your Invisible Hank Meme to my friends or family. I'll be there to debunk you. I'll be there to defeat you. :) Enjoy, being a troll, CA.

-- Bridget

Well, thanks for thinking of me.  I do hope that everyone realizes that for every "quote" or "authority" one can come up with to support point A, one can be found to support B.  Hence there is no logic in using them as they are unreliable.  I throw them out there only to demonstrate the above.  I remember in the 60's the science community was all in a rage about how our "destruction of the environment" was about to trigger an "ice age".  Well now they are claiming we are going into a "heat age".  If one looks at history, (if we believe it to be accurate) we see periods of warming and cooling naturally.  The 30's were unusually hot and I remember as a youth snow up to the windows every winter.  Things change and whatever the "scientists" are claiming now, they will claim something else tomorrow (I kinda like the new studies that show chocolate to be an anti-oxidant).  Hawkings is at least a "thinker" and open to the possibility of some sort of "creator".  Anyone who rules out something that they cannot prove, is acting illogically.  I can see the logic in being agnostic but there is no logic in being athiest for there way to prove "no God". 

As a Christian, I cannot prove God's existiance to you, but I can prove it to me by "observation" of the creation.  Entropy, (as a natural law - trumps a "theory") pretty much removes any doubt that all sources of concentrated energy in this universe is gradually diffusing into background radiation.  One an even disbursement of energy is reached, all "activity" will cease (unless you add some external power to "spin up" the gyros again).  Of course athiest types don't like hearnig about these most fundamental laws of physics as they have to answer to them, but they do try (lets hear it).

Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 24, 2005, 09:20:42 AM
Wow, looks like Hawking has read Hume.

CA.  Some Christians may have guns and be willing to do harm, but christ had some pretty specific things to say about defense.  As I recall he reprimanded the disciple and healed the aggressor.  His final act of teaching before his crucifixion right?  Christ also had a lot to say against personal property.

So,  for the sake of argument, I'll assume the correctness and divinity of christ, and the accuracy of the gospels over the apocrypha.  What then should you Christian Anarchy look like and why is it the only sensible answer?


If you read the first post in this thread, I explain my thinking on Christianity and anarchy as well as in the link to my blogsite below.  If you have specific questions, I will gladly address them with my feeble brain to the best of my ability.  I do not claim to be any "authority" either...

As to violence, Jesus healed the ear as it was His time to go.  In the temple, He was very violent.  Then there's the old Byrds song "To every thing (turn, turn, turn) there is a season (turn, turn, turn) and a time to every purpose under heaven ...  It's actually a scripture put to music.  I think our founding fathers considered their options before resorting to killing brits, but as Christians (mostly) they found justification. 

The property thing has to be taken into context.  There is talk of being called slave or free, rich or poor, etc.  Then there's Christ's words to His deciples.  On their first journey they were instructed to take nothing with them, no extra clothes, no money, and no sword.  Before His crusifiction, He instructed them the opoosite.  Interesting to note he instructed them to take a "sword".  If you look at it in historical view, this was an order to break Roman law as only Roman citizens were allowed to posess a sword (the historic equilivant to an AK-47). 
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on August 24, 2005, 03:39:51 PM
Wow, looks like Hawking has read Hume.

Bridget.  It is not a choice between Existentialism and science.  Quite the opposite actually.
I'm not into Scientism, I'm an Objectivist, but the fact remains there is either Reason[that which is observed in Nature through mental states or external phenomena] or Non-Reason. That leaves faith out in the cold along with Scientism.

Quote
Most good theorist know that no theory is absolute, just a best guess that we use to understand and operate from.
That's based on empiricism and cynicism, thus allowing one to doubt all knowledge rather than accepting that knowledge is what can be validated by Nature. In the end, the more you lead toward either Rationalism or Empiricism, or even Cynicism, you are left with nothing to set a reasonable foundation upon.

Quote
The third path, between Mystical religiosity and a religious adoption of reason, is a healthy skepticism about everything.  Just my opinion, not divine wisdom, but faith has few answers for the physical world, and reason has few answers for the big question.  Neither provides a satisfying whole (for me) nor have I found a satisfying way of joining the two.
Try Objectivism or other Nature-based philosophies such as Epicureanism, which base Reason and Observation within Nature, thus not falling into either the pitfall of doubt through empiricism, or the chasm between reality and mind found in Rationalism. This being said, it's clear to me that Nature is the absolute for which all things are based on. Concepts may change, but Nature will always be there before, during, and after my life. To declare some all-prevailing human-like consciousness as the absolute when it cannot be found in Nature through our mental states or our observations suggests it does not exist, and thus Nature is all we have to form valid moral, political, and 'legal' theories upon, and nothing more.

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on August 24, 2005, 11:29:54 PM
Yes, exactly, and that is why it's actually irrelevant whether you can prove the existence of intrinsic rights.  It's more important (and just) to believe such an ideal, b/c as shown, the alternative simply leads to genocide or some other form of harm.


I would offer as "proof" that certian rights are inailienable the simple fact that man possess the ability to retain his rights (by force).  This is not to say that all men have this "ability" as some are crippled or otherwise disabled, but mankind as a whole is created with the ability towards "freethought" and "resistance" to control by others.  I would use this same argument to maintain that animals do not have these same rights as they cannot resist our ability to control them.  If one does not believe in a "Creator" then I guess the "force" part of this argument would explain the inailienable rights origin.  I believe that our "rights" end with our "Creator".  Since he created us and since we cannot resist him by force, He has the right to take our life.  It is another law of nature that cannot be broken.  That which is created is subject to that which created it.  If I create a chair out of wood, I have the right to burn it if I want to.  The chair never has the right to burn me.  If I created a "fiction USA" I have the right to abolish it, the "fiction USA" never has the right to use force against me as it's purpose is to serve it's creator.



Some good points.  I tend to agree...
if I create a chair, I may destroy it... if I create a gov't, I should be able to opt-out, disown or destroy it as well (easier said than done of course).

but no, that doesn't mean I can kill my children, b/c they are merely a reproduction of me - in addition to them being soveriegn individuals who all have intrinsic rights.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on August 24, 2005, 11:40:28 PM

I completly agree, there have been more people killed and more wars started in the name of religion than for any other reason. Even today, our "christian" government doesn't really like the muslim religion so they go over to the middle east and start messing with them, overthrowing their rulers. There are many different religions out there and every single one of them beileves that what they beileve is correct. Obviously this can't be true, how can there be both only one god and many gods at the same time. So who is right? The christians have to be the worst religon of them all when it comes to killing people in the name of religion. They are self righteous and beleive that they were granted some pass by god to force other people to belive what they do. I can honestly say that I've never had a muslim come up and try to convert me to their religion, threating me with damnation if I refuse. Nor do any indians chide me for not praying to the sun god thanking him for making the sun rise every day. Only a  christian would be knocking at my door early in the morning asking me if I know god, or stopping me at the airport trying to "save" me. When I try to say, no thanks I don't want your god, they threaten me and tell me they'll pray for me. No thanks, if I want to "be saved" I'll do it on my own, don't waste your breath. Christians are the most hypocritical people I've ever met. they regularly break almost all of their commandments. espically the one, thou shalt not kill. hmmm... somehow they took that to mean, well I won't kill anyone that believes what I do, but it's ok to kill whole races of people because they don't believe in god. They also think it's ok to let their priests rape little boys and then cover it up (yes I know that's catholics, but they all believe in the same things, they just pick a different part of the bible to preach from). Oh and they're real big on not gossiping yet walk into any church and all the little church ladies there will be running their mouths about all the evils their neighbors or other members of the church are commiting. I grew up in a christian home, it was never forced apon me, we stopped going to church when I was 8 but a few years later I returned on my own. I used to think that christians were good people and completly justified in trying to teach others about god, but now I see them for what they really are, brainwashed self righteous bastards that kill in the name of god. I'm just sorry that before I learned the truth after I convinced my mom to go back to church, she is just as brainwashed as the rest of them now.

I don't like to name call generally, but... a spade's a spade.
You are bigoted and so full of hate for Xianity that your opinion is just about moot... especially since you think all Catholics think it's ok to cover up the sick actions of a few.  You are wrong.

You want to talk numbers? You want to talk what ideology is most responsible for the greatest number of deaths and suffering in all of history?
The Crusades paled in comparison to the 10's of millions of victims killed by these sadistic killers in a fraction of modern time. (Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Mao, Kim Jong Ill, Hussein...)  It's sad you simply focus on the smaller, more distant atrocities to base your ignorant views.
Also, on the subject of WWII, I would like to point out this fact - that Xianity (specifically, Catholicism) was one of the greatest (if not the greatest) heroes at the time:
In his meticulously researched 1967 book "Three Popes and the Jews," Israeli historian and diplomat Pinchas Lapide concludes that the Vatican under Pius XII "was instrumental in saving at least 700,000, but probably as many as 860,000 Jews from certain death at Nazi hands"— more than all other rescue organizations combined.

So, please... stop believing all the anti-Xianity propaganda out there - as it's simply incomplete, wrong or stemming purely from hate.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 25, 2005, 01:10:07 AM

Try Objectivism or other Nature-based philosophies such as Epicureanism, which base Reason and Observation within Nature, thus not falling into either the pitfall of doubt through empiricism, or the chasm between reality and mind found in Rationalism. This being said, it's clear to me that Nature is the absolute for which all things are based on. Concepts may change, but Nature will always be there before, during, and after my life. To declare some all-prevailing human-like consciousness as the absolute when it cannot be found in Nature through our mental states or our observations suggests it does not exist, and thus Nature is all we have to form valid moral, political, and 'legal' theories upon, and nothing more.

-- Bridget


Don't forget one of nature's greatest laws, the 2nd law of thermodynamics.  I know of no one who disputes this law of nature and it pretty much proves that "something" wound up this universe of ours and it is "winding down" and there is nothing we can do about it.  One must at this point search ones soul to decide what that "something" was as we cannot determine it by science which leaves religion (I hate that word).  No human was there to witness the event and there is no way to go back and observe it.  Even if we could observe it, we would no doubt still not know what was causing it.

Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Tommy on August 25, 2005, 10:02:32 AM
Why would I say that Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer... Let me count the ways...

1.  Most here believe that we have "inailenable rights" although most don't know why our rights
are inailenable.  The old guys who founded this fiction called USA understood them to be so
because they believed we were CREATED with them (by a Creator).  Remember the common
words that most believe in such "All men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain
inalienable rights, among them are..."  Certainly if you cut out a belief in "the Creator" you gut
the authority for rights in the preceeding ideal.  If you cut the Creator, where does the authority
for your creation of rights come from?  Little green men?  The Id?  Do you simply believe they
are "just there"?  Why??  If your rights come from a Creator who is of course great enough to
create you and your rights, then they are truly inailenable due to the fact that someone at least
as "great" as your "Creator" would be needed to destroy them.  Certainly a mere man is not
as great as that which created him so a man would not be "great" enough to destroy what was
"created" by his "creator".

2.  As Christians, the old guys who founded the fiction USA understood the Christian idea that all
men were sinners and none are "good" enough to be entrusted with "ruling" over any other men.
Therefore they tried a "new" idea never before tried in history.  Was it a "republic"?  No, Rome
was a republic as well as others.  The "new" idea was "soverignty", another idea that came from
Christianity.  All men are Kings and Princes in Christ, Paul said (or at least someone who we have
been led to believe was Paul).  So the "experiment" was to put men in the rightful position as
"creator" of the fiction USA.  As "creators", the fiction USA could have no authority over over
it's creators any more than we can have authority over God.  No authority = anarchy.

3.  The "experiment" has failed miserably as man (the rightful authority over the fiction USA)
has "forgotten" that each one is "over" his "servant" fiction USA and has allowed the fiction
to take on a form and power which is simulating a true entity (which it is not).  Man has
neglected his own Creator which is the rightful authority over him and has forsaken his
stewardship of keeping the fiction USA in line. 

4.  Since the fiction USA is no longer within the authority of it's creator man, the fiction ceases
to exist.  It is replaced by REAL MEN who are acting out as if they have some authority from
this "fiction" that allows them to use FORCE over their fellow man.  These real men who use
force are violating the rights of their fellow man.  Most are deceived into believing that the fiction
really exists and gives them some magical power over others. 

5.  Since they have no legitimate power, we are already living in anarchy, you just don't know it.


Man, if only we had such freedom...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on August 25, 2005, 01:46:00 PM
Don't forget one of nature's greatest laws, the 2nd law of thermodynamics.  I know of no one who disputes this law of nature and it pretty much proves that "something" wound up this universe of ours and it is "winding down" and there is nothing we can do about it.  One must at this point search ones soul to decide what that "something" was as we cannot determine it by science which leaves religion (I hate that word).  No human was there to witness the event and there is no way to go back and observe it.  Even if we could observe it, we would no doubt still not know what was causing it.

Ummmm no................. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics only applies to closed systems and even then it's STATISTICAL. Here's a great site about the 2nd Law. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics) Then here's this site about Neg-entropy. (http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASC/NEGENTROPY.html) Before you ASSume to know physics, you best read up on stuff. Cause remember, Physics is going to be my second major... ;)

-- Bridget pwns Christian Moron yet again!
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 25, 2005, 05:24:20 PM
Don't forget one of nature's greatest laws, the 2nd law of thermodynamics.  I know of no one who disputes this law of nature and it pretty much proves that "something" wound up this universe of ours and it is "winding down" and there is nothing we can do about it.  One must at this point search ones soul to decide what that "something" was as we cannot determine it by science which leaves religion (I hate that word).  No human was there to witness the event and there is no way to go back and observe it.  Even if we could observe it, we would no doubt still not know what was causing it.

Ummmm no................. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics only applies to closed systems and even then it's STATISTICAL. Here's a great site about the 2nd Law. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics) Then here's this site about Neg-entropy. (http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASC/NEGENTROPY.html) Before you ASSume to know physics, you best read up on stuff. Cause remember, Physics is going to be my second major... ;)

-- Bridget pwns Christian Moron yet again!

Are you trying to say the universe is an "open" system??  What is it open to??
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on August 25, 2005, 06:49:06 PM
It's the same question as to if the universe is closed as well. It's open by the quality that spacetime is expanding, thusly allowing for entropy to be decreased in proportion to the total volume of spacetime.

It literally means each time the universe expands for every second observed here on Earth the entropy is decreasing locally. :)

Under your assertion the universe also has a shape when in fact, it has no shape. :)

Then again you believe in Invisible Hank.

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 25, 2005, 09:30:52 PM
It's the same question as to if the universe is closed as well. It's open by the quality that spacetime is expanding, thusly allowing for entropy to be decreased in proportion to the total volume of spacetime.

It literally means each time the universe expands for every second observed here on Earth the entropy is decreasing locally. :)

Under your assertion the universe also has a shape when in fact, it has no shape. :)


No such assertion...

Quote

Then again you believe in Invisible Hank.

-- Bridget


[/quote\]


Then again, you believe in nothing...

Still, all OBSERVABLE measurements show a decreasing background temo.  You ASSume that there will come a time when the entire process reverses.  No evidence of it, you are believing it because you want to.  Just like me!!
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on August 25, 2005, 09:32:58 PM
It's the same question as to if the universe is closed as well. It's open by the quality that spacetime is expanding, thusly allowing for entropy to be decreased in proportion to the total volume of spacetime.

It literally means each time the universe expands for every second observed here on Earth the entropy is decreasing locally. :)

Under your assertion the universe also has a shape when in fact, it has no shape. :)


No such assertion...

Quote

Then again you believe in Invisible Hank.

-- Bridget


[/quote\]


Then again, you believe in nothing...

Still, all OBSERVABLE measurements show a decreasing background temo.  You ASSume that there will come a time when the entire process reverses.  No evidence of it, you are believing it because you want to.  Just like me!!

Actually we know processes do reverse. :-O Try looking up reversible computers. :) Oh and btw, LEARN TO USE QUOTATIONS CORRECTLY. Also, my assertion is based in known science. You must refute with proper argumentation, otherwise keep getting bitchslapped by me.

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on August 25, 2005, 10:39:41 PM
now lady - have some bbs etiquette.... do you really just bitchslap someone b/c they don't agree w/ you?

it's one thing to do it if they make personal attacks, or namecall you, but b/c they don't think like you? tsk tsk...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 25, 2005, 10:50:51 PM
It's the same question as to if the universe is closed as well. It's open by the quality that spacetime is expanding, thusly allowing for entropy to be decreased
in proportion
Quote
to the total volume of spacetime.

It literally means each time
the universe expands for every second observed
here on Earth the entropy is decreasing locally. :)

Under your assertion the universe also has a shape when in fact, it has no shape. :)


No such assertion...

Quote

Then again you believe
in Invisible
Quote
Hank.

-- Bridget


[/quote\]


Then again, you believe in nothing...

Still, all OBSERVABLE measurements show a decreasing background temo.  You ASSume that there will come a time when the entire process reverses.  No evidence of it, you are believing it because you want to.  Just like me!!
Quote

Actually we know processes do reverse. :-O Try looking
Quote
up
Quote
Quote
Quote
reversible
computers. :) Oh and btw, LEARN
Quote
TO USE QUOTATIONS CORRECTLY. Also, my assertion is based in known science. You
Quote
must refute with proper
argumentation, otherwise keep getting bitchslapped by me.
-- Bridget

And again, all you do is spout off your misunderstanding of the physical world.  You confuse theory with laws, extrapolation with evidence, knowledge with assertion.  Anyone who admits they don't know the difference between man and woman sure can't be a very reliable source for anything of importance...


Quote
Quote
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on August 25, 2005, 10:52:02 PM
Ummmm sure... Tell that to IBM labs that's developing reversible computers.... :P

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Tommy on August 25, 2005, 11:01:52 PM
Hey now - "can't we all just get along?"

 :lol:
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 26, 2005, 01:08:09 AM
Ummmm sure... Tell that to IBM labs that's developing reversible computers.... :P

-- Bridget
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote


So what does being able to deduce the inputs from the outputs have to do with the discussion at hand?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on August 26, 2005, 01:12:14 AM
You still have no clue do you about reversible computers do you?

I'll clue you in. Reversible computation means a process reverses in its causal chain back to its origin point. That literally would mean the computation went 'back in time' for us mere mortals, but the reality is it merely reverted back to an initial state. For that to happen, specific properties in Nature have to exist.

1) Nature has to have causality but no absolute time arrow.

2) Nature has to have non-linear causal chains possible[as observed in storms and other 'chaotic' phenomena]

3) Nature in general has to have specific qualities that prevent a violation of the laws of conservation[if they are indeed laws at all].

If all three are sastified to a point, reversible computing is possible. And that would mean there is no Prime Cause for the Universe. It would make Nature it's own Prime Mover. And that is a deathblow to Christianity and other Invisible Hank Memes. :)

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on August 26, 2005, 03:05:52 AM
I'm sorry, but I am of the mind that if it cannot be explained to a 5 year old, it is complete trash.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Jason on August 26, 2005, 03:39:10 AM
BLAH TO THIS THREAD!!!
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 26, 2005, 08:22:39 AM
You still have no clue do you about reversible computers do you?

I'll clue you in. Reversible computation means a process reverses in its causal chain back to its origin point. That literally would mean the computation went 'back in time' for us mere mortals, but the reality is it merely reverted back to an initial state. For that to happen, specific properties in Nature have to exist.

1) Nature has to have causality but no absolute time arrow.

2) Nature has to have non-linear causal chains possible[as observed in storms and other 'chaotic' phenomena]

3) Nature in general has to have specific qualities that prevent a violation of the laws of conservation[if they are indeed laws at all].

If all three are sastified to a point, reversible computing is possible. And that would mean there is no Prime Cause for the Universe. It would make Nature it's own Prime Mover. And that is a deathblow to Christianity and other Invisible Hank Memes. :)

-- Bridget

It seems that you are unable to follow a subject.  You started by referring to reversible computing but then switched to "reversible" nature, biology, physics, sciences as if being able to do something in a computer arcitecture has anything to do with real-world.

Reversible computing is if you try a problem such as "(x && y) == 0, can you tell me what x and y are? No: it could be (0, 0) or (0, 1) or (1, 0). Therefore, the operation AND is not reversible.

A reversible computer always performs operations that can be uncomputed. Given the outputs, you can reconstruct the inputs. This means, for one thing, that a reversible computer has no concept of boolean AND. Or OR, for that matter. NOT is reversible, though."

Note that a reversible computer ALWAYS preforms operations that can be uncomputed.

Reversible computing does not hapen by chance but requires a very intelligent source to "program" it to be able to work backward from the end to deduce the beginning.  For you to try to apply this principle to the physical is to say that we could look at a rock (or series of rocks) and "reverse compute" everything that has happened to them.  Such "pie in the sky" thinking is very much like have faith in God...

Living in such confusion must be torment...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: eukreign on August 26, 2005, 09:36:55 AM
I'm sorry, but I am of the mind that if it cannot be explained to a 5 year old, it is complete trash.

‘You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother.’

— Albert Einstein
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on August 26, 2005, 10:32:56 AM
I'm sorry, but I am of the mind that if it cannot be explained to a 5 year old, it is complete trash.

‘You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother.’

— Albert Einstein
5 year old, grandmother -same diff. :P
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: eukreign on August 26, 2005, 10:51:19 AM
I'm sorry, but I am of the mind that if it cannot be explained to a 5 year old, it is complete trash.

‘You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother.’

— Albert Einstein
5 year old, grandmother -same diff. :P

My point exactly!

Edit:

I think Bridget has good intentions but if you were to put her arguments and explanations on a ten point system 0 being grandma (or anyone else) can't understand and 10 being everyone understands completely, Bridgets posts would be a -10 at times. I just really hope that at least she understands all the stuff she says  :lol:
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on August 26, 2005, 01:39:01 PM
It seems that you are unable to follow a subject.  You started by referring to reversible computing but then switched to "reversible" nature, biology, physics, sciences as if being able to do something in a computer arcitecture has anything to do with real-world.
You obviously never read about Shannon Entropy. His measure for entropy in computations and physical systems follow the SAME CURVE. *ding* I win, you lose! Try citation of valid data. K?


Quote
Reversible computing is if you try a problem such as "(x && y) == 0, can you tell me what x and y are? No: it could be (0, 0) or (0, 1) or (1, 0). Therefore, the operation AND is not reversible.
Wrong...It has nothing to do with the logic of the computational operation. It has to do with how the logic circuits are designed that would allow for information stored in memory not to be destroyed but rather reverted to an INITIAL STATE. Stop trying to tell me about a field of study which is... MY MAJOR. MORON.

Quote
Reversible computing does not hapen by chance but requires a very intelligent source to "program" it to be able to work backward from the end to deduce the beginning.  For you to try to apply this principle to the physical is to say that we could look at a rock (or series of rocks) and "reverse compute" everything that has happened to them.  Such "pie in the sky" thinking is very much like have faith in God...
Wrong again moron... What do you think storms do? They computer reversibly. Inexplicibly storms just happen out of no where. Especially when conditions are ADVERSE to their formation. They take the funnel of cooling air coming down from the top of the troposphere, and the rising still warm air from the bottom of the troposphere, mixed with moisture to some how form an ordered state that is HIGHLY complex, yet it never really destroys the initial state from which it came.

Now, stop reading the Christian Apologetics. And stop lying. Or I might ask a few of my fellow compsci geeks to actually post some snips of papers on reversible computation they're working on.

It's your choice to be blown away Jeebus Moron.

-- Bridget

P.S. REVERSIBLE COMPUTATION ARTICLE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversible_computation)

Quote
Landauer's principle (and indeed, the second law of thermodynamics itself) can also be understood to be a direct logical consequence of the underlying reversibility of physics, as is reflected in the general Hamiltonian formulation of mechanics, and in the unitary time-evolution operator of quantum mechanics more specifically.

In the context of reversible physics, the phenomenon of entropy increase (and the observed arrow of time) can be understood to be consequences of the fact that our evolved predictive capabilities are rather limited, and cannot keep perfect track of the exact reversible evolution of complex physical systems, especially since these systems are never perfectly isolated from an unknown external environment, and even the laws of physics themselves are still not known with complete precision; thus, we (and physical observers generally) always accumulate some uncertainty about the state of physical systems, even if the system's true underlying dynamics is a perfectly reversible one that is subject to no entropy increase if viewed from a hypothetical omniscient perspective in which the dynamical laws are precisely known.

You must like being pwned, CA. Cause I keep refuting you!!!
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 26, 2005, 01:58:03 PM
It seems that you are unable to follow a subject.  You started by referring to reversible computing but then switched to "reversible" nature, biology, physics, sciences as if being able to do something in a computer arcitecture has anything to do with real-world.
You obviously never read about Shannon Entropy, aka the infamous Shannon from IBM Labs. His measure for entropy in computations and physical systems follow the SAME CURVE. *ding* I win, you lose! Try citation of valid data. K?


Quote
Reversible computing is if you try a problem such as "(x && y) == 0, can you tell me what x and y are? No: it could be (0, 0) or (0, 1) or (1, 0). Therefore, the operation AND is not reversible.
Wrong...It has nothing to do with the logic of the computational operation. It has to do with how the logic circuits are designed that would allow for information stored in memory not to be destroyed but rather reverted to an INITIAL STATE. Stop trying to tell me about a field of study which is... MY MAJOR. MORON.

Quote
Reversible computing does not hapen by chance but requires a very intelligent source to "program" it to be able to work backward from the end to deduce the beginning.  For you to try to apply this principle to the physical is to say that we could look at a rock (or series of rocks) and "reverse compute" everything that has happened to them.  Such "pie in the sky" thinking is very much like have faith in God...
Wrong again moron... What do you think storms do? They computer reversibly. Inexplicibly storms just happen out of no where. Especially when conditions are ADVERSE to their formation. They take the funnel of cooling air coming down from the top of the troposphere, and the rising still warm air from the bottom of the troposphere, mixed with moisture to some how form an ordered state that is HIGHLY complex, yet it never really destroys the initial state from which it came.

Now, stop reading the Christian Apologetics. And stop lying. Or I might ask a few of my fellow compsci geeks to actually post some snips of papers on reversible computation they're working on.

It's your choice to be blown away Jeebus Moron.

-- Bridget

Again you seem to think you can impress someone by simply declaring it to be true.  You expect that once you put iit in print that somehow it is fact.  You are only proving how confused you really are.  It's not like you are the only one here who's "been there - done that".  Indeed, my life's experience is greater than yours.  It doesn't mean that I'm smarter but it does mean I have a greater "database" to draw from.  I've spent many years working on "stuff" too (don't suppose you've ever heard of Nevada Terawatt Facility).  I know many big names in the physics field personally and had these discussions with them (they are far smarter than you - or me).  One thing they pretty much all agree to is that they really don't have anywhere close to all the answers.  I guess they should get in contact with you so you can help them learn. 

As I've stated in the past, one thing you can GUARANTEE is that whatever "science" has to say today, it will be different tomorrow...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on August 26, 2005, 02:06:51 PM
Again you seem to think you can impress someone by simply declaring it to be true.  You expect that once you put iit in print that somehow it is fact.  You are only proving how confused you really are.  It's not like you are the only one here who's "been there - done that".
But I understand it far more completely than you and can place it on a rational philosophy framework which is standing against any test. So unless you can show the ontological necessity for God in an Absolute Nature, I will not listen to whatever you have to say on the basis that you cannot even conceive there's a whole realm out there that not even you can touch. A realm not based on little baby-like angels punishing people for being queer or wearing mixed fabric clothing, but a realm beyond the simplest assertions of mystics. So until you acknowledge that, you're like those people that walk the tiled lines in churches, believing you're on a road to Jeruselem.

Quote
Indeed, my life's experience is greater than yours.  It doesn't mean that I'm smarter but it does mean I have a greater "database" to draw from.  I've spent many years working on "stuff" too (don't suppose you've ever heard of Nevada Terawatt Facility).
Doesn't matter to me. You're still an idiot.
 
Quote
I know many big names in the physics field personally and had these discussions with them (they are far smarter than you - or me).  One thing they pretty much all agree to is that they really don't have anywhere close to all the answers.
That's because they abandoned philosophy down the road for Marxian Scientism. Study a bit of history, k? 

Quote
I guess they should get in contact with you so you can help them learn.
Actually, one PhD earner thought I knew more about physics than even him. He thought I had the answers, oddly, even though we disagreed. It's strange that morons like you think science is monolithic and must adhere to one solution. Then again that's why you're HERE and not working anymore projects.


Quote
As I've stated in the past, one thing you can GUARANTEE is that whatever "science" has to say today, it will be different tomorrow...

Science isn't a body of work, it's a method of knowing. Just one method, with a myriad to use beside it. Science stems from philosophical empiricism and its practioner's, to this day, have expelled any philosophical frameworks from its camp, leaving them blind to the future and digusted with the past.

So try someone else Invisible Hank asskisser.

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 26, 2005, 02:23:36 PM

Quote
Landauer's principle (and indeed, the second law of thermodynamics itself) can also be understood to be a direct logical consequence of the underlying reversibility of physics, as is reflected in the general Hamiltonian formulation of mechanics, and in the unitary time-evolution operator of quantum mechanics more specifically.

In the context of reversible physics, the phenomenon of entropy increase (and the observed arrow of time) can be understood to be consequences of the fact that our evolved predictive capabilities are rather limited, and cannot keep perfect track of the exact reversible evolution of complex physical systems, especially since these systems are never perfectly isolated from an unknown external environment, and even the laws of physics themselves are still not known with complete precision; thus, we (and physical observers generally) always accumulate some uncertainty about the state of physical systems, even if the system's true underlying dynamics is a perfectly reversible one that is subject to no entropy increase if viewed from a hypothetical omniscient perspective in which the dynamical laws are precisely known.


Wow!  "unknown external environment" and "hypothetical omniscient perspective".

Your logic fails.  Sounds like you are trying to prove MY point.  Keep it up.
Quote
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on August 26, 2005, 02:33:04 PM
Unknown does not mean Invisible Hank. It means Unknown. But you love to play the Argument from Ignorance Fallacy don't you?

It's like saying... "My keys are gone!? Therefore Pikachu stole them!" It doesn't logically following, asshole. Try again.

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 26, 2005, 02:35:57 PM
Quote
I know many big names in the physics field personally and had these discussions with them (they are far smarter than you - or me).  One thing they pretty much all agree to is that they really don't have anywhere close to all the answers.
That's because they abandoned philosophy down the road for Marxian Scientism. Study a bit of history, k? 

Oh my, you judge these people without knowing them and all you have to go on is my word as to who or what they are.  Thanks for believing in me...

Quote
Quote
I guess they should get in contact with you so you can help them learn.
Actually, one PhD earner thought I knew more about physics than even him. He thought I had the answers, oddly, even though we disagreed.

Gosh, sorry, I didn't know you were Sooooooo Smart.  I'll have to rember that in the future.  By the way, do take care not to break that arm patting yourself on the back.

You have serious issues.  I do hope you work them out.

Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on August 26, 2005, 02:38:46 PM
Oh my, you judge these people without knowing them and all you have to go on is my word as to who or what they are.  Thanks for believing in me...
I judge the general physics community as I see fit. You obviously some how think I must be all a cynic or whatever. Sorry, babe, try Objectivism sometime it might remove that Jesus Reindeer up your ass.

Quote
Gosh, sorry, I didn't know you were Sooooooo Smart.  I'll have to rember that in the future.  By the way, do take care not to break that arm patting yourself on the back.
I may be smart, but I know I'm not Invisible Hanker like you.

Quote
You have serious issues.  I do hope you work them out.
Spoken like a True Christian(tm)! Trying to infer being bisexual, transgendered, and etc is EVILLLLLLLLLLLLLSSSZZZZZ and thus I MUST BE EXORCIZZZZZZEDDDDDDDDDDED! YEHAWWWWW I'm Christian Anarchist, I WUVVVV to KISS HANK'S AZZZ!

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 26, 2005, 02:47:15 PM
Unknown does not mean Invisible Hank. It means Unknown. But you love to play the Argument from Ignorance Fallacy don't you?

It's like saying... "My keys are gone!? Therefore Pikachu stole them!" It doesn't logically following, asshole. Try again.

-- Bridget

Nice try, no one said that Unknown means Invisible - but it certainly could.  By the way, if your arguments are so strong and infallible, why do you resort to diversion and namecalling?  Why not just dazzle us with your superior intellect?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on August 26, 2005, 02:48:16 PM
Because you never earned it.

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 26, 2005, 02:51:38 PM
Because you never earned it.

Thanks, I do try...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 26, 2005, 02:55:19 PM
You have serious issues.  I do hope you work them out.
Spoken like a True Christian(tm)! Trying to infer being bisexual, transgendered, and etc is EVILLLLLLLLLLLLLSSSZZZZZ and thus I MUST BE EXORCIZZZZZZEDDDDDDDDDDED! YEHAWWWWW I'm Christian Anarchist, I WUVVVV to KISS HANK'S AZZZ!

Actually, I was referring to your "I am god and I know everything" attitude, but you can work on any issues you feel need attention...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Tommy on August 26, 2005, 03:04:41 PM
You have serious issues.  I do hope you work them out.
Spoken like a True Christian(tm)! Trying to infer being bisexual, transgendered, and etc is EVILLLLLLLLLLLLLSSSZZZZZ and thus I MUST BE EXORCIZZZZZZEDDDDDDDDDDED! YEHAWWWWW I'm Christian Anarchist, I WUVVVV to KISS HANK'S AZZZ!

Actually, I was referring to your "I am god and I know everything" attitude, but you can work on any issues you feel need attention...


Hey now, "can't we all just get along?"

Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 26, 2005, 11:56:21 PM
You have serious issues.  I do hope you work them out.
Spoken like a True Christian(tm)! Trying to infer being bisexual, transgendered, and etc is EVILLLLLLLLLLLLLSSSZZZZZ and thus I MUST BE EXORCIZZZZZZEDDDDDDDDDDED! YEHAWWWWW I'm Christian Anarchist, I WUVVVV to KISS HANK'S AZZZ!

Actually, I was referring to your "I am god and I know everything" attitude, but you can work on any issues you feel need attention...


Hey now, "can't we all just get along?"




I'm willing...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Tommy on August 27, 2005, 10:44:15 PM

I'm willing...



Answer me this - doesn't the Bible say to follow the laws of the government? How then can one be an anarchist with Christian beliefs?

Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 27, 2005, 11:32:27 PM

I'm willing...



Answer me this - doesn't the Bible say to follow the laws of the government? How then can one be an anarchist with Christian beliefs?


You probably are thinking of the following: Romans 13:1  ¶Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2  Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3  For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4  For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5  Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
6  For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
7  ¶Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

But who are these "Higher powers" Paul is talking about?  Is it Ceasar?  I don't think so.  If you look at his description of these "powers" and "rulers" they are "ministers of God" and they "execute wrath upon him that doeth evil".  I don't think that Hitler fit this description nor does our current world conqueror.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Tommy on August 28, 2005, 11:07:57 AM

But who are these "Higher powers" Paul is talking about?  Is it Ceasar?  I don't think so.  If you look at his description of these "powers" and "rulers" they are "ministers of God" and they "execute wrath upon him that doeth evil".  I don't think that Hitler fit this description nor does our current world conqueror.



What are the higher powers?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 28, 2005, 10:35:12 PM

But who are these "Higher powers" Paul is talking about?  Is it Ceasar?  I don't think so.  If you look at his description of these "powers" and "rulers" they are "ministers of God" and they "execute wrath upon him that doeth evil".  I don't think that Hitler fit this description nor does our current world conqueror.



What are the higher powers?



I can only speculate that they are a spiritual presence.  Perhaps angels.  I am quite sure they are not referring to the Bushwacker...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Tommy on August 28, 2005, 10:45:55 PM
I read this in the latest American Free Press:

Almost 70 percent of America's scientists agree "there are basic truths" in religion, and 68 percent called themselves a "spiritual person," a new survey found.  Only about a third said, "I don't believe in God."  The findings mirror a similar study by the University of Chicago that found 76 percent of 2,000 doctors surveyed believe in some higher power.  The latest study at Rice University in Houston polled 1,646 scientists at research universities thorughout the nation.

Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: eukreign on August 28, 2005, 10:59:08 PM
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT: Throw ChristianAnarchist to the Lions? (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=2622.0)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Jason on August 29, 2005, 07:23:53 AM
As stated in the other thread, how the hell can you be a christian anarchist? Its like bridget saying shes not a tranny and then walks around wearing panties!!! Maybe that was'nt the best example but WTF?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 29, 2005, 08:35:44 AM
As stated in the other thread, how the hell can you be a christian anarchist? Its like bridget saying shes not a tranny and then walks around wearing panties!!! Maybe that was'nt the best example but WTF?

I've explained this one in the past, but I'll give you a short easy-to-understand answer.  I'm an anarchist towards any authority of men.  My belief system is Christian.  I acknowldege God's authority over my life.  You can make your own decision as all of us do.  We can live together in peace (as long as you don't try to throw me to the lions) side-byside on this blue globe as long as you don't force me to bow down to your government god and I don't force you to bow down to God

Does this help clear things up?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: eukreign on August 29, 2005, 09:26:46 AM
Does this help clear things up?

Not really, but I will admit to not having read the entire thread only some of it.

Here is my question: What is the difference between an Anarchist who happens to be Christian and a Christian Anarchist?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on August 29, 2005, 10:35:40 AM
The answer would be a circle C than it being public domain.  :lol:

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 29, 2005, 11:40:54 AM
Does this help clear things up?

Not really, but I will admit to not having read the entire thread only some of it.

Here is my question: What is the difference between an Anarchist who happens to be Christian and a Christian Anarchist?

They are one and the same.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: eukreign on August 29, 2005, 12:07:31 PM
Does this help clear things up?
Not really, but I will admit to not having read the entire thread only some of it.
Here is my question: What is the difference between an Anarchist who happens to be Christian and a Christian Anarchist?
They are one and the same.

Okay. So, basically the purpose of this entire thread is: Be Christian!

I think it is very silly of you to assume that you could just start a thread telling people that Christianity is good and expect people to become christian. I think every person here feels very strongly about their beliefs (we are all somewhat stubborn, which is good) and if any of us believed in a higher power than we would have picked up a religion long ago. The purpose of this thread makes it seem like none of us have heard of Christianity and need to be informed about.

All I can say is that you are talking into thin air and are coming off to being a bit cooky.

If someone was ment to be Christian they will come to you and ask for help, no need to seek them out and annoy people with your silly ideas.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Puke on August 29, 2005, 12:17:59 PM
Fantastic.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Tommy on August 29, 2005, 01:25:24 PM
If someone was ment to be Christian they will come to you and ask for help, no need to seek them out and annoy people with your silly ideas.

I find this thread interesting so I guess it is of value.  If you don't like it, you have the freedom to not view it.  You certainly don't speak for everyone do you?  If you do, there's no reason for them to even post, they can all just let you do it for them.

Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on August 29, 2005, 01:31:00 PM
I prefer to be an Atheist Objectivist Pan-Minarchist psycho-wench from Heck!(c) next to Bob(PRAIIIIIIIISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE BOBBBBBBBBBBB!). :)

Then again, according to CA, I am evil. ;)

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: eukreign on August 29, 2005, 01:31:35 PM
If someone was ment to be Christian they will come to you and ask for help, no need to seek them out and annoy people with your silly ideas.
I find this thread interesting so I guess it is of value.  If you don't like it, you have the freedom to not view it.  You certainly don't speak for everyone do you?  If you do, there's no reason for them to even post, they can all just let you do it for them.

Thank you but I know my freedoms and just as I have the freedom to not view this thread I also have the freedom to view it. I choose to view it so that I could give some guidance to poor old ChristianAnarchist.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 29, 2005, 03:47:09 PM
I prefer to be an Atheist Objectivist Pan-Minarchist psycho-wench from Heck!(c) next to Bob(PRAIIIIIIIISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE BOBBBBBBBBBBB!). :)

Then again, according to CA, I am evil. ;)

-- Bridget


You need not attribute anything to me.  I will speak for myself.  I'm sure that you would object if I said that "according to Mr. Attis, life is not worth living"

Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: fisher on August 29, 2005, 03:58:07 PM
.... they will come to you and ask for help, no need to seek them out and annoy people with your silly ideas.
Someone should relay this message to the free staters.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: eukreign on August 29, 2005, 04:53:43 PM
.... they will come to you and ask for help, no need to seek them out and annoy people with your silly ideas.
Someone should relay this message to the free staters.

EVERYBODY knows about CHRISTIANITY but not everybody knows about the Free State Project!
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 30, 2005, 12:18:03 AM
.... they will come to you and ask for help, no need to seek them out and annoy people with your silly ideas.
Someone should relay this message to the free staters.

EVERYBODY knows about CHRISTIANITY but not everybody knows about the Free State Project!

There are many in the world who do not know about Christianity and even many who do (including many on this board) really don't understand the basics behind it.

Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: bonerjoe on August 30, 2005, 01:02:13 AM
So, was Jesus white or what?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on August 30, 2005, 01:06:37 AM
I'm sure that you would object if I said that "according to Mr. Attis, life is not worth living"

First, it's Miss Attis. :) Second, life is worth living since there's only one chance to live it. :)


And boner, according to the Bible, Jesus had hair of wool and skin of bronze[brown]. Therefore, Jesus isn't a honky! :)

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Tommy on August 30, 2005, 01:14:06 AM
So, was Jesus white or what?

I understand he was olive-skined with dark curly hair and a rather large nose.  In fact, he looked rather "Jewish".
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on August 30, 2005, 01:15:27 AM
And he should have been a doctor! Oy vey, his mother is still in the kitchen crying over his silly dream of wanting to be a messiah!

-- Bridget :)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 30, 2005, 01:20:35 AM
I'm sure that you would object if I said that "according to Mr. Attis, life is not worth living"

First, it's Miss Attis. :) Second, life is worth living since there's only one chance to live it. :)


So you do object to me attributing words to you that you haven't said.

And I call it like I see it Mr. Attis.

Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on August 30, 2005, 01:21:53 AM
It's Miss Attis, dogfart!

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: bonerjoe on August 30, 2005, 01:28:20 AM
You still have a penis, don't you?

Ok then.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: eukreign on August 30, 2005, 10:48:42 AM
dogfart!

It is almost always completely silent, extremely stincky and if you have two dogs you never know which one of them did it.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on August 30, 2005, 02:18:26 PM
You still have a penis, don't you?

Ok then.

Penis and vaginas don't make you a Miss or a Mister. In fact both titles are from feudalism technically, thus calling me Miss or Mister, Master, Lady, and etc Attis would infer that I'm your Sovereign. :) But, in either case, Miss is denotation of feminine not female. :-P

Morons...

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 30, 2005, 02:46:31 PM
You still have a penis, don't you?

Ok then.

Penis and vaginas don't make you a Miss or a Mister. In fact both titles are from feudalism technically, thus calling me Miss or Mister, Master, Lady, and etc Attis would infer that I'm your Sovereign. :) But, in either case, Miss is denotation of feminine not female. :-P

Morons...


Yes sir!  Whatever you say Mr. Sovereign sir!
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: bonerjoe on August 30, 2005, 09:47:55 PM
Meh.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on August 30, 2005, 10:33:16 PM
...

If you don't have anything to say nice don't say anything at all. :-P

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 31, 2005, 12:47:36 AM
...

If you don't have anything to say nice don't say anything at all. :-P



Yeah, you are a great example of only talking nice...  Don't make me go back and clip all the "mean" things you've had to say in the past.. or are you turning over a new leaf?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: eukreign on August 31, 2005, 01:07:41 AM
This is just getting stupid. Why don't you guys go back to talking about how wonderful/evil christianity and anarchy are instead of flinging dog diarrhea at one another.

You are both wrong by the way, just thought I'd point it out.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 31, 2005, 08:31:08 AM
This is just getting stupid. Why don't you guys go back to talking about how wonderful/evil christianity and anarchy are instead of flinging dog diarrhea at one another.


I'm all for it.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on August 31, 2005, 10:44:26 AM
Simply put, there is no such as Christian Anarchy, there is either anarchy or not. Prefacing the word Christian, Socialist, and Communist exemplifies the lack of foresight on the issue. It's like what I use to do by saying I'm an Objectivist Minarchist, rather than simply stating I am a Minarchist since that's all matters in most debates. Instead, I see folks like CA try to play the word stacking game. No matter how many words you stack aside anarchy, it's simply ANARCHY, the rest is fluffery.

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 31, 2005, 11:16:46 AM
Simply put, there is no such as Christian Anarchy, there is either anarchy or not. Prefacing the word Christian, Socialist, and Communist exemplifies the lack of foresight on the issue. It's like what I use to do by saying I'm an Objectivist Minarchist, rather than simply stating I am a Minarchist since that's all matters in most debates. Instead, I see folks like CA try to play the word stacking game. No matter how many words you stack aside anarchy, it's simply ANARCHY, the rest is fluffery.


Again, you miss the point entirely.  I'm an ANARCHIST politically.  That it, no more no less.  I'm a CHRISTIAN through my personal belief system.  Ergo - Christian Anarchist.  If you can't understand this, I can't put it to you any clearer.  Read the words, try to understand them.  Perhaps sounding them out real slow will help...

The reason I say it is the only sensible answer is that anarchy is the only way to have true freedom and Christianity is the only way I see to have peace with God.  You are free to disagree with either and explain why you feel that way.  I will respond with answers to either point - but realize they are two separate points.  I can live with anarchists who are not Christian and I can live with people of other political bents who are Christians - or not.  If they leave me alone, we will live in peace.

Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: xAlpha on August 31, 2005, 11:26:30 AM
...

If you don't have anything to say nice don't say anything at all. :-P



Yeah, you are a great example of only talking nice...  Don't make me go back and clip all the "mean" things you've had to say in the past.. or are you turning over a new leaf?


Shouldn't you, as the high and mighty Christian, be turning the other cheek and setting an example? SHouldn't you be loving thy neighbor, and treating others as you'd WANT to be treated, not as you ARE being treated?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on August 31, 2005, 11:36:41 AM
Again, you miss the point entirely.  I'm an ANARCHIST politically.  That it, no more no less.  I'm a CHRISTIAN through my personal belief system.  Ergo - Christian Anarchist.  If you can't understand this, I can't put it to you any clearer.  Read the words, try to understand them.  Perhaps sounding them out real slow will help...
Ergo, you want some religious ideal to be enforced by... Anarchy? WTF, dude, that's a contradiction in terms.

Quote
...Christianity is the only way I see to have peace with God.
First, you need to prove God.
Second, you need to prove God is necessary for Nature to exist.
Third, you need to show examples in Nature and logic for both to be consistent to each other.

I remind you that you have not done so.


Quote
You are free to disagree with either and explain why you feel that way.  I will respond with answers to either point - but realize they are two separate points.  I can live with anarchists who are not Christian and I can live with people of other political bents who are Christians - or not.  If they leave me alone, we will live in peace.

But you are the one that coupled them together as if they are a logic pair without addressing how and why to any soundness or validity.

The reality is this, your Christianity is what has caused the last two thousand years of backwatered thinking. Everything from the burning of the Great Library of Alexandria[The muslims helped you guys finish it off.] to the Burning Times[European Inquisitions and Dark Age murder of pagans.]. And now, George W Bush is rearing up for another Jesus Vs Whomever fight yet again on this tiny little oblige ovoid we call home.

I'm sorry, but I left Christianity for the principle reason that it leads to moral degradation and violence. Thusly, how is Anarchism in a general sense at all related to Christianity? And don't use the "You can't have two masters" quote from the Bible, because it doesn't deal with laws. Paul stated people must follow the Man's Law so long as it doesn't violate God's Law. That piece of the doctrine has not changed, unless you're asserting yourself as a new prophet of God....So from the logical issue of God's necessity[being none at all] to the doctrinal errors on your part, I see your logic pairing of Anarchy to Christianity to be....retarded.

So please, TRY AGAIN.


-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 31, 2005, 11:41:04 AM

Shouldn't you, as the high and mighty Christian, be turning the other cheek and setting an example? SHouldn't you be loving thy neighbor, and treating others as you'd WANT to be treated, not as you ARE being treated?


Sorry, I disagree.  I'll take this up with The Chief when I see him.  I might be wrong in which case He will set me straight.  For now, I've taken my stand.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: fisher on August 31, 2005, 11:55:04 AM
Simply put, there is no such as Christian Anarchy, there is either anarchy or not. Prefacing the word Christian, Socialist, and Communist exemplifies the lack of foresight on the issue. It's like what I use to do by saying I'm an Objectivist Minarchist, rather than simply stating I am a Minarchist since that's all matters in most debates. Instead, I see folks like CA try to play the word stacking game. No matter how many words you stack aside anarchy, it's simply ANARCHY, the rest is fluffery.
So you think anarcho-capitalists are retarded too, right?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 31, 2005, 11:56:18 AM
Ergo, you want some religious ideal to be enforced by... Anarchy? WTF, dude, that's a contradiction in terms.

Where do you pull this crap from anyway?  You see things that aren't there and hear things that aren't said.  I've never said that I want to "enforce" any ideals.  I've made it quite clear from the beginning that Christianity is a personal decison that one makes for themselves.  No one can "enforce" a belief in God anymore than one can "enforce" a non-belief in God 
Quote

Quote from: Mr. attis
...Christianity is the only way I see to have peace with God.
First, you need to prove God.
Second, you need to prove God is necessary for Nature to exist.
Third, you need to show examples in Nature and logic for both to be consistent to each other.

I remind you that you have not done so.


And I remind you that I have stated that I don't need to prove God and I've also said that it is impossible to prove God.  Now, you dis=prove God (and don't tire us with worthless quotes from so-called scientists and their "theories" - proof!)

Quote


Quote from: Mr. attis
You are free to disagree with either and explain why you feel that way.  I will respond with answers to either point - but realize they are two separate points.  I can live with anarchists who are not Christian and I can live with people of other political bents who are Christians - or not.  If they leave me alone, we will live in peace.

But you are the one that coupled them together as if they are a logic pair without addressing how and why to any soundness or validity.

The reality is this, your Christianity is what has caused the last two thousand years of backwatered thinking. Everything from the burning of the Great Library of Alexandria[The muslims helped you guys finish it off.] to the Burning Times[European Inquisitions and Dark Age murder of pagans.]. And now, George W Bush is rearing up for another Jesus Vs Whomever fight yet again on this tiny little oblige ovoid we call home.

I'm sorry, but I left Christianity for the principle reason that it leads to moral degradation and violence. Thusly, how is Anarchism in a general sense at all related to Christianity? And don't use the "You can't have two masters" quote from the Bible, because it doesn't deal with laws. Paul stated people must follow the Man's Law so long as it doesn't violate God's Law. That piece of the doctrine has not changed, unless you're asserting yourself as a new prophet of God....So from the logical issue of God's necessity[being none at all] to the doctrinal errors on your part, I see your logic pairing of Anarchy to Christianity to be....retarded.


Yeah, and Hitler used the most forward thinking - science and eugenics.  Pol-pot was just after power.  Bush is just after oil.  Both world wars had nothing to do with "religion".  Most of the historic killing in China and Mongolia had nothing to do with "religion".  You use this tired excuse to try to transfer the murders of man to God.  False logic.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on August 31, 2005, 12:12:18 PM
And I remind you that I have stated that I don't need to prove God and I've also said that it is impossible to prove God.
Actually, you do have to prove God because you assert it exists without any logical reason to accept it. It's like saying, I have a car without posting a picture of myself in front it for everyone to analyze to see if I photo-shopped it or it's the geniune article. In your case, you must provide the reason to believe in God and the facts that would back it up be it from scientific metholodgy or philosophical reasoning. You have done neither.

Quote from: TurdSandwich
Now, you dis=prove God (and don't tire us with worthless quotes from so-called scientists and their "theories" - proof!)
Theories are based on proof, but you forget that don't you.

Quote
Yeah, and Hitler used the most forward thinking - science and eugenics.

Here's a few nifty pieces of evidence to Hitler's beliefs.

Quote from: Nobeliefs.com
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

Quote from: Adolf Hitler
My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. -Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

Quote from: Nobeliefs.com
Their sword will become our plow, and from the tears of war the daily bread of future generations will grow. -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

Note: "Their sword will become our plow" appears to paraphrase Micah 4:3 about beating swords into ploughshares, but his tears of war more resembles Joel 3:9-10 "Beat your plowshares into swords."

Quote from: Adolf Hitler
Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)


And the infamous German Army belt buckle.... (http://www.nobeliefs.com/images/buckle.jpeg)
Quote from: Nobeliefs.com
Gott Mit Uns (God With Us) EM German Army belt buckle (Stamped steel, 1937 pattern, made by "R S & S" for Richard Sieper & Sohne Ludenscheid). Photo from the German Militaria Catalog. Also see "Guarding the Fuhrer: Sepp Dietrich, Johann Rattenhuber and the Protection of Adolf Hitler," Blaine Tayler, 1993, p. 165

So I basically pwned you yet again on the matters of fact.

Quote
Pol-pot was just after power.
Pol Pot was a nutjob, he put people from cities on farms and farm folk into cities. Equivocating him with anyone else is in itself retarded. 

Quote
Bush is just after oil.
And that's what the Arab princes said as well until they started killing folks that didn't believe in Allah the same way as they did. 

Quote
Both world wars had nothing to do with "religion".
Yet both sides claim to have saw angels and demons fighting, being that each side claimed angels fought for them against the demons of their enemy.
 
Quote
Most of the historic killing in China and Mongolia had nothing to do with "religion".
Actually it was a religious killing for the religion of Mao, aka Maoism. These are all symptomatic of Cult of Personality. Jesus was just another Cult of Personality as well, and see what it got him. :) 

Quote
You use this tired excuse to try to transfer the murders of man to God.  False logic.
I'm not transferring any responsibility to an non-entity, I'm merely placing the blame at the feet of the believers in Invisible Hank. If you don't clean house, I will by force to ensure my safety and the safety the generations after me.

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on August 31, 2005, 12:16:41 PM
Also, the Mister thing isn't insulting, CA, all it shows is that you probably are: 1) In love with me, we know how Born Again Jeebus Lovers have a thing for the shemale flesh. or 2) A closet homosexual that lusting to scream, "Fushcia is a color" at Jason!

In either case, you lost and I won.

-- Bridget skools the n00bs
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 31, 2005, 02:36:32 PM
Also, the Mister thing isn't insulting, CA, all it shows is that you probably are: 1) In love with me, we know how Born Again Jeebus Lovers have a thing for the shemale flesh. or 2) A closet homosexual that lusting to scream, "Fushcia is a color" at Jason!


Believe whatever you want to.  I've stated in the past that one does not make anyone believe anything.  Through discussion people may change their beliefs (indeed, as one grows older beliefs are destined to change).  As to Hitler "using" Christianity to promote his agenda, that's the same thing Bushy boy is doing.  Skull & Bones Christian?  I don't think so!!  Hitler's beliefs were not anywhere close to Christian if you read what those who knew him said (unless you simply think they are lying for some reason).  Anyway, the fact remains that no one can start a "war" in God's name.  He can do more damage in a single word than any measly army of men.  Those who have started wars in God's name are simply men who want to promote their own power using God's name to get the support of the people.  Someday perhaps, people will stop falling for this ploy.

As far as the "Mr" thing, I'm just being accurate.  If you are misguided enough to think you are a female, it doesn't mean that I must make believe you are.  I will continue to be as accurate as I can.

And no, I don't "have" to prove God to you or anyone.  The only two things anyone "has" to do are breathe until they die, and die.  I've told you that I cannot "prove" God and I've never taken the position that I can.  You seem to think that because you say I have to do something that I do.  I recall an old saying from my youth that I'm sure you have never heard - "Who made you the boss of me?"

P.S.  Thanks again for participating in my thread.

P.P.S.  What exactly is "Fushcia" anyway?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on August 31, 2005, 02:54:42 PM
As to Hitler "using" Christianity to promote his agenda, that's the same thing Bushy boy is doing.  Skull & Bones Christian?  I don't think so!!  Hitler's beliefs were not anywhere close to Christian if you read what those who knew him said (unless you simply think they are lying for some reason).  Anyway, the fact remains that no one can start a "war" in God's name.  He can do more damage in a single word than any measly army of men.  Those who have started wars in God's name are simply men who want to promote their own power using God's name to get the support of the people.  Someday perhaps, people will stop falling for this ploy.
Sorry, babe, but Hitler was a Christian. Pope of that time even prayed for a successful election for hier Hitler. There was even a department for Church Affairs...
Quote from: Wikipedia
The existence of a Ministry of Church Affairs, instituted in 1935 and headed by Hanns Kerrl, was hardly recognized by ideologists such as Rosenberg and by other political decision-makers.
And lets not forget the Protestant Reich Church! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reich_Church)

So if you can't accept the facts, then you're really really really really realllyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy retarded!

Get over it, Christian boy, your religion kills like Islam, Hinduism, Maoism, and etc. Just get in line and accept your religion's immoralities. If you cannot, then get a gun, then load it, and blow your brains out because everything else you do is intellectual evasion.


Quote from: Shit For Brains Christian
If you are misguided enough to think you are a female, it doesn't mean that I must make believe you are.
First, NEVER END A SENTANCE WITH A PREPOSITION!!! Second, I am a woman no matter how many times you ASSume sex is equivocal to gender. You need to study up on why chromosones don't define one's sex, nor genitals, but rather BRAIN STRUCTURE. Gee, you seem to really miss on many things don't you?


Quote from: Jeebus Sucker
And no, I don't "have" to prove God to you or anyone.  The only two things anyone "has" to do are breathe until they die, and die.  I've told you that I cannot "prove" God and I've never taken the position that I can.
It's very simple then, you are either IRRATIONAL or LYING, which is it? Maybe both since you exhibit StupidAmericantitis which leaves its victims blathering morons that ASSume everything and never reason.   

Quote from: Turdsandwich
I recall an old saying from my youth that I'm sure you have never heard - "Who made you the boss of me?"

No the quote is "You can't make me, WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!" And thus proves your intent, to be as immoral as you can. So I suggest two things for you. First, a lobotomy to ease your capacity to communicate. Second, to give me PC because, bitch, you don't know what the fuck is going enough to own that thing, you are WASTING RESOURCES.

Thank-U Drive-Thru!

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 31, 2005, 06:00:48 PM

(Lots of deleted garbage)


As usual you are spouting off a bunch of nonsence that you know nothing about - but hey, it keeps the thread going so that's good. 

As to Hitler try studying ANYTHING about him:

"Christianity is an invention of sick brains," Adolf Hitler, 13 December 1941.

"So it's not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the Churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death," Adolf Hitler, 14 October 1941.

Sounds like quite the Christian to me... Maybe you two would have been best buddies.

Try here for more info just for starters
http://kevin.davnet.org/essays/hitler.html
Then try checking on things before you spout off and show your ignorance.

As far as male female, check your medical books, you qualify as a male (I'm sorry to say).

Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on August 31, 2005, 07:28:42 PM
... Non-citated quotes[/quoet]

Gee, I already quoted Mein Kampf and his public speeches. Sorry babe, you LOST. YOU MUST REFUTE MY QUOTES OR BUGGER OFF, JEEBUS SUCKER.

Quote
Try here for more info just for starters http://kevin.davnet.org/essays/hitler.html Then try checking on things before you spout off and show your ignorance.
Sorry, NON-.EDU sources unless referenced to PRIMARY SOURCES is BULLSHIT. Therefore, fuck off.


Quote
As far as male female, check your medical books, you qualify as a male (I'm sorry to say).
Wrong again, moroonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn. Look up Brain Sex, and stop thinking you know anything. You clearly cannot even do PROPER REBUTTALS. Go back to COLLEGE AND TAKE ENGLISH 1 and 2, then COME BACK!

You lost, admit you never ever refuted a single piece of my evidence. NEVER.

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 31, 2005, 07:31:18 PM
... Non-citated quotes[/quoet]

Gee, I already quoted Mein Kampf and his public speeches. Sorry babe, you LOST. YOU MUST REFUTE MY QUOTES OR BUGGER OFF, JEEBUS SUCKER.

Quote
Try here for more info just for starters http://kevin.davnet.org/essays/hitler.html Then try checking on things before you spout off and show your ignorance.
Sorry, NON-.EDU sources unless referenced to PRIMARY SOURCES is BULLSHIT. Therefore, fuck off.


Quote
As far as male female, check your medical books, you qualify as a male (I'm sorry to say).
Wrong again, moroonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn. Look up Brain Sex, and stop thinking you know anything. You clearly cannot even do PROPER REBUTTALS. Go back to COLLEGE AND TAKE ENGLISH 1 and 2, then COME BACK!

You lost, admit you never ever refuted a single piece of my evidence. NEVER.

-- Bridget

You lost, admit you never ever submitted a single piece of evidence. NEVER.

P.S.  Learn how to use quotes you MORON...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on August 31, 2005, 07:32:25 PM
And I remind you that I have stated that I don't need to prove God and I've also said that it is impossible to prove God.
Actually, you do have to prove God because you assert it exists without any logical reason to accept it. It's like saying, I have a car without posting a picture of myself in front it for everyone to analyze to see if I photo-shopped it or it's the geniune article. In your case, you must provide the reason to believe in God and the facts that would back it up be it from scientific metholodgy or philosophical reasoning. You have done neither.

Quote from: TurdSandwich
Now, you dis=prove God (and don't tire us with worthless quotes from so-called scientists and their "theories" - proof!)
Theories are based on proof, but you forget that don't you.

Quote
Yeah, and Hitler used the most forward thinking - science and eugenics.

Here's a few nifty pieces of evidence to Hitler's beliefs.

Quote from: Nobeliefs.com
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

Quote from: Adolf Hitler
My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. -Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

Quote from: Nobeliefs.com
Their sword will become our plow, and from the tears of war the daily bread of future generations will grow. -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

Note: "Their sword will become our plow" appears to paraphrase Micah 4:3 about beating swords into ploughshares, but his tears of war more resembles Joel 3:9-10 "Beat your plowshares into swords."

Quote from: Adolf Hitler
Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)


And the infamous German Army belt buckle.... (http://www.nobeliefs.com/images/buckle.jpeg)
Quote from: Nobeliefs.com
Gott Mit Uns (God With Us) EM German Army belt buckle (Stamped steel, 1937 pattern, made by "R S & S" for Richard Sieper & Sohne Ludenscheid). Photo from the German Militaria Catalog. Also see "Guarding the Fuhrer: Sepp Dietrich, Johann Rattenhuber and the Protection of Adolf Hitler," Blaine Tayler, 1993, p. 165

So I basically pwned you yet again on the matters of fact.

Quote
Pol-pot was just after power.
Pol Pot was a nutjob, he put people from cities on farms and farm folk into cities. Equivocating him with anyone else is in itself retarded. 

Quote
Bush is just after oil.
And that's what the Arab princes said as well until they started killing folks that didn't believe in Allah the same way as they did. 

Quote
Both world wars had nothing to do with "religion".
Yet both sides claim to have saw angels and demons fighting, being that each side claimed angels fought for them against the demons of their enemy.
 
Quote
Most of the historic killing in China and Mongolia had nothing to do with "religion".
Actually it was a religious killing for the religion of Mao, aka Maoism. These are all symptomatic of Cult of Personality. Jesus was just another Cult of Personality as well, and see what it got him. :) 

Quote
You use this tired excuse to try to transfer the murders of man to God.  False logic.
I'm not transferring any responsibility to an non-entity, I'm merely placing the blame at the feet of the believers in Invisible Hank. If you don't clean house, I will by force to ensure my safety and the safety the generations after me.

-- Bridget

EVIDENCE HERE... ASSHOLE.

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on August 31, 2005, 07:33:59 PM
Ummm wrong yet again....
Quote from: Etymologyonline.com
anarchy Look up anarchy at Dictionary.com 1539, from M.L. anarchia, from Gk. anarkhia "lack of a leader," noun of state from anarkhos "rulerless," from an- "without" + arkhos "leader." Anarchist (1678) got a boost into modernity from the French Revolution. Anarcho-syndicalism is first recorded 1913.

Quote from: Wikipedia.org
The word anarchy comes from the Greek word αναρχία (anarchia), which means "without a ruler" (an- meaning "without", arch- root denoting "rule", and -ia corresponding to the English suffix "-y" in "monarchy"). It originated from the word anarchos which means either "without head or chief" or "without beginning"(Liddell & Scott's Greek-English Lexicon). Anarchos was a description often applied to God - to be "uncaused" was considered divine. A King or founder might be called the archegos (αρχηγός, from archē + agein, "to lead") or just the archōn (άρχων, participle of archein, "to rule") or the archos (αρχός, from archein + -os, masculine ending) which mean "ruler." Athenian democracy was not considered anarchia because, like modern England, Athens had Kings. In fact there were nine archontes led by an archōn (Liddell & Scott). These "rulers" served mainly religious and magisterial purposes, but their existence precluded the Athenians from calling their government anarchia. Instead of calling themselves anarchos, the Athenians described their situation as eleutheros ("free").

So please stop attempting to pwn me because you keep losing! :)

-- Bridget

EVIDENCE AGAIN, you NEVER ADDRESSED IT.

MORON.

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on August 31, 2005, 07:34:50 PM
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Hawking.html <-- Wrong again Christian Anarchist, look at the SITES, there's NO GOOGLE NEWS REPORT ON PROFESSOR HAWKING'S DEATH. Asshole!

-- Bridget

HAHAHA, you keep bullshitting by stating Hawking was dead, and I cited a source that states HE WAS NEVER EVER DEAD.

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on August 31, 2005, 07:35:28 PM

Actually Lorenz proved it when he tried to model weather and climate. In the end, his equations are correct thus far. You have to know refute their validity since not only does Chaos Theory deals with weather; it also deals with life, thermodynamics, electrodynamics, geophysics, and etc. :)

-- Bridget

O.K. then it's settled, it's no longer a theory but now graduated to "fact".  I'll update all my textbooks right away...


Dumb fuck, a theory is A PROVEN HYPOTHESIS. But you don't know that do you, Jeebus Moron? :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory


Lemme give you a link, fucktard.

Quote
In the sciences, a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework describing the behaviour of a certain natural or social phenomenon (thus either originating from observable facts or supported by observable facts). (In contrast, a hypothesis is a statement which has not been tested yet). Theories are formulated, developed and evaluated according to the scientific method.

Now eat your HUMBLE PIE, BOY.

-- Bridget


More EVIDENCE, fucktard!

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on August 31, 2005, 07:36:11 PM
Don't forget one of nature's greatest laws, the 2nd law of thermodynamics.  I know of no one who disputes this law of nature and it pretty much proves that "something" wound up this universe of ours and it is "winding down" and there is nothing we can do about it.  One must at this point search ones soul to decide what that "something" was as we cannot determine it by science which leaves religion (I hate that word).  No human was there to witness the event and there is no way to go back and observe it.  Even if we could observe it, we would no doubt still not know what was causing it.

Ummmm no................. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics only applies to closed systems and even then it's STATISTICAL. Here's a great site about the 2nd Law. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics) Then here's this site about Neg-entropy. (http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASC/NEGENTROPY.html) Before you ASSume to know physics, you best read up on stuff. Cause remember, Physics is going to be my second major... ;)

-- Bridget pwns Christian Moron yet again!

YET AGAIN... EVIDENCE...

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 31, 2005, 07:39:48 PM

EVIDENCE HERE... ASSHOLE.



Wrong, not evidence - opinions by other writers and propaganda by Hitler himself.
 
"Christianity is an invention of sick brains," Adolf Hitler, 13 December 1941.

"So it's not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the Churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death," Adolf Hitler, 14 October 1941.

Explain that ...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on August 31, 2005, 07:41:03 PM
Wrong, not evidence - opinions by other writers and propaganda by Hitler himself.
 
"Christianity is an invention of sick brains," Adolf Hitler, 13 December 1941.

"So it's not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the Churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death," Adolf Hitler, 14 October 1941.

Explain that ...

Tell me what book the quote is published in, what year, what author/editor, and etc. YOU NEVER PROVIDE SUCH, therefore I can only assume you INVENTED THE QUOTE.

"The spice must flow" -- Oscar Wilde. See I can invent quotes too, fucktard.

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 31, 2005, 07:47:23 PM

(more stuff I addressed in prior posts...


I already addressed all your points in prior posts.  All anyone has to do is go back to your original posts of these points to see my reply.  For the most part, you are applying information wrong or just ignoring the real point submitted.  You ask me to provide exact source of info and yet you don't provide same.  All the physics stuff is just theory which even the ones submitting it don't seem to understand (at least they probably can't explain it to their grandmother).

Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels was the master of the “big lie” tactic in which a lie, no matter how outrageous, is repeated often enough that it will eventually be accepted as truth. Goebbels explained:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Just keep repeating your lies, eventually you will convince someone...


Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: bonerjoe on August 31, 2005, 08:07:22 PM
Blah blah blah, yadda yadda yadda.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on August 31, 2005, 08:25:56 PM

(more stuff I addressed in prior posts...


I already addressed all your points in prior posts.  All anyone has to do is go back to your original posts of these points to see my reply.  For the most part, you are applying information wrong or just ignoring the real point submitted.  You ask me to provide exact source of info and yet you don't provide same.  All the physics stuff is just theory which even the ones submitting it don't seem to understand (at least they probably can't explain it to their grandmother).

Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels was the master of the “big lie” tactic in which a lie, no matter how outrageous, is repeated often enough that it will eventually be accepted as truth. Goebbels explained:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Just keep repeating your lies, eventually you will convince someone...




Sorry, you never refuted these arguments, you only ignored them. Stop ignoring them start refuting them, or shutup.

It goes to show that people like CA, aka Christian MORONS, have no moral or intellectual backbone. So STAND AND DELIVER, BOY.

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: fisher on August 31, 2005, 08:28:41 PM
You never answered my question.

Simply put, there is no such as Christian Anarchy, there is either anarchy or not. Prefacing the word Christian, Socialist, and Communist exemplifies the lack of foresight on the issue. It's like what I use to do by saying I'm an Objectivist Minarchist, rather than simply stating I am a Minarchist since that's all matters in most debates. Instead, I see folks like CA try to play the word stacking game. No matter how many words you stack aside anarchy, it's simply ANARCHY, the rest is fluffery.
So you think anarcho-capitalists are retarded too, right?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on August 31, 2005, 08:31:13 PM
Basically, yes I do think it's retarded to add hypen'd qualifiers since Anarchy in itself has not much on the economics of Anarchy, if there is such a thing. I love Rothbard for the life of me, but this Anarcho-capitalist crap is usually retarded since it adds redundency to an issue that isn't required.

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 31, 2005, 10:37:31 PM

Sorry, you never refuted these arguments, you only ignored them. Stop ignoring them start refuting them, or shutup.

It goes to show that people like CA, aka Christian MORONS, have no moral or intellectual backbone. So STAND AND DELIVER, BOY.


Wrong again.  I pointed out how each of your so-called "arguments" were simply theories, mis-directed or simply wrong.  Go back and read the posts and you will see.  You seem so young to be suffering from short-term memory loss.

Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on August 31, 2005, 11:00:20 PM

Wrong again.  I pointed out how each of your so-called "arguments" were simply theories
Which are based in FACT. MORON!!!! SCIENTIFIC THEORIES ARE BASED IN FACT.

Quote
, mis-directed
SHOW OR SHUTUP. DECLARATIONS ARE NOT ILLUSTRATIONS. STUDY ARGUMENTATION.

Quote
or simply wrong.
YOU NEVER ILLUSTRATE HOW THEREFORE ALL YOU SAY IS BULLSHIT. GET A BRAIN.


In conclusion, I just owned you again, fucktard Jeebus sucking shitfaced moron!

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 31, 2005, 11:20:29 PM
Which are based in FACT. MORON!!!! SCIENTIFIC THEORIES ARE BASED IN FACT.


Theories are theories.  If they were fact they would be called fact.  If theory is now fact, then just call them "fact".  Try it on for size "String fact" "Big bang fact"...  Nah...

 
Quote
SHOW OR SHUTUP. DECLARATIONS ARE NOT ILLUSTRATIONS. STUDY ARGUMENTATION.

YOU NEVER ILLUSTRATE HOW THEREFORE ALL YOU SAY IS BULLSHIT. GET A BRAIN.


You are showing your temper now as well as your inability to deal intellegently with argument.

Anyway, I want to thank you for helping me to reach my personal goal of making this thread the most posted thread in the "general" category.  I wanted to beat out the "favorite porn" thread and you helped me get there.  Give yourself a pat on the back (wash your hand first).
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on August 31, 2005, 11:24:49 PM
Theories are theories.  If they were fact they would be called fact.  If theory is now fact, then just call them "fact".  Try it on for size "String fact" "Big bang fact"...  Nah...
No....Big Bang is based on FACTS, but isn't the facts from which it's conception is based. Also, you're equivocation that if a theory is based on facts or a fact that it must be called a fact is a classic use of fallacy of composition. Since ObjectA is made of partsB therefore ObjectA is PartsB. It's like saying since some fish can breathe air therefore all fish can breathe air, not so and in this case it sticks. It's also called confusing a concept with its concrete[existent]. You seem to very ignorant of valid argumentation and science for someone that claims to have worked with scientists. Can I assume you were the janitor or the pizza guy?

Btw, the favorite porn site still will beat you in posts tonight since I found loads of straight hentai sites, you just been pwned, moron!

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Tommy on August 31, 2005, 11:25:47 PM
Hey, this thread is getting good, now get back in there -

"Ding!!"
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 31, 2005, 11:31:18 PM
No....Big Bang is based on FACTS, but isn't the facts from which it's conception is based. Also, you're equivocation that if a theory is based on facts or a fact that it must be called a fact is a classic use of fallacy of composition. Since ObjectA is made of partsB therefore ObjectA is PartsB. It's like saying since some fish can breathe air therefore all fish can breathe air, not so and in this case it sticks. It's also called confusing a concept with its concrete[existent]. You seem to very ignorant of valid argumentation and science for someone that claims to have worked with scientists. Can I assume you were the janitor or the pizza guy?

Btw, the favorite porn site still will beat you in posts tonight since I found loads of straight hentai sites, you just been pwned, moron!


That's pretty good redirection there.  YOU are the one guilty of fallacy of composition.  You are the one stating that since ObjectA (theory) is consisting of PartsB (facts) that this theory somehow proves something (theory is somehow proof which of course is fact). 

Look who's the real MORON here...

It's a THEORY ...  The FACTS might also support a different THEORY either one in existance now or in the future.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 31, 2005, 11:33:26 PM
Next !!
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on August 31, 2005, 11:37:00 PM
It's a THEORY ...  The FACTS might also support a different THEORY either one in existance now or in the future.
Gee... that's an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, so please you haven't done shit, boy. TRY AGAIN!!!!!!! I stated that theories are factual, moron. :)

Jesus == Ignorance

CA == FUCKTARD

:)

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on August 31, 2005, 11:39:43 PM
And I remind you that I have stated that I don't need to prove God and I've also said that it is impossible to prove God.
Actually, you do have to prove God because you assert it exists without any logical reason to accept it. It's like saying, I have a car without posting a picture of myself in front it for everyone to analyze to see if I photo-shopped it or it's the geniune article. In your case, you must provide the reason to believe in God and the facts that would back it up be it from scientific metholodgy or philosophical reasoning. You have done neither.

Quote from: TurdSandwich
Now, you dis=prove God (and don't tire us with worthless quotes from so-called scientists and their "theories" - proof!)
Theories are based on proof, but you forget that don't you.

Quote
Yeah, and Hitler used the most forward thinking - science and eugenics.

Here's a few nifty pieces of evidence to Hitler's beliefs.

Quote from: Nobeliefs.com
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

Quote from: Adolf Hitler
My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. -Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

Quote from: Nobeliefs.com
Their sword will become our plow, and from the tears of war the daily bread of future generations will grow. -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

Note: "Their sword will become our plow" appears to paraphrase Micah 4:3 about beating swords into ploughshares, but his tears of war more resembles Joel 3:9-10 "Beat your plowshares into swords."

Quote from: Adolf Hitler
Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)


And the infamous German Army belt buckle.... (http://www.nobeliefs.com/images/buckle.jpeg)
Quote from: Nobeliefs.com
Gott Mit Uns (God With Us) EM German Army belt buckle (Stamped steel, 1937 pattern, made by "R S & S" for Richard Sieper & Sohne Ludenscheid). Photo from the German Militaria Catalog. Also see "Guarding the Fuhrer: Sepp Dietrich, Johann Rattenhuber and the Protection of Adolf Hitler," Blaine Tayler, 1993, p. 165

So I basically pwned you yet again on the matters of fact.

Quote
Pol-pot was just after power.
Pol Pot was a nutjob, he put people from cities on farms and farm folk into cities. Equivocating him with anyone else is in itself retarded. 

Quote
Bush is just after oil.
And that's what the Arab princes said as well until they started killing folks that didn't believe in Allah the same way as they did. 

Quote
Both world wars had nothing to do with "religion".
Yet both sides claim to have saw angels and demons fighting, being that each side claimed angels fought for them against the demons of their enemy.
 
Quote
Most of the historic killing in China and Mongolia had nothing to do with "religion".
Actually it was a religious killing for the religion of Mao, aka Maoism. These are all symptomatic of Cult of Personality. Jesus was just another Cult of Personality as well, and see what it got him. :) 

Quote
You use this tired excuse to try to transfer the murders of man to God.  False logic.
I'm not transferring any responsibility to an non-entity, I'm merely placing the blame at the feet of the believers in Invisible Hank. If you don't clean house, I will by force to ensure my safety and the safety the generations after me.

-- Bridget

EVIDENCE HERE... ASSHOLE.

-- Bridget

ugh.... ChristianAnarchist, just don't even waste your time anymore...

Bridget actually thinks Hitler was xian.... :roll:

ever hear the word "propaganda"...? of course he's going to say all that nice crap in public about giving it up for the Creator.

That's like when Bush says that such tyrannical ideas like the Patriot Act are good for the country...

Now let's look at the facts: Hitler was actually into a new-age religion - and he went after Xians (Catholics specifically) just as much as he went after the Jews.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on August 31, 2005, 11:41:23 PM
No, Hitler outlawed all pagan worship. You're mixing Himmler's beliefs with that of Hitler's. I suggest you consider the facts before posting again.

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on August 31, 2005, 11:41:55 PM
It's a THEORY ...  The FACTS might also support a different THEORY either one in existance now or in the future.
Gee... that's an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, so please you haven't done shit, boy. TRY AGAIN!!!!!!! I stated that theories are factual, moron. :)

Jesus == Ignorance

CA == FUCKTARD

:)

-- Bridget
well I thought you were above the name-calling...
tisk

chill
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on August 31, 2005, 11:44:10 PM
When someone asserts the classic bullshit spewed by Christian Apologetics I get tired of trying to reason with such rhetoric, especially when it's based on fallacious thinking.

Christianity is like communism, it looks pretty but in practice it's as evil, vile, and immoral as any other worldview and should be treated like radon gas, with careful disposal.

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on August 31, 2005, 11:48:26 PM
No, Hitler outlawed all pagan worship. You're mixing Himmler's beliefs with that of Hitler's. I suggest you consider the facts before posting again.

-- Bridget

Himmler? is that a cute play on words?

anyway...

"While most Jews are sure that Hitler represented the Christian community, his associates knew better. In this section we see not only that Hitler rejected Christianity, but that there is also ample research showing that Hitler founded far more than a political regime - the Third Reich was an occult-based religious movement to usher in the same New Age examined in this series. [For documentation besides the Angeberts, see also D. Sklar, _The Nazis and the Occult_; Joseph Carr, _The Twisted Cross_; Robert G.L. Waite, _The Psychopathic God - Adolf Hitler_; Gerald Suster, _Adolf Hitler, The Occult Messiah_; Trevor Ravenscroft, _The Spear of Destiny_.]"
http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/thenewage.html

He himself was a new-ager and hated Xianity (ie- murdered Catholics)... so you're idea about equating him w/ them is completely insane.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on August 31, 2005, 11:51:13 PM
Christianity is like communism, it looks pretty but in practice it's as evil, vile, and immoral as any other worldview and should be treated like radon gas, with careful disposal.

-- Bridget

yes, "love thy neighbour as yourself"... so evil... I'm out to get you. don't cross me. :roll:

you are paranoid, bigotted, and simply ignorant.

Any evil that stemmed from Xianity (Catholocism, specifically) was b/c some corrupt human being - plain and simple.

Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on August 31, 2005, 11:54:45 PM
Himmler? is that a cute play on words?
Himmler was the leader of the SS and Waffen SS. I should know, my father is a WW2 plane fan, specifically the German planes. Either way, you clearly haven't thought through the known facts from that period. Christianity was in fact the cornerstone to facism and other nationalist movements, specifically the movement in Belgium known as Rexism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rexism) which stated that Catholicism was the cornerstone to a society free of jewish influences and the evils of capitalism. :)

Do you want to go twelve rounds with Muhammed Attis? I think not.





Quote
http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/thenewage.html
The anti-mason stuff is not only fraudulent, it borders on Libel and Slander, considering all the founding fathers were MASONS. Moreover, the German masonic tradition was rooted in Christian Mysticism, which stated that the Aryan Race was the master of all other races. This also was reflected in the other occult practices of the time, which were all based on commonly held views of Christian churches.

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on September 01, 2005, 12:03:28 AM
yes, "love thy neighbour as yourself"... so evil... I'm out to get you. don't cross me. :roll:
Say that to the Evangelical Christians that use rolling of words, bass-toned music, and other known mind-altering tactics to enforce an ideal on individuals. Also, lets not forget that even in the United States of America pagans are still hunted. In the early 2000s[about three years ago] one mother that was openly pagan had her children harassed at school, property destroyed by Christians, and even had Christians try to steal her children away through the courts, claiming that she practiced human sacrafice.

Then, lets not talk about how Christian organizations use reparative therapy[aka AVERSION/PAIN-based] to force seemingly bisexual people[according to noted psychologists] to live as straight people. Even though it is a known fact that not only that healthcare companies won't pay for such therapies since they are based on psycho-dynamics, which is proven to be unscientific by these same companies. :)

Oh, lets not forget how Christians try to pass by popular vote laws against gay couples from forming PRIVATE CONTRACTS OF INCORPORATION, aka CIVIL UNIONS. Gee, you LOVING CHRISTIANS are really just floaties that need to be flushed.


Quote
you are paranoid, bigotted, and simply ignorant.
Paranoia is another word for a heightened sense of awareness. And bigotted, we are all bigotted against other people since I do not associate with Jesus-Freaks, Commies, or Fucktards. Then as for ignorant... Nope, I'm quite wise and arrogant.

Quote
Any evil that stemmed from Xianity (Catholocism, specifically) was b/c some corrupt human being...

Nope, the evil comes from the fact that Christianity like all religions teaches it's okay to sin sin sin sin then beg Invisible Hank to save you, when you should be asking your neighbor for forgiveness when you steal his stuff. :)

-- Bridget

P.S. Here's a nifty link on Heinrich Himmler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Himmler). So please stop ASSuming you know anything on this topic, because I'll just keep kicking the shit out of you. :)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on September 01, 2005, 12:07:30 AM
I was just showing how you were wrong about Hitler being a Xian - but I'm sure you're well versed on whoever that is...

"which stated that Catholicism was the cornerstone to a society free of jewish influences and the evils of capitalism."
so what is your point? lots of perverted ideas/people stem their beliefs from a very legit/moral source... then they simply re-interpret and twist it into their own liking. 
haha... are you also suggesting Catholics are communists?? oh man....... not even worth refuting...:roll:

and also, the Catholic Church strictly forbids any of its members from joining the Freemasons, being as that itself is more of a new-age movement then anything.


Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on September 01, 2005, 12:10:58 AM
yes, "love thy neighbour as yourself"... so evil... I'm out to get you. don't cross me. :roll:
Say that to the Evangelical Christians that use rolling of words, bass-toned music, and other known mind-altering tactics to enforce an ideal on individuals. Also, lets not forget that even in the United States of America pagans are still hunted. In the early 2000s[about three years ago] one mother that was openly pagan had her children harassed at school, property destroyed by Christians, and even had Christians try to steal her children away through the courts, claiming that she practiced human sacrafice.

Then, lets not talk about how Christian organizations use reparative therapy[aka AVERSION/PAIN-based] to force seemingly bisexual people[according to noted psychologists] to live as straight people. Even though it is a known fact that not only that healthcare companies won't pay for such therapies since they are based on psycho-dynamics, which is proven to be unscientific by these same companies. :)

Oh, lets not forget how Christians try to pass by popular vote laws against gay couples from forming PRIVATE CONTRACTS OF INCORPORATION, aka CIVIL UNIONS. Gee, you LOVING CHRISTIANS are really just floaties that need to be flushed.


Quote
you are paranoid, bigotted, and simply ignorant.
Paranoia is another word for a heightened sense of awareness. And bigotted, we are all bigotted against other people since I do not associate with Jesus-Freaks, Commies, or Fucktards. Then as for ignorant... Nope, I'm quite wise and arrogant.

Quote
Any evil that stemmed from Xianity (Catholocism, specifically) was b/c some corrupt human being...

Nope, the evil comes from the fact that Christianity like all religions teaches it's okay to sin sin sin sin then beg Invisible Hank to save you, when you should be asking your neighbor for forgiveness when you steal his stuff. :)

-- Bridget

P.S. Here's a nifty link on Heinrich Himmler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Himmler). So please stop ASSuming you know anything on this topic, because I'll just keep kicking the shit out of you. :)

I'm going to try and limit my time w/ you, b/c you are bigotted and only ever the corruption as put forth by some "christians".

Don't ever associate me w/ an Evangelical - again you are ignorant.

there's no point in trying to reason w/ the likes of you, you are like a racist... you are already convinced that the whole "race" of Xianity is evil, corrupt and out to get you.

I almost feel bad for you.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on September 01, 2005, 12:14:11 AM
are you also suggesting Catholics are communists??
The Catholic Church's stance is firmly set for Socialism as per the doctrine stated by the council of Bishops. Catholicism in the New World has always practiced and aided Socialist revolutionaries in the 20th and current century. :) So please stop ASSuming yet again to know what you're talking about, because I just kicked the shit out of you AGAIN.

worth refuting...:roll:

Quote
and also, the Catholic Church strictly forbids any of its members from joining the Freemasons, being as that itself is more of a new-age movement then anything.

Fact, the New Age movement started in the 1930s as part of the occult research loosely linked with the Yale group known as the Golden Dawn.

Fact, the Masons has pre-existed the New Age movement by 100 years, according to all official records in the Scottish Rite Temple in England.

Fact, the Catholic Church in the New World accomodates more occultic practices than the Masonic Temple[Which is firmly based in Protestantism]. :)

So please, stop trying to assume, FIND SOME FACTS.

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on September 01, 2005, 12:18:32 AM
I'm going to try and limit my time w/ you, b/c you are bigotted and only ever the corruption as put forth by some "christians".
Good, because Christianity is a fallacious worldview. I'm an evil Objectivist that dares to think for myself and accept the fact that I only have ONE LIFE TO LIVE. And to accept that there IS NO AFTER LIFE. And to accept THERE IS NO PRIME CAUSE.



Quote
Don't ever associate me w/ an Evangelical - again you are ignorant.
I never stated you associated with them, I stated that the Evangelical Christian movement did certain things. Stop fucking putting words in my mouth, fucktard.


Quote
there's no point in trying to reason w/ the likes of you, you are like a racist... you are already convinced that the whole "race" of Xianity is evil, corrupt and out to get you.
The fact is this, religion IS NOT BASED IN REASON, and thusly I don't associate myself with IRRATIONAL PHILOSOPHIES. Study something worthwhile like woodworking or C-language Programming. LIVE HERE AND IN THE NOW, NOT IN JEEBUS LAND.


Quote
I almost feel bad for you.
Why? Because I don't accept Jeebus? Babe, here's some facts. There is no God. There is no afterlife. And there is no Hell/Heaven situation. There is only NOW. Right NOW. If you cannot accept that, then you are DELUSIONAL. And there's no way to wiggle out of the fact that you want Nature to revolve around the crack of your ass rather than accepting the Unintelligent Design of Nature. :)

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: xAlpha on September 01, 2005, 12:21:17 AM
Himmler? is that a cute play on words?
Himmler was the leader of the SS and Waffen SS. I should know, my father is a WW2 plane fan, specifically the German planes. Either way, you clearly haven't thought through the known facts from that period. Christianity was in fact the cornerstone to facism and other nationalist movements, specifically the movement in Belgium known as Rexism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rexism) which stated that Catholicism was the cornerstone to a society free of jewish influences and the evils of capitalism. :)

Do you want to go twelve rounds with Muhammed Attis? I think not.





Quote
http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/thenewage.html
The anti-mason stuff is not only fraudulent, it borders on Libel and Slander, considering all the founding fathers were MASONS. Moreover, the German masonic tradition was rooted in Christian Mysticism, which stated that the Aryan Race was the master of all other races. This also was reflected in the other occult practices of the time, which were all based on commonly held views of Christian churches.

-- Bridget

Now it's my turn to correct -your- history. Not all the founding fathers were free-masons. In fact, it was largely a Federalist-party orginization, so people like Thomas Jefferson and his Republican Party (the old one) friends were not members.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on September 01, 2005, 12:23:01 AM
You're right about Jefferson, I forgot about him, rofl! But the rest were openly Free Masons, chiefly Washington, who would never stay through church services with his wife at Sundays. :)

Washington, the proud Deist and rational man. :)

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on September 01, 2005, 12:25:49 AM
are you also suggesting Catholics are communists??
The Catholic Church's stance is firmly set for Socialism as per the doctrine stated by the council of Bishops. Catholicism in the New World has always practiced and aided Socialist revolutionaries in the 20th and current century. :) So please stop ASSuming yet again to know what you're talking about, because I just kicked the shit out of you AGAIN.

worth refuting...:roll:

Quote
and also, the Catholic Church strictly forbids any of its members from joining the Freemasons, being as that itself is more of a new-age movement then anything.

Fact, the New Age movement started in the 1930s as part of the occult research loosely linked with the Yale group known as the Golden Dawn.

Fact, the Masons has pre-existed the New Age movement by 100 years, according to all official records in the Scottish Rite Temple in England.

Fact, the Catholic Church in the New World accomodates more occultic practices than the Masonic Temple[Which is firmly based in Protestantism]. :)

So please, stop trying to assume, FIND SOME FACTS.

-- Bridget

ok, again:

number 1: I'm Catholic, so I know what I'm talking about when it comes to this matter. Period.
The Freemason movement is immoral and corrupt, and any self-respecting Catholic is not to be a member, and that is official Church doctrine.

number 2:
any reputable Catholic speaker/writer/columnist is an Individualist and therefore is against Communism b/c of the oppressive nature of it.
I could easily cite dozens of these people for you, but as I've shown you aren't interested in opening your eyes, only pointing out hypocrites within the Xian church.
Furthermore, Hitler and Mao specifically (one socialist the other communist - both 2 different sides of the same coin) - hated and murdered Catholics... why? b/c of their completely opposite ideologies.


I deal w/ atheists on here all the time - but you are quite the number indeed...
so yes, continue w/ your sad little name-calling and anti-Xian bigotry and extremism - you are looking more like a fool as time passes.  :D
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on September 01, 2005, 12:30:05 AM
number 1: I'm Catholic, so I know what I'm talking about when it comes to this matter. Period.
Fallacy of Special Knowledge... 1 point away from Grey.

Quote
The Freemason movement is immoral and corrupt, and any self-respecting Catholic is not to be a member, and that is official Church doctrine.
Generalization without proof. 1 point away from Grey....


Quote
number 2:any reputable Catholic speaker/writer/columnist is an Individualist and therefore is against Communism b/c of the oppressive nature of it.
I could easily cite dozens of these people for you, but as I've shown you aren't interested in opening your eyes, only pointing out hypocrites within the Xian church.
Generalization yet again, and no facts to back it up. 1 point away from Grey....

Quote
Furthermore, Hitler and Mao specifically (one socialist the other communist - both 2 different sides of the same coin) - hated and murdered Catholics... why? b/c of their completely opposite ideologies.
Hitler is not equivocal to Mao, since Mao was based on communism and Hitler was based on Fascism and Corporatism. 1 point away from Grey...


Quote
I deal w/ atheists on here all the time - but you are quite the number indeed... so yes, continue w/ your sad little name-calling and anti-Xian bigotry and extremism - you are looking more like a fool as time passes.  :D
More fallacious thinking without facts. 1 point away from Grey...

That makes 5 points that are in the negative due to no facts, fallacious thinking, and over all idiocy.

-- Bridget
Quote
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on September 01, 2005, 12:30:13 AM
I'm going to try and limit my time w/ you, b/c you are bigotted and only ever the corruption as put forth by some "christians".
Good, because Christianity is a fallacious worldview. I'm an evil Objectivist that dares to think for myself and accept the fact that I only have ONE LIFE TO LIVE. And to accept that there IS NO AFTER LIFE. And to accept THERE IS NO PRIME CAUSE.



Quote
Don't ever associate me w/ an Evangelical - again you are ignorant.
I never stated you associated with them, I stated that the Evangelical Christian movement did certain things. Stop fucking putting words in my mouth, fucktard.


Quote
there's no point in trying to reason w/ the likes of you, you are like a racist... you are already convinced that the whole "race" of Xianity is evil, corrupt and out to get you.
The fact is this, religion IS NOT BASED IN REASON, and thusly I don't associate myself with IRRATIONAL PHILOSOPHIES. Study something worthwhile like woodworking or C-language Programming. LIVE HERE AND IN THE NOW, NOT IN JEEBUS LAND.


Quote
I almost feel bad for you.
Why? Because I don't accept Jeebus? Babe, here's some facts. There is no God. There is no afterlife. And there is no Hell/Heaven situation. There is only NOW. Right NOW. If you cannot accept that, then you are DELUSIONAL. And there's no way to wiggle out of the fact that you want Nature to revolve around the crack of your ass rather than accepting the Unintelligent Design of Nature. :)

-- Bridget

you like that caps button eh?

how old are you? 14?
Jeebus? ...using some ad-hominems a la Simpsons I see...

yea, sure makes your "side" look good...

no worries folks, I won't parallel the other actual rational, non-extreme, unbigoted atheists on here w/ the likes of bridget...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on September 01, 2005, 12:31:38 AM
number 1: I'm Catholic, so I know what I'm talking about when it comes to this matter. Period.
Fallacy of Special Knowledge... 1 point away from Grey.

Quote
The Freemason movement is immoral and corrupt, and any self-respecting Catholic is not to be a member, and that is official Church doctrine.
Generalization without proof. 1 point away from Grey....


Quote
number 2:any reputable Catholic speaker/writer/columnist is an Individualist and therefore is against Communism b/c of the oppressive nature of it.
I could easily cite dozens of these people for you, but as I've shown you aren't interested in opening your eyes, only pointing out hypocrites within the Xian church.
Generalization yet again, and no facts to back it up. 1 point away from Grey....

Quote
Furthermore, Hitler and Mao specifically (one socialist the other communist - both 2 different sides of the same coin) - hated and murdered Catholics... why? b/c of their completely opposite ideologies.
Hitler is not equivocal to Mao, since Mao was based on communism and Hitler was based on Fascism and Corporatism. 1 point away from Grey...


Quote
I deal w/ atheists on here all the time - but you are quite the number indeed... so yes, continue w/ your sad little name-calling and anti-Xian bigotry and extremism - you are looking more like a fool as time passes.  :D
More fallacious thinking without facts. 1 point away from Grey...

That makes 5 points that are in the negative due to no facts, fallacious thinking, and over all idiocy.

-- Bridget
Quote

yup, you showed me you unbelievable such and such. :roll:

God. Help "her".
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on September 01, 2005, 12:32:06 AM
yea, sure makes your "side" look good...
I have no side since being an atheist is like being blue, or tall; a quality of an entity but not a subscribed worldview.

Quote
no worries folks, I won't parallel the other actual rational, non-extreme, unbigoted atheists on here w/ the likes of bridget...

Babe, no one can be equivocated with anyone else unless they permit it.

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on September 01, 2005, 12:32:47 AM
There is no God, moron.

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: eukreign on September 01, 2005, 12:36:12 AM
I may not agree with Bridgets presentation but my impression is that she has been providing all sorts of evidence to support her claim and all of you Christians just resort to beating around the bush or being childish and refusing to refute Bridgets evidence just because she uses the caps lock key.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on September 01, 2005, 12:37:09 AM
There is no God, moron.

-- Bridget
your childish is getting the best of you, once more...

run along little child. shoo.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on September 01, 2005, 12:38:20 AM
There is no God, moron.

-- Bridget
your childish is getting the best of you, once more...

run along little child. shoo.

Buddha says the child is free from maya... :)

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 01, 2005, 12:38:52 AM

He himself was a new-ager and hated Xianity (ie- murdered Catholics)... so you're idea about equating him w/ them is completely insane.

Insane would be the correct term for Mr. Attis...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on September 01, 2005, 12:41:33 AM
I may not agree with Bridgets presentation but my impression is that she has been providing all sorts of evidence to support her claim and all of you Christians just resort to beating around the bush or being childish and refusing to refute Bridgets evidence just because she uses the caps lock key.

I was only trying to discuss and show that Bridget was wrong on some points - as I haven't been following this whole post...

ie- such facts as: - It's immoral for Catholics to be Freemasons (church doctrine)
- Catholics abhor communism (through history/current Catholics who praise Individualism/Capitalism)

I mean I already told her I'm Catholic and I know at least that much about my religion...

I wouldn't question "her" on her transgenderism - b/c I am simply not one - nor have I done research into it...

so, in summary, Bridget's simply wrong on those two points... that's all I wanted to clear up... but "she" came along and started flying off the handle w/ ad hominem/immature attacks.  It's simply laughable.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 01, 2005, 12:48:17 AM
yes, "love thy neighbour as yourself"... so evil... I'm out to get you. don't cross me. :roll:
P.S. Here's a nifty link on Heinrich Himmler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Himmler). So please stop ASSuming you know anything on this topic, because I'll just keep kicking the shit out of you. :)

You seem to really believe that your arguments are based upon something.  Delusional.  Delusions of Grandeur.  Paranoia.  You're something...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on September 01, 2005, 12:50:32 AM

He himself was a new-ager and hated Xianity (ie- murdered Catholics)... so you're idea about equating him w/ them is completely insane.

Insane would be the correct term for Mr. Attis...


Quote
Agent Smith: Why, Mr. Anderson? Why do you do it? Why get up? Why keep fighting? Do you believe you're fighting for something? For more that your survival? Can you tell me what it is? Do you even know? Is it freedom? Or truth? Perhaps peace? Yes? No? Could it be for love? Illusions, Mr. Anderson. Vagaries of perception. The temporary constructs of a feeble human intellect trying desperately to justify an existence that is without meaning or purpose. And all of them as artificial as the Matrix itself, although only a human mind could invent something as insipid as love. You must be able to see it, Mr. Anderson. You must know it by now. You can't win. It's pointless to keep fighting. Why, Mr. Anderson? Why? Why do you persist?

n00b.


And grey, the fact is that the Catholic Church has stopped significant development of capitalism in the world from past to present. For example, before the break between Protestants and Catholics, Belgium never had an independent banking system, all banks were owned by the Church. All gold was controlled by the Church. All governments, controlled by the Church. When Martin Luther came around, he presented an argument that allowed other Christians of differing views to challange the authority of the theorcracy that developed from the Church. It concluded with the merchant princes of Venice to the ultimate rise of the modern Italian government[which is only held at bay by tradition and treaty, rather than simple power plays], and the development of the secular society.

You, sir, need to acknowledge the evils of the Church, such as the stubborn actions of obsfucation on Galileo Galilei's work, the development of free banking systems, and that political leaders have the moral duty to keep their religious convictions out of the decisions done at the governmental level.

Yet, your Church continues to press down on similar issues today.

I suggest you Catholics stop pushing your God-drug on the world, and leave freedom for the free thinking.

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 01, 2005, 12:52:47 AM

The anti-mason stuff is not only fraudulent, it borders on Libel and Slander, considering all the founding fathers were MASONS. Moreover, the German masonic tradition was rooted in Christian Mysticism, which stated that the Aryan Race was the master of all other races. This also was reflected in the other occult practices of the time, which were all based on commonly held views of Christian churches.


You are truly an idiot to think that ALL founding fathers were masons.  No exceptions huh??  What a MORON.  
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 01, 2005, 12:58:51 AM

God. Help "her".

Don't feel you need to comfort this guy and his delusions - no need to address him as a woman as we, at least, know the difference.  How can one claim to be such an "expert" on so many subjects and doesn't know the difference between man an woman??

Quote
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 01, 2005, 01:01:06 AM
There is no God, moron.


You cannot prove there is no God.  God could prove you don't exist however - if He chooses.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on September 01, 2005, 01:02:08 AM


Don't feel you need to comfort this guy and his delusions - no need to address him as a woman as we, at least, know the difference.  How can one claim to be such an "expert" on so many subjects and doesn't know the difference between man an woman??


zing.
 :D
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on September 01, 2005, 01:02:36 AM
There is no God, moron.


You cannot prove there is no God.  God could prove you don't exist however - if He chooses.

again, zing.  8)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on September 01, 2005, 01:03:53 AM
You cannot prove there is no God.  God could prove you don't exist however - if He chooses.
No, it can't due to the fact that Nature is absolute, thus SUPREME. :)

-- Bridget teh Nature Lover
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 01, 2005, 01:06:43 AM
You, sir, need to acknowledge the evils of the Church, such as the stubborn actions of obsfucation on Galileo Galilei's work, the development of free banking systems, and that political leaders have the moral duty to keep their religious convictions out of the decisions done at the governmental level.

Yet, your Church continues to press down on similar issues today.

I suggest you Catholics stop pushing your God-drug on the world, and leave freedom for the free thinking.


The fact is that athiests have no guide or compass to obtain moral absolutes so there is no limit to the evil and destruction they do.  Stop pushing your athiest-drug on the world, and leave freedom for the free of spirit...
 :lol:
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on September 01, 2005, 01:10:49 AM
The fact is that athiests have no guide or compass to obtain moral absolutes so there is no limit to the evil and destruction they do.
Try Virtue Ethics and the Virtue of Selfishness[Ethical Egoism], but then again you're a shit-for-brains fuckwad that thinks anyone that don't believe like you is immoral. So you can fuck your half-sister horse-bride until Russia's permafrost thaws.

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 01, 2005, 01:11:49 AM
You cannot prove there is no God.  God could prove you don't exist however - if He chooses.
No, it can't due to the fact that Nature is absolute, thus SUPREME. :)


Yeah, dellusional all right.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 01, 2005, 01:13:59 AM
The fact is that athiests have no guide or compass to obtain moral absolutes so there is no limit to the evil and destruction they do.
Try Virtue Ethics and the Virtue of Selfishness[Ethical Egoism], but then again you're a shit-for-brains fuckwad that thinks anyone that don't believe like you is immoral. So you can fuck your half-sister horse-bride until Russia's permafrost thaws.


Sounds pretty immoral to me.  Case closed.

By the way at post #346 thanks to U
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on September 01, 2005, 01:18:22 AM
You, sir, need to acknowledge the evils of the Church, such as the stubborn actions of obsfucation on Galileo Galilei's work, the development of free banking systems, and that political leaders have the moral duty to keep their religious convictions out of the decisions done at the governmental level.

Yet, your Church continues to press down on similar issues today.

I suggest you Catholics stop pushing your God-drug on the world, and leave freedom for the free thinking.


The fact is that athiests have no guide or compass to obtain moral absolutes so there is no limit to the evil and destruction they do. Stop pushing your athiest-drug on the world, and leave freedom for the free of spirit...
 :lol:

ah yes.... good point... the atheists/God hater's lack of moral absolutes and the destruction they caused:

ie- Hitler, Stalin, Tung, Hussein, Milosevich, Kim Jung Ill, etc. etc. (they alone killed 10's of millions this past century... all in the name of secular humanism/moral relativism/collectivism... ie- not Xianity).

in fact, more deaths resulted from said leaders than any "form" of Christianity.  (which of course there aren't any deaths as a result of Christianity, b/c to murder would be hypocritical, and thus automatically eject/excommunicate you from Xianity).

What's my point? Oh, in case you didn't get it: that secular humanism/moral relativism/collectivism is responsible for the greatest amount of suffering, ever.
That's simply irrefutable.

Show me a truly Christian country (hint: there isn't one - I swear if you say the US, you are out of your mind - it's a war-mongering collectivist cesspool) and show me a truly collectivist/God hating one (hint: there's hundreds)... and you'll see what the real problem is...

Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 01, 2005, 01:19:53 AM
Wow!!  348 posts in 21 days!  A new record of 16.4 posts per day...

I win...

Good night all.  I will sleep well tonight.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on September 01, 2005, 01:20:17 AM
So you can fuck your half-sister horse-bride until Russia's permafrost thaws.

-- Bridget

Golly "she" makes such good points... I mean... how could one begin to rebute such points?

oh right, b/c they are equivalent to that of a blathering, immature fool.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: eukreign on September 01, 2005, 01:20:37 AM
Why do you Christians insist on shoving your stupid fairy tales down everyones throats? You are the only group of people who do this... there are no other threads labeled "Athiest Anarchy" or "Buddhist Anarchy" or "Jewish Anarchy", etc. Only the Christians think they need to show everyone that they are superior to everyone else. You are like the KKK minus the pointy hoods.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on September 01, 2005, 01:22:36 AM
Why do you Christians insist on shoving your stupid fairy tales down everyones throats? You are the only group of people who do this... there are no other threads labeled "Athiest Anarchy" or "Buddhist Anarchy" or "Jewish Anarchy", etc. Only the Christians think they need to show everyone that they are superior to everyone else. You are like the KKK minus the pointy hoods.

yeah how dare someone w/ an alternative POV start up their own thread.

"like the KKK minus the pointy hoods" huh?

awwh... darn, you're not gonna get all Bridget on us, are ya dude?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on September 01, 2005, 01:26:52 AM
ie- Hitler, Stalin, Tung, Hussein, Milosevich, Kim Jung Ill, etc. etc. (they alone killed 10's of millions this past century... all in the name of secular humanism/moral relativism/collectivism... ie- not Xianity).
No... Mao was a Statist and thus worshipped the idea of the State. Hitler worshipped the idea of the Aryan race. Hussein worshipped himself, thus was a Cult of Personality leader... Gee, you just keep getting pwned by me every second.


-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on September 01, 2005, 01:28:44 AM
ie- Hitler, Stalin, Tung, Hussein, Milosevich, Kim Jung Ill, etc. etc. (they alone killed 10's of millions this past century... all in the name of secular humanism/moral relativism/collectivism... ie- not Xianity).
No... Mao was a Statist and thus worshipped the idea of the State. Hitler worshipped the idea of the Aryan race. Hussein worshipped himself, thus was a Cult of Personality leader... Gee, you just keep getting pwned by me every second.


-- Bridget

haha. you silly "boy"

they were the farthest things from Christians.  and as I've said, they hate(d) them... they all followed some form of collectivism (either new age or secular based).


Again, they were NOT Xian.

zing.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: eukreign on September 01, 2005, 01:28:58 AM
Why do you Christians insist on shoving your stupid fairy tales down everyones throats? You are the only group of people who do this... there are no other threads labeled "Athiest Anarchy" or "Buddhist Anarchy" or "Jewish Anarchy", etc. Only the Christians think they need to show everyone that they are superior to everyone else. You are like the KKK minus the pointy hoods.

yeah how dare someone w/ an alternative POV start up their own thread.

"like the KKK minus the pointy hoods" huh?

awwh... darn, you're not gonna get all Bridget on us, are ya dude?


I don't really care anymore, I gave up on you Christians a long time ago in the "Bush wants "Intelligent Design" taught in schools" thread.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on September 01, 2005, 01:33:12 AM
Saying Hitler wasn't a Xian is like saying Red isn't a color. ROFL!

Silly Christians, Arsinic isn't for Koolaid! :)

Keep on drinking!

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on September 01, 2005, 01:38:20 AM
Why do you Christians insist on shoving your stupid fairy tales down everyones throats? You are the only group of people who do this...
They aren't hurting anybody. You are only hurting yourself by creating an enemy out of them. Try relaxing a bit and granting some tolerance for those who think differently than yourself.  By forcing your opinion on others, you are becoming no better than what you label them as.

Don't be a hypocrite. 

I don't like most of the neo-christian, evangelist attitude or demeanor either.  But stereotyping all christians is a very big mistake.  A mistake that was once made by the Roman Empire, if I remember correctly.  Just try to understand: your true enemy lies in waiting, offering you candy and whispers sweet things in your ear, waiting, watching for you to fall asleep. Although, your greatest enemy of all is none other than yourself.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on September 01, 2005, 01:43:14 AM
Saying Hitler wasn't a Xian is like saying Red isn't a color. ROFL!

yup, you know... b/c he loved MURDERING Christians specifically - he must be one. :roll:

You need serious, education and counseling.

Dear, Sweet Jesus, help this person.... Honestly.

Did you forget everything I just sent you, or are you just trying to be a child again?
it's comments like that where you just don't know whether to laugh or cry.

.... man, it's like trying to argue w/ a flat-earther that the world is round.

hmmm Hilter a Christian eh.... So that makes you a priest, then I suppose...
oh wait, you hate God, and Christianity - but I mean, you are the opposite of a true Christian - so you must in fact be one... :roll:

Get help. Please.

Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on September 01, 2005, 01:44:28 AM
I'm inclined to agree with Brokor, but the fact is that Christianity was started by the Romans as a means to consolidate power, not to persecute a phantom. Look at any articles by historians on the involvement of the Piso Family[Julius Caesar's wife is part of this family] with Paul, and you'll find damning evidence that Christianity is nothing more than an Imperial religion to control the 'citizens[see urban serf]' of Rome.

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on September 01, 2005, 01:44:36 AM
Why do you Christians insist on shoving your stupid fairy tales down everyones throats? You are the only group of people who do this...
They aren't hurting anybody. You are only hurting yourself by creating an enemy out of them. Try relaxing a bit and granting some tolerance for those who think differently than yourself.  By forcing your opinion on others, you are becoming no better than what you label them as.

Don't be a hypocrite. 

I don't like most of the neo-christian, evangelist attitude or demeanor either.  But stereotyping all christians is a very big mistake.  A mistake that was once made by the Roman Empire, if I remember correctly.  Just try to understand: your true enemy lies in waiting, offering you candy and whispers sweet things in your ear, waiting, watching for you to fall asleep. Although, your greatest enemy of all is none other than yourself.

clap clap, buddy.  8)

now see, this is what I'm talking about when I'm speaking of rational, non-Christians.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: eukreign on September 01, 2005, 01:45:51 AM
Why do you Christians insist on shoving your stupid fairy tales down everyones throats? You are the only group of people who do this...
They aren't hurting anybody. You are only hurting yourself by creating an enemy out of them. Try relaxing a bit and granting some tolerance for those who think differently than yourself.  By forcing your opinion on others, you are becoming no better than what you label them as.

Don't be a hypocrite. 

I don't like most of the neo-christian, evangelist attitude or demeanor either.  But stereotyping all christians is a very big mistake.  A mistake that was once made by the Roman Empire, if I remember correctly.  Just try to understand: your true enemy lies in waiting, offering you candy and whispers sweet things in your ear, waiting, watching for you to fall asleep. Although, your greatest enemy of all is none other than yourself.

Word.  8)

That's kinda how I felt towards the end in the ID thread and decided to just give up cus it was pointless. Grey will always be a Christian and I will always be an Athiest/Buddhist. I think this is pretty much set in stone so trying to change it is counter productive in fighting for freedom.

*Offers Grey and Broker a Heineken or Samuel Adams*
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on September 01, 2005, 01:47:53 AM
So that makes you a priest...
According to the Mormon bishops, I am an ELDER, so technically I am a priest of GAWD. YEHHHHAWWWW. Hell, I even debate Rabbis on Kallabah, why not be called a priest?

Quote
Get help. Please.

I don't need help, I just need you Christians to get out of my life with your anti-gay marriage acts and sodomy laws, lest I use the act of defense[see shotgun, see buckshot up your ass] to ensure my Life, Liberty, and Property. Oh, remember, William Donahoe, president of a layman catholic group, states that homosexuals are pedophiles and that gay marriage is evil. So.... STFU moron.

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on September 01, 2005, 01:48:32 AM
*Grey whole-heartedly accepts a Heineken...and then pulls out his guitar and begins signing Kume-buy-a*


*...and then smashes the guitar - after stating not even he would pull such a twisted stunt...*


cheers, buddy.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on September 01, 2005, 01:48:58 AM
Hey, I like Buddhists.  They have a great sense of higher purpose. :)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on September 01, 2005, 01:50:09 AM
Hey, I like Buddhists.  They have a great sense of higher purpose. :)
There is no higher purpose than the act of selfishness. :)

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on September 01, 2005, 01:50:40 AM
So that makes you a priest...
According to the Mormon bishops, I am an ELDER, so technically I am a priest of GAWD. YEHHHHAWWWW. Hell, I even debate Rabbis on Kallabah, why not be called a priest?

Quote
Get help. Please.

I don't need help, I just need you Christians to get out of my life with your anti-gay marriage acts and sodomy laws, lest I use the act of defense[see shotgun, see buckshot up your ass] to ensure my Life, Liberty, and Property. Oh, remember, William Donahoe, president of a layman catholic group, states that homosexuals are pedophiles and that gay marriage is evil. So.... STFU moron.

-- Bridget

hey whatever you do to your body is by all means your business... please don't ever share such examples of whatever goes on...  I wouldn't ever dream of trying to stop you or the likes of you...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on September 01, 2005, 01:51:55 AM
hey whatever you do to your body is by all means your business... please don't ever share such examples of whatever goes on...  I wouldn't ever dream of trying to stop you or the likes of you...

Then tell your former-Hitler Youth Pope to interfere in my affairs, lest you see his head on a pike. :)

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on September 01, 2005, 01:54:56 AM
Hey, I like Buddhists. They have a great sense of higher purpose. :)
There is no higher purpose than the act of selfishness. :)

-- Bridget
haha.  Good point.  They are selfish, but at least they aren't wrong. ;)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on September 01, 2005, 02:03:55 AM
hey whatever you do to your body is by all means your business... please don't ever share such examples of whatever goes on...  I wouldn't ever dream of trying to stop you or the likes of you...

Then tell your former-Hitler Youth Pope to interfere in my affairs, lest you see his head on a pike. :)

-- Bridget

ah yes... just had to get that hitler and youth phrase together in one word....

hey remember the key here being he was YOUTH... ie- easily brainwashed...

my poor boy/girl, you keep forgetting Hilter hated Catholics.  He killed them.

maybe you also didn't realize this... history lesson time, now pay attention:
http://www.catholic.com/library/HOW_Pius_XII_PROTECTED_JEWS.asp

"Unfortunately, joy in the election of a strong pope who would continue Pius XIÂ’s defiance of the Nazis was darkened by the ominous political developments in Europe. War finally came on September 1, 1939, when German troops overran Poland. Two days later Britain and France declared war on Germany.

Early in 1940, Hitler made an attempt to prevent the new Pope from maintaining the anti-Nazi stance he had taken before his election. He sent his underling, Joachim von Ribbentrop, to try to dissuade Pius XII from following his predecessor’s policies. "Von Ribbentrop, granted a formal audience on March 11, 1940, went into a lengthy harangue on the invincibility of the Third Reich, the inevitability of a Nazi victory, and the futility of papal alignment with the enemies of the Führer. Pius XII heard von Ribbentrop out politely and impassively. Then he opened an enormous ledger on his desk and, in his perfect German, began to recite a catalogue of the persecutions inflicted by the Third Reich in Poland, listing the date, place, and precise details of each crime. The audience was terminated; the Pope’s position was clearly unshakable."[7]

The Pope secretly worked to save as many Jewish lives as possible from the Nazis, whose extermination campaign began its most intense phase only after the War had started. It is here that the anti-Catholics try to make their hay: Pius XII is charged either with cowardly silence or with outright support of the Nazi extermination of millions of Jews.

Much of the impetus to smear the Vatican regarding World War II came, appropriately enough, from a work of fiction—a stage play called The Deputy, written after the War by a little-known German Protestant playwright named Rolf Hochhuth."
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on September 01, 2005, 02:05:14 AM
WTF does that post have to do with the fact that the current Pope is a dickhead? Absolutely nothing. Thankyou for playing, I'm-Really-Fucking-Retarded!

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on September 01, 2005, 02:08:12 AM
well, if you'd open up your bigoted Xian hating mind you'd see that your comment trying to equate him w/ naziism is completely assinine and unfounded.

and also, I thought I'd try and wake you up and open your mind to something than the obviously continual and relentllesss anti-Christian propaganda that you oh so regularly fill your head with...

but I know, you've already proven to be a name-calling immature bigot - but I just like to show ignorance and bigotry where it's due.

yes, I do it for the sake of fact. (ie- Catholics were about the best friend a Jew could have during WW2 - and Catholics and Nazis are polar opposites)
 - showing you're opinions are based on ignorance and making you look foolish is just a bonus.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on September 01, 2005, 02:13:02 AM
uh...I have info on the papacy that you wouldn't much like, Chris.

These guys were pretty nasty back in the day, and the whole church itself has become something of a...what would be the proper term? Massive real estate, covert intelligence, mass money making entity with its very own city/country thingy poo.

Frankly, in my own opinion, I just don't trust the bastards, especially after what the church did to the Templars.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on September 01, 2005, 02:15:20 AM
well, if you'd open up your bigoted Xian hating mind you'd see that your comment trying to equate him w/ naziism is completely assinine and unfounded.
No, I stated that ol'Ratface[Benedict] was a form-hitler youth member, which is correct to his testimony as to his abandonment of his Fatherland defense post. :) I never stated he was a nazi, but you can't notice that can you or you would be wrong huh?


Quote
and also, I thought I'd try and wake you up and open your mind to something than the obviously continual and relentllesss anti-Christian propaganda that you oh so regularly fill your head with...
No, I just know the facts that you Christians have murdered the Gnostics, Cathars, Pagans, Gallae[Pagan Transgendered people], and etc. So pretty much I have many reasons to hate you, on top of your religion's current murder and oppression of gay/bi/les/trans people[You're only a distant second when compared to the muslims...].

So why should I like Christianity? Because it members murder and hate people like me? Because it states render onto Caesar what is Caesar's[anti-materialism]? No, because it's fucking despotic as the next -ism and -ity.

Nuff Said.

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on September 01, 2005, 02:16:03 AM
oh and also, I forgot:
In his meticulously researched 1967 book "Three Popes and the Jews," Israeli historian and diplomat Pinchas Lapide concludes that the Vatican under Pius XII "was instrumental in saving at least 700,000, but probably as many as 860,000 Jews from certain death at Nazi hands"— more than all other rescue organizations combined.
http://www.abqjournal.com/opinion/guest_columns/301963opinion02-07-05.htm
so anyway, like I was saying, the Jews' best friend really were the Catholics back then...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on September 01, 2005, 02:16:09 AM
uh...I have info on the papacy that you wouldn't much like, Chris.

These guys were pretty nasty back in the day, and the whole church itself has become something of a...what would be the proper term? Massive real estate, covert intelligence, mass money making entity with its very own city/country thingy poo.

Frankly, in my own opinion, I just don't trust the bastards, especially after what the church did to the Templars.

Don't forget how the Church smuggled jewish owned gold for the Nazi Party. There's reams of research material on that topic alone...

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on September 01, 2005, 02:20:57 AM
uh...I have info on the papacy that you wouldn't much like, Chris.

These guys were pretty nasty back in the day, and the whole church itself has become something of a...what would be the proper term? Massive real estate, covert intelligence, mass money making entity with its very own city/country thingy poo.

Frankly, in my own opinion, I just don't trust the bastards, especially after what the church did to the Templars.

Don't forget how the Church smuggled jewish owned gold for the Nazi Party. There's reams of research material on that topic alone...

-- Bridget

yes yes.. conveniently glaze over the facts presented, I see...


did I deny the corruption that's occured? no... will you admit you're wrong when you try and equate Catholics w/ Nazis?... that too is a big fat, "no", apparently.  Well, you are quite wrong once again.

you only see what you want to see - you are your own worst propagandist.

oh, it doesn't matter that the Catholics was the group responsible for saving the greatest amount of Jews during WW2 - let's talk about some bloody gold... :roll:
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on September 01, 2005, 02:23:31 AM
Well, the holocaust was a created scenario, entirely controlled by the Rothschilds and other powerful money changers.

It wouldn't surprise me one bit that they could use the church also.  So what's a few hundred thousand saved lives if it produces a positive dependency upon the church?  We get more control, yes?  Good cop, AND bad cop.  Wow, just like how the CFR likes to play the game.

But anyway.  CATHOLICISM is not the same as CHRISTIANITY.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on September 01, 2005, 02:29:05 AM
Well, Catholicism is a form of Xianity.... I'm not sure what you're getting at... it was the first Xian religion.

hmmm... I think you need a new thread Brokor... you're making a lot of very big (but very interesting) accusations.


let me know if you start one... I'd like to learn more.

Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on September 01, 2005, 02:38:50 AM
It's simple, really.  Jesus was a man, who claimed to be the son of god.  His peeps wrote some shizzle, before ya know it Mary ran off with Peter to France, their children and offspring still walk around, fighting the good fight.  The Catholic Church comes along though, long after that Jesus guy was beaten and bludgeoned and crucified, and has the AUDACITY to actually place more emphasis on the worship of Mother Mary, who was a Annunaki whore.  Along comes papa smurf, right....and he snaps his fingers and BAM! Instant mass religion.  Weird.  What ever happened to those Christians during the roman times?  Nero burned Rome, blamed the Christians, got the masses all worked up to a frenzy...then fed the lions.  It was a hoot.  Great entertainment.  Our soldiers today would probably love it.  Anyway, Rome adopted the Catholic Church at some point?  So...what are the origins of the church?  I forget.  I have to brush up on my history.  Oh, by the way, I hope you didn't read all of this, because I was only blathering on.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on September 01, 2005, 02:44:15 AM
ok, my only criticism right off the top is that (as stated by church doctrine)
We are not to worship Mary, or a Saint of any kind - that's a huge misconception amongst non-Catholics out there...


yeah, I've heard a version of what you said there - more or less... I have David Icke's "Tales from the Time Loop" book...

I think you said you hadn't heard of him - he is quite the number... you should check out the book on Amazon.com
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on September 01, 2005, 02:52:22 AM
Cool, I will.  I also have a video I think you would love to see.  I just have to locate it.

Anyway.  I was always of the mind that the Catholic Church is a huge lie, manipulating people from the very beginning, and even today.  I always believed Christianity was nothing more than those who believe in, and have faith in that Jesus dude.  Anything concerning Mary and her prayers is silly shit as far as I am cencerned.  When I was in the Army, I would attend Catholic service with a buddy, because it would get me out of the barracks, but also because we got some grape juice and bread wafers, which I liked.  The chanting.  I couldn't help but get into the chanting.  It was so.....annoying.  "Mother Mary this, full of that.....Mother Mary that...blah, blah..." I couldn't understand how they got this far without being branded a cult of some kind.  I mean, hell - I have attended Pagan rituals with less chanting!  We are talking about May Pole shit, too!  Feasting and nudity and fucking and....wait.  No, no.  That was Octoberfest, nevermind.  But anyway.

The church is a weird fucking establishment, man.  Research it.  Fucking incredible.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on September 01, 2005, 03:06:26 AM
yes, I've heard (and I believe there's evidence) that the Catholic church is being overrun by horrendously corrupt individuals...
...it's certainly happened in the past, as there were 2 popes at one time in the middle-ages - each proclaiming to be the "real deal".

Again, I didn't deny it has corruption in its past - but there's nothing in church doctrine stating such crimes against humanity.

But to get a real idea and comprehension of what Catholicism is, you have to look to Church doctrine - not the corrupt doings of some individuals...
... check out the Catechism of the Catholic Church - we aren't Sola Scripturists (sp?) ie- there is more to religion than simply the Bible.

Let me assure you though, true Catholicism is very much against the idea of an oppressive, one-world tyrannical gov't.  We are individualists much like yourself.


I have no problems reading facts, I do, however have a problem w/ people the likes of Bridget who only see things from one side.  I understand though, you are not ignorant in this manner at all.

As for Catholicism - I believe it was the Church closest to what JC himself wanted (all these others were created by people who re-interpreted and didn't agree w/ things at the time).  No where in the Bible does it say to start your own church, yet that's just what happened w/ all these Protestant ones.

Anyway, not trying to get into a history lesson here....
as for the chanting:  yes,  we have singing and prayers in our mass - that's the way it's always been it's tradition.  Look at the message, as that's what's more important - not the medium.

I believe in Catholicism just like you and I believe in a Consitutionalist gov't... we both admit they are getting very big and even detrimental to the people... we simply have to get back to it's original, traditional form.

...and yeah, I'd like to see that video.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on September 01, 2005, 03:10:33 AM
Ya, it was one of Alex Jones' freebies.  A good one, too I believe.  I can't believe that you're not a member there yet.  Anyway.  I agree that the church needs to be downsized and reorganized ;)

Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on September 01, 2005, 03:14:24 AM
Actually, I was just thinking that.... I probably should be a member of AJ' Prisonplanet...

You're not an AMP'er are you?

Re PPTV: I dunno, I just started reading the agreement, and it sounded annoying to opt out....

can you really go month to month, or is there some fine print that forces you to stay on for a year/auto renewals? I hate those.

I'm gonna be a student once again, so I don't have much cash to throw around... and I'm thinking that maybe my 5 bucks a month would be better spent on AJ.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on September 01, 2005, 03:24:17 AM
5 bucks.  Once per month.  I pay with PayPal.

And I don't support the FSP or any other Libertarian "project".  I only support and defend the republic and the constitution.  Any person can do that from their living room and their town hall in the city where they reside.  There is no need to move, no reason to support change in one state, because the change that we will need will require all of us to partake, or else we will surely all fail.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on September 01, 2005, 03:49:26 AM
nice... so it is just 5 a month... I thought it was based on an auto renewal... but you can quit at any time (ie- at the end of the month)

I'm sold then... sorry, FTL.

and yeah, the idea of a free state is a great one - but if the shit really does hit the fan and we turn into a full fledged police state - you're just going to stand out that much more in said state...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on September 01, 2005, 03:53:29 AM
Ian will hate us for it.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on September 01, 2005, 03:57:03 AM
he's cool... he'll brush it off and act like he doesn't need it...

but let's not kid anyone, I am only giving 5 bucks a month here... either way, he won't really notice my income or lack thereof...

..let's just hope not too many others follow suit... :shock:


PS- like I said, I'm not against FTL, I just think my money could be better spent... ahh, but I still haven't detracted my membership yet... I'll sleep on it.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: MobileDigit on September 01, 2005, 04:03:55 AM
There is no need to move, no reason to support change in one state, because the change that we will need will require all of us to partake, or else we will surely all fail.

There is no need to eat either. No reason to work for food, because people will just give it to us, unless we all don't not eat, in which case we will ALL fail.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 01, 2005, 08:08:48 AM
Mao was a Statist and thus worshipped the idea of the State. Hitler worshipped the idea of the Aryan race. Hussein worshipped himself, thus was a Cult of Personality leader... Gee, you just keep getting pwned by me every second.


It's obvious you worship yourself, thus a cult of one...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 01, 2005, 08:12:32 AM
Why do you Christians insist on shoving your stupid fairy tales down everyones throats? You are the only group of people who do this...
They aren't hurting anybody. You are only hurting yourself by creating an enemy out of them. Try relaxing a bit and granting some tolerance for those who think differently than yourself.  By forcing your opinion on others, you are becoming no better than what you label them as.

Don't be a hypocrite. 

I don't like most of the neo-christian, evangelist attitude or demeanor either.  But stereotyping all christians is a very big mistake.  A mistake that was once made by the Roman Empire, if I remember correctly.  Just try to understand: your true enemy lies in waiting, offering you candy and whispers sweet things in your ear, waiting, watching for you to fall asleep. Although, your greatest enemy of all is none other than yourself.

A bit of wisdom ...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 01, 2005, 08:17:43 AM
WTF does that post have to do with the fact that the current Pope is a dickhead? Absolutely nothing. Thankyou for playing, I'm-Really-Fucking-Retarded!


You're winning that game ...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Tommy on September 01, 2005, 10:59:27 AM
Actually, I was just thinking that.... I probably should be a member of AJ' Prisonplanet...

You're not an AMP'er are you?

Re PPTV: I dunno, I just started reading the agreement, and it sounded annoying to opt out....

can you really go month to month, or is there some fine print that forces you to stay on for a year/auto renewals? I hate those.

I'm gonna be a student once again, so I don't have much cash to throw around... and I'm thinking that maybe my 5 bucks a month would be better spent on AJ.


It's a shame that FTL is so anti-Christian as they do tend to ailenate a very large portion of listeners.  I personally like FTL better than Alex Jones as Alex is just so overbearing and he has been caught sometimes making stuff up or mis-representing stuff.  When confronted with his errors, he just bad-mouths the one who is presenting.  But he is Christian friendly.  FTL will always have problems getting into the mainstream if they continue to bad-mouth Christians.  Let's face it, most in this country claim to be Christian of one flavor or another.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on September 01, 2005, 11:25:01 AM
Personally, my biggest criticism of them is how they consider the 9/11 conspiracy people as "kooks"...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Eli on September 01, 2005, 11:25:38 AM
I may not agree with Bridgets presentation but my impression is that she has been providing all sorts of evidence to support her claim and all of you Christians just resort to beating around the bush or being childish and refusing to refute Bridgets evidence just because she uses the caps lock key.

I was only trying to discuss and show that Bridget was wrong on some points - as I haven't been following this whole post...

ie- such facts as: - It's immoral for Catholics to be Freemasons (church doctrine)
- Catholics abhor communism (through history/current Catholics who praise Individualism/Capitalism)

Re: Catholics and communism.  You seem to have a pretty narrow definition of Catholics.  Look into the Catholic Worker Movement.  Those guys were definately communists.  And many Latin american clergy supported communist movements (because, in fairness, they were oppsoing facist and expoitative regimes.)  

By the by Milosevic was a (eastern right) catholic.  He used nationalist 'christian' sentiment to foment genocide in yugoslavia.  If you feel a need to doubt me I'll bring in sources.  My point here is not to malign christianity, but to challenge, again, the idea that 'Christian anarchy is the only sensible answer.'

Also I would have to argue that immoral and against church doctrine are not the same thing.  You may believe that the popes decisions are divinely inspired.  I think there is a lot of evil in previous (and current) church doctrines.  Moral actions may certainly be heretical ones.

-E
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on September 01, 2005, 11:39:25 AM
yeah, "milosevic was a catholic".... "hitler was a catholic" :roll:

bring in all the "evidence" you want...

but let's get one thing clear: if you're Catholic, and you commit any mortal sin (ie- genocide) you are automatically excommunicated (ie- kicked out)

Furthermore, it's not like either of them were sincere, moral, people who one day, went from being "Catholic" to the next, murderers... They obviously were filled w/ hate and evil many years before they committed any evil act.
anyone can call themselves a Catholic, a Jew, or a Buddhist.... but did you ever consider judging people by their actions and not their words?  hmmm, yeah... should try it.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: eukreign on September 01, 2005, 11:43:40 AM
yeah, "milosevic was a catholic".... "hitler was a catholic" :roll:

bring in all the "evidence" you want...

but let's get one thing clear: if you're Catholic, and you commit any mortal sin (ie- genocide) you are automatically excommunicated (ie- kicked out)

Furthermore, it's not like either of them were sincere, moral, people who one day, went from being "Catholic" to the next, murderers... They obviously were filled w/ hate and evil many years before they committed any evil act.
anyone can call themselves a Catholic, a Jew, or a Buddhist.... but did you ever consider judging people by their actions and not their words?  hmmm, yeah... should try it.

I was baptized in a Christian church, I go to church for easter, I haven't killed anyone, does that mean I'm Christian (since we are going on actions and not on words)?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on September 01, 2005, 11:56:51 AM
yeah, "milosevic was a catholic".... "hitler was a catholic" :roll:

bring in all the "evidence" you want...

but let's get one thing clear: if you're Catholic, and you commit any mortal sin (ie- genocide) you are automatically excommunicated (ie- kicked out)

Furthermore, it's not like either of them were sincere, moral, people who one day, went from being "Catholic" to the next, murderers... They obviously were filled w/ hate and evil many years before they committed any evil act.
anyone can call themselves a Catholic, a Jew, or a Buddhist.... but did you ever consider judging people by their actions and not their words?  hmmm, yeah... should try it.

I was baptized in a Christian church, I go to church for easter, I haven't killed anyone, does that mean I'm Christian (since we are going on actions and not on words)?

nope. sorry... you must also have faith.  Given your strong criticism and continual ridicule of Christianity you certainly don't sound Xian to me...  I don't understand why you go to church when you've for the most part shown only distain for the Church.  Hey, if you're actually trying to gain faith, great... but otherwise - why are you wasting your time?

Now just relax, before you reply... I know maybe your comment was only meant to be a loaded question.
This isn't me being "holier than thou"... I never once said I was the "ideal" Xian... I have my imperfect moments, shall we say...  And I don't know what even makes a "perfect" Xian, other than having faith and trust in JC, himself.  Given that def. it seems to me you aren't exactly Christian...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: eukreign on September 01, 2005, 12:31:41 PM
trust in JC

Faith I can have, but trusting dead people is a little difficult.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: fisher on September 01, 2005, 12:38:44 PM
And I don't know what even makes a "perfect" Xian, other than having faith and trust in JC, himself.
Maybe living your life the way JC said to live it?
Most christians don't seem to do that, or even try.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Eli on September 01, 2005, 12:40:18 PM
Grey,

Awful convenient that your faith 'excommunicates' all the monsters that its doctrines create.  I thought the whole point of Christ was being able to shed the sinful nature through repentance and absolution.  I love how you pick and choose which Catholics you want and which you don't.  I am not real clear on the excommunication thin though, specifically in re genocide.  Which papal edict was that?  And who in the Papal hierarchy applied it to Milosevic (not that he doesn't deserve to be shunned)  but the church didn't, according to what I have read, actively condemn milosevic in this.  If I'm wrong here please correct me.  I would love to think more highly of the Church.  Catholics so rarely give me the opportunity.

And it's great the Catholic church helped numerous jews escape Hitler.  That was a moral act.  Perhaps it offsets the pogroms that the church undertook as Crusade warmups, but it doesn't nullify history.  Absolute ideologies, secular or mystical, generally lead to absolutism.  Comparing tallies with secular absolutists in no way absolves the church for its actions or actions undertake in its name.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: eukreign on September 01, 2005, 12:40:30 PM
And I don't know what even makes a "perfect" Xian, other than having faith and trust in JC, himself.
Maybe living your life the way JC said to live it?
Most christians don't seem to do that, or even try.

Does that mean they are not Christian?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on September 01, 2005, 12:47:43 PM
And I don't know what even makes a "perfect" Xian, other than having faith and trust in JC, himself.
Maybe living your life the way JC said to live it?
Most christians don't seem to do that, or even try.

Does that mean they are not Christian?

Under most Online Christian 'thinking' most people are not Christian in the same way most women are not women because they do X[play sports, have a job, let dad help raise the kids, etc].... :)

And if you don't get the special Christian decoder ring for the Bible[this is especially a common argument from them] then you can't under the Bible, because you're not a Real Christian(c)(r)(tm). :lol:

I'm sorry, but you Christians are still way out to lunch. Bring me back some maltza soup.

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 01, 2005, 12:51:36 PM
And I don't know what even makes a "perfect" Xian, other than having faith and trust in JC, himself.
Maybe living your life the way JC said to live it?
Most christians don't seem to do that, or even try.

Does that mean they are not Christian?

Under most Online Christian 'thinking' most people are not Christian in the same way most women are not women because they do X[play sports, have a job, let dad help raise the kids, etc].... :)

And if you don't get the special Christian decoder ring for the Bible[this is especially a common argument from them] then you can't under the Bible, because you're not a Real Christian(c)(r)(tm). :lol:

I'm sorry, but you Christians are still way out to lunch. Bring me back some maltza soup.
 

Taking advice from Mr. Attis on what a "Christian" is is like me trying to give him advice on what pumps go with his dress...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: fisher on September 01, 2005, 12:54:24 PM
Bring me back some maltza soup.
Is that the same thing as matzo ball soup?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: fisher on September 01, 2005, 12:56:14 PM
And I don't know what even makes a "perfect" Xian, other than having faith and trust in JC, himself.
Maybe living your life the way JC said to live it?
Most christians don't seem to do that, or even try.
Does that mean they are not Christian?
No.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on September 01, 2005, 01:03:26 PM
Bring me back some maltza soup.
Is that the same thing as matzo ball soup?

I think so, I'm not the spelling bee champion. :(

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: fisher on September 01, 2005, 01:08:23 PM
Bring me back some maltza soup.
Is that the same thing as matzo ball soup?

I think so, I'm not the spelling bee champion. :(
I suck at spelling. As long as I know what you mean, that is good enough.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: eukreign on September 01, 2005, 01:24:37 PM
And I don't know what even makes a "perfect" Xian, other than having faith and trust in JC, himself.
Maybe living your life the way JC said to live it?
Most christians don't seem to do that, or even try.
Does that mean they are not Christian?
No.

Why not?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on September 01, 2005, 01:26:12 PM


Taking advice from Mr. Attis on what a "Christian" is is like me trying to give him advice on what pumps go with his dress...

:lol:

touche.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on September 01, 2005, 01:34:39 PM
Grey,

Awful convenient that your faith 'excommunicates' all the monsters that its doctrines create.  I thought the whole point of Christ was being able to shed the sinful nature through repentance and absolution.  I love how you pick and choose which Catholics you want and which you don't.  I am not real clear on the excommunication thin though, specifically in re genocide.  Which papal edict was that?  And who in the Papal hierarchy applied it to Milosevic (not that he doesn't deserve to be shunned)  but the church didn't, according to what I have read, actively condemn milosevic in this.  If I'm wrong here please correct me.  I would love to think more highly of the Church.  Catholics so rarely give me the opportunity.

And it's great the Catholic church helped numerous jews escape Hitler.  That was a moral act.  Perhaps it offsets the pogroms that the church undertook as Crusade warmups, but it doesn't nullify history.  Absolute ideologies, secular or mystical, generally lead to absolutism.  Comparing tallies with secular absolutists in no way absolves the church for its actions or actions undertake in its name.

you need help.  You think that Catholocism creates people of genocide.  I will try and help you.
Whether the Church officially recognizes it or not, if you commit a mortal sin (ie- murder) you are automatically excommunicated - you don't need some formal ceremony to recognize this fact, ok?

Yes, you're absolutely right - it's all about being able to repent your sins through absolution.  You could be the worst person in the world, but if you go and confess, and sincerely and honestly believe what you did was wrong - you will be absolved.  I can tell you right now, neither Milosevic nor Hitler did such things...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: fisher on September 01, 2005, 01:57:23 PM
And I don't know what even makes a "perfect" Xian, other than having faith and trust in JC, himself.
Maybe living your life the way JC said to live it?
Most christians don't seem to do that, or even try.
Does that mean they are not Christian?
No.

Why not?
Because you can believe something without living your life that way. Like most libertarians.

So, what do you think?

Anyway, you should ask a christian.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 01, 2005, 02:08:22 PM

(discussion with Grey about if Catholic Church is good or bad)


Everyone needs to know that a "Church" is a fiction just like a "government" or a "corporation".  You cannot show me "The Catholic Church" or "The Baptist Church" because they only exist on paper in the minds of a group of people.  You can show me the people and the buildings they built, the school busses they operate, but you cannot show me "the Church" anymore that you can show me "The United States Of America".  All Fictions.

That said, you can see what certain "people" who are part of the "fiction" do or don't do.  You cannot say that because 1 or 1 million such people did such and such that all those people do such and such.  All "churches" have had bad times and good times depending on which "man" was at the helm.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Eli on September 01, 2005, 02:13:10 PM
Grey,

How do you know?  Where you their Parish priest?  To be excommunicated is to be outside of the communion with Christ.  I'm pretty sure that it is automatic in the sense of "the judgment of god is immediate"  however, if you are talking about being part of the Church community or being kick out of it, then that usually comes by declaration from papal or parochial authority.  Like NY priests and nuns ministering to gays were excommunicated, by edict.  Like child molesting priests were not.

I need help?  Please I am fine.  But either the doctrine (of excommunication) is unclear or you are not describing it very well. 

Also, so far the only 'mortal sin' you've mentioned is genocide.  So only genocidiers are outside of the communion?  As I recall genocide was an act Old Testament god was particularly fond of.  Whereas Christ despised usurers and money changers.  Nope, I don't need help. Poor confused Christianity does.

Contrarily,
E
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Eli on September 01, 2005, 02:16:44 PM

(discussion with Grey about if Catholic Church is good or bad)


Everyone needs to know that a "Church" is a fiction just like a "government" or a "corporation".  You cannot show me "The Catholic Church" or "The Baptist Church" because they only exist on paper in the minds of a group of people.  You can show me the people and the buildings they built, the school busses they operate, but you cannot show me "the Church" anymore that you can show me "The United States Of America".  All Fictions.

That said, you can see what certain "people" who are part of the "fiction" do or don't do.  You cannot say that because 1 or 1 million such people did such and such that all those people do such and such.  All "churches" have had bad times and good times depending on which "man" was at the helm.


Of course it is a fiction.  All understanding is just fiction.  What matters is if a fiction is useful and descriptive.  However to say that institutions do not have some form of existence is stupid.  No, institutions are not monolithic, but the can be usefully described.  Please remove your head from the sand and stop hiding behind this empty and uninformative argument.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Eli on September 01, 2005, 02:18:36 PM
PS. Grey, I want to hear your take on Catholic worker, Latin America, etc.  And a further explanation on Morality vs. Doctrine as you understand it.

-E
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on September 01, 2005, 02:21:48 PM

(discussion with Grey about if Catholic Church is good or bad)


Everyone needs to know that a "Church" is a fiction just like a "government" or a "corporation".  You cannot show me "The Catholic Church" or "The Baptist Church" because they only exist on paper in the minds of a group of people.  You can show me the people and the buildings they built, the school busses they operate, but you cannot show me "the Church" anymore that you can show me "The United States Of America".  All Fictions.

That said, you can see what certain "people" who are part of the "fiction" do or don't do.  You cannot say that because 1 or 1 million such people did such and such that all those people do such and such.  All "churches" have had bad times and good times depending on which "man" was at the helm.


Go and read the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  It's a publication citing all official Church doctrine - that is how you can see the Catholic Church.

... and no, I can't cite it right off heart...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on September 01, 2005, 02:32:32 PM
Grey,

How do you know?  Where you their Parish priest?  To be excommunicated is to be outside of the communion with Christ.  I'm pretty sure that it is automatic in the sense of "the judgment of god is immediate"  however, if you are talking about being part of the Church community or being kick out of it, then that usually comes by declaration from papal or parochial authority.  Like NY priests and nuns ministering to gays were excommunicated, by edict.  Like child molesting priests were not.

You do need help, b/c you don't understand what I mean by excommunication.  ie- it doesn't matter if it's officially known or not, if you commit a mortal sin, you are instantly excommunicated. Period.

Now, to be "officially" excommunicated - that's a whole other story as you've pointed out.  Am I going to defend those foolish priests for covering up abuses? Of course not. I never suggested that.

Quote
I need help?  Please I am fine.  But either the doctrine (of excommunication) is unclear or you are not describing it very well.
you do need help... so do I... I don't know it all, but I believe I have a better understanding of what excommunication is... and that ppl like Milosevic are definitely not Catholic.
Who cares what people call themselves? How about judging people on their actions and character - not by their own self-imposed lablel.

Quote
Also, so far the only 'mortal sin' you've mentioned is genocide.  So only genocidiers are outside of the communion?  As I recall genocide was an act Old Testament god was particularly fond of.  Whereas Christ despised usurers and money changers.  Nope, I don't need help. Poor confused Christianity does.

Contrarily,
E

No, it's not just genociders that are only excommunicated and not allowed to partake in communion.  It's anyone that commits, any mortal sin, period.  But I will not walk into your loaded question, b/c I know you are just trying to nail me on something... as I've said, I don't know it all... go to www.catholic.com and read about mortal sin if you want more info.

"Whereas Christ despised usurers and money changers."
You are confused... Christ despised people who gambled, not the exchange of money for legit purposes.
Also keep in mind:
At the time while all hookers and theives were condemned and spat on by the common man -
Christ was the first person to welcome these hookers, theives and anyone else that sincerely wanted to change their ways. 

Quote
Nope, I don't need help. Poor confused Christianity does.
You seem to be suggesting you know it all (ie- without ignorance)
Clearly I have shown you aren't,and you do need help to understand what Catholicism - as do I... and will continue too...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Eli on September 01, 2005, 03:20:08 PM
Grey,

   I really am not trying to trap you into anything.  Just trying to understand how you are using the term 'excommunicated.'  Initially I thought you were talking about the Church in rome.  You know, the temporal one.  If you meant 'out of communion with god'  then your argument makes a whole lot more sense. 

Re: Help.  If you mean I need help understanding Catholicism then you are certainly right.  It is a Byzantine horror that the laiety can easily become lost in.  I thought you meant help as a spiritual and moral generalization.  If so, I think I do just fine mostly on my own.  Without help from Rome, or you, though I don't mind reflecting on either opinion. ;-)

I didn't expect you to defend 'Those priests' though they are probably not irredeemable (sick, really fucking sick, but not irredeemable,)  but I was trying to lure you into admitting the temporal church's inconsistancy and here's why:

 CA seems to think that Idyllic Anarchy and organized religion can coexist.  Organized religion without government opposition is defacto government.  I think Christian Anarchy (which I don't think is any more oxymoronic than anarchocap or anarchocomm or anarchosind) cannot persist alongside a temporal or hierarchical church.  What do you think?

-E

PS  When I get to 40 remind me to bump your Karma.  I am enjoying our conversation.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 01, 2005, 08:03:31 PM

(discussion with Grey about if Catholic Church is good or bad)


Everyone needs to know that a "Church" is a fiction just like a "government" or a "corporation".  You cannot show me "The Catholic Church" or "The Baptist Church" because they only exist on paper in the minds of a group of people.  You can show me the people and the buildings they built, the school busses they operate, but you cannot show me "the Church" anymore that you can show me "The United States Of America".  All Fictions.

That said, you can see what certain "people" who are part of the "fiction" do or don't do.  You cannot say that because 1 or 1 million such people did such and such that all those people do such and such.  All "churches" have had bad times and good times depending on which "man" was at the helm.


Of course it is a fiction.  All understanding is just fiction.  What matters is if a fiction is useful and descriptive.  However to say that institutions do not have some form of existence is stupid.  No, institutions are not monolithic, but the can be usefully described.  Please remove your head from the sand and stop hiding behind this empty and uninformative argument.


You missed the point.  People keep blaming "the Church" for this and that.  The point is the Church, being a fiction, does nothing.  PEOPLE do.

Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Tommy on September 02, 2005, 12:10:22 AM
Hey Christian, I count 420 posts in 22 days for 19.1 per day.  Pretty hot topic.  Don't suppose you could equal this record with another topic could you?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on September 02, 2005, 03:10:21 AM
Personally, my biggest criticism of them is how they consider the 9/11 conspiracy people as "kooks"...
Yuyuuup.  FTL has no other purpose than to just ignore reality, and perpetuate their own "Free Prison Project", because it brings in the money, and ratings won't be jeopardized by the "questionable standing" of the show hosts if they were to side with all of us "kooks", who are fighting on the front lines.  Tell me FTL, Is Congressman Ron Paul a "kook"?  Is Cynthia McKinney a "kook"? 

But, there are worse breeds, I suppose.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 02, 2005, 08:26:01 AM
Personally, my biggest criticism of them is how they consider the 9/11 conspiracy people as "kooks"...
Yuyuuup.  FTL has no other purpose than to just ignore reality, and perpetuate their own "Free Prison Project", because it brings in the money, and ratings won't be jeopardized by the "questionable standing" of the show hosts if they were to side with all of us "kooks", who are fighting on the front lines.  Tell me FTL, Is Congressman Ron Paul a "kook"?  Is Cynthia McKinney a "kook"? 

But, there are worse breeds, I suppose.

Here's some more "kookery" for you.  Batton Rouge is now being evacuated due to "civil unrest" and there's talk now of bringing in the "foreign troups" to keep order since all our boys are overseas.  Sounds like everything Alex has been saying all along...

Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Eli on September 02, 2005, 11:02:04 AM

(discussion with Grey about if Catholic Church is good or bad)


Everyone needs to know that a "Church" is a fiction just like a "government" or a "corporation".  You cannot show me "The Catholic Church" or "The Baptist Church" because they only exist on paper in the minds of a group of people.  You can show me the people and the buildings they built, the school busses they operate, but you cannot show me "the Church" anymore that you can show me "The United States Of America".  All Fictions.

That said, you can see what certain "people" who are part of the "fiction" do or don't do.  You cannot say that because 1 or 1 million such people did such and such that all those people do such and such.  All "churches" have had bad times and good times depending on which "man" was at the helm.


Of course it is a fiction.  All understanding is just fiction.  What matters is if a fiction is useful and descriptive.  However to say that institutions do not have some form of existence is stupid.  No, institutions are not monolithic, but the can be usefully described.  Please remove your head from the sand and stop hiding behind this empty and uninformative argument.


You missed the point.  People keep blaming "the Church" for this and that.  The point is the Church, being a fiction, does nothing.  PEOPLE do.



No, I didn't miss the point.  There just isn't much of a point there to acknowledge.  An institution is not a fiction (ie a false thing.)  It is not material but it is real.  In the case of the Church or State it is an idea (a meme) that allows people to ease their conscience after (or while) doing something immoral. 

So, for the 50th time or so,  how can one have a 'Christian' anarchy?  How is that different from anarchy?  And if the State is just a fiction then you already live in your sensible "christian anarchy" so you can pretty much stop talking about it?  Please, ignore the government, stop paying your taxes and see if they send you to a fictional federal prison?  I hear the fictional food is great.


Also, check out this short story.

http://www.escapepod.info/2005/09/01/ep017-the-life-and-times-of-penguin/

Made me think of you christians, your ID, and your benevolent god.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 02, 2005, 02:38:47 PM

I've already explained how there can be "Christian" anarchy.  The political situation is simply "anarchy".  Individually, we gather together as "Christians" which is a spiritual belief and has no political function.  Other ararchists will be grouping together into whatever group they want.  So "anarchy" is the political system, "Christian" is the spiritual system.  They don't cross over. 

Never said the buildings "i.e. prisons" were fictious.  People who believe in the fiction are very real and very dangerous.  Thiat is undenyable.

Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Eli on September 02, 2005, 05:06:48 PM
Bull.  If your christianity doesn't cross over into your action then you are no kind of christian.  You either act as a christian or you are not one.  Ones spiritual life is not separate from the rest of ones life.  That is the real fiction.  And a christians spiritual life includes a kind of moral imperialism which you have aptly demonstrated by your posts.  Most Christians don't have the restraint to be Anarchists.

IF the force is real, and the guns are real, and the rules are real then the institution is real and saying its not is mere sophistry.  If it does all the damnable ducky things, then it is a damn duck.  Quack god damn it!  :-)

Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 02, 2005, 09:49:04 PM
Bull.  If your christianity doesn't cross over into your action then you are no kind of christian.  You either act as a christian or you are not one.  Ones spiritual life is not separate from the rest of ones life.  That is the real fiction.  And a christians spiritual life includes a kind of moral imperialism which you have aptly demonstrated by your posts.  Most Christians don't have the restraint to be Anarchists.

IF the force is real, and the guns are real, and the rules are real then the institution is real and saying its not is mere sophistry.  If it does all the damnable ducky things, then it is a damn duck.  Quack god damn it!  :-)



Quack yourself if you like but it's men who carry the real guns and believe they are carrying them for something.  Even in the study of law, corporations (including any government agency) are defined as "fictions at law".

Anyway, if you think that forcing Christianity on others is what Christ taught, you need to review His sayings.  It's optional in this existance to follow Him.  No force necessary or allowed.  Christians "cross over into action" when they share their belief with others.  It is up to the other to believe or not. 

Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on September 03, 2005, 04:56:42 AM
You seem to have a good head on your shoulders, ChristianAnarchist...except, I still do not see why you support anarchy.  Unless you are only uninformed about what our republic is supposed to function like.

To be perfectly honest with you -I would support anarchy wholeheartedly if I did not know as much as I do about how a republic operates.  It really is a functional type of limited government that has been successfully implemented in the past, and works brilliantly.  Only, ours was infested with very powerful money barons who usurped the people's trust and took advantage of their laziness. We can learn from our mistakes.  This is why I support a republic, not anarchy.  Plus, anarchy is just plain old silly.  Like Camelot.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 03, 2005, 09:10:04 AM
You seem to have a good head on your shoulders, ChristianAnarchist...except, I still do not see why you support anarchy.  Unless you are only uninformed about what our republic is supposed to function like.

To be perfectly honest with you -I would support anarchy wholeheartedly if I did not know as much as I do about how a republic operates.  It really is a functional type of limited government that has been successfully implemented in the past, and works brilliantly.  Only, ours was infested with very powerful money barons who usurped the people's trust and took advantage of their laziness. We can learn from our mistakes.  This is why I support a republic, not anarchy.  Plus, anarchy is just plain old silly.  Like Camelot.

A truly Constitutional republic like we once had is my second choice to anarchy.  Common law would have to rule and not statute law as today.  People would have to be soverign over their servant government.  However, the reason I believe anarchy is better is because all, and I mean ALL of the great atrocities have been made possible by the power of government of one flavor or another.  When you think of it, your worst evil criminal type can only murder so many people in his lifetime.  Government can and does murder by the thousands and even millions.  They are much more effective killers than individuals.  If anarchy rules, there would likely be no atomic weapons.  (It is possible that they could have been developed under anarchy, but we'll never know).  Even our beloved "republic" is guilty of many atrocitities (review Alex's films) which I'll not list here.  I acknowledge that under anarchy, some murders will happen, as will other "crimes" but at least under anarchy, I'd have no problem exercising my right to self-defence and defence of my family.

Then one needs to consider the "fiction" of the republic.  It only holds together if the real-live people continue to abide by the "charter".  The people have stopped living by our charter years ago and I'm afraid you cannot now put the genie back in the bottle.  I can see no way for us to get our republic back (for one thing maybe 1% of the people even know what a republic is thanks to the public-fool system).

Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on September 03, 2005, 11:35:52 AM
"Likely be no atomic weapons under anarchy"?

are you kidding?... the private sector would be even more prevailent and widespread by your very definition

just as many, if not, more WMD's - the demand would certainly be there...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on September 03, 2005, 07:45:57 PM
You seem to have a good head on your shoulders, ChristianAnarchist...except, I still do not see why you support anarchy.  Unless you are only uninformed about what our republic is supposed to function like.

To be perfectly honest with you -I would support anarchy wholeheartedly if I did not know as much as I do about how a republic operates.  It really is a functional type of limited government that has been successfully implemented in the past, and works brilliantly.  Only, ours was infested with very powerful money barons who usurped the people's trust and took advantage of their laziness. We can learn from our mistakes.  This is why I support a republic, not anarchy.  Plus, anarchy is just plain old silly.  Like Camelot.

A truly Constitutional republic like we once had is my second choice to anarchy.  Common law would have to rule and not statute law as today.  People would have to be soverign over their servant government.  However, the reason I believe anarchy is better is because all, and I mean ALL of the great atrocities have been made possible by the power of government of one flavor or another.  When you think of it, your worst evil criminal type can only murder so many people in his lifetime.  Government can and does murder by the thousands and even millions.  They are much more effective killers than individuals.   I acknowledge that under anarchy, some murders will happen, as will other "crimes" but at least under anarchy, I'd have no problem exercising my right to self-defence and defence of my family.

Then one needs to consider the "fiction" of the republic. It only holds together if the real-live people continue to abide by the "charter". The people have stopped living by our charter years ago and I'm afraid you cannot now put the genie back in the bottle. I can see no way for us to get our republic back (for one thing maybe 1% of the people even know what a republic is thanks to the public-fool system).



That is probably one of the very best arguments that I have ever heard from somebody who supports anarchy.  However, I must disagree with this part of your post:
Quote
If anarchy rules, there would likely be no atomic weapons.  (It is possible that they could have been developed under anarchy, but we'll never know).  Even our beloved "republic" is guilty of many atrocitities (review Alex's films) which I'll not list here.
There will be war, chaos, and most of all, uncertainty in anarchy.  No matter how you dice it or slice it, it will require just as much support, no MORE support actually -to run an anarchist society and protect itself than to restore a republic, as tradition has it.

And I admire your education on the subject, which proves to me that you are not a dunce. ;)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 03, 2005, 11:25:33 PM

And I admire your education on the subject, which proves to me that you are not a dunce. ;)


The reason I think that we would be safer in anarchy (and we will never know if I am right or not since we don't and probably won't) is there would be no protections for corporations so all trade must be on a small scale.  You would have your fishermen bringing theire fish to sell and farmers selling produce and blacksmiths selling guns.  A large operation like the manhattan project would require funds and organization that would have a hard time staying in place without "protection" from the state.  There would no doubt be roving bands of thugs but they could only get so big before they too would fall from within.  The second in command would off the leader and maybe the underlings would split into two warring factions.  You could stay clear of these guys easier than say the "IRS" or "BATF" who are just as deadly.  Even if you do have a run-in with the thugs, you stand a pretty good chance of defending yourself against them as you could have any weapons you can aquire. 

It's all speculation as we have no real-life model to examine.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on September 05, 2005, 02:29:17 AM
CA,

you just mentioned civil unrest in the south...  Is that not thanks to anarchy?  I know... Anarchy isn't chaos by definition... but it seems to lead to that relatively quickly.

Even the mainstream news is filled w/ continual reports of "wild west style" and "random shootings" constantly occuring b/c of the lack of law enforcement...  Don't get me wrong, I'm of course not suggesting a police state, but as you know, I'm also not suggesting anarchy.

Everyone won't follow natural law on their own... the key, I think, is to attain a 3rd party (republic) that will enforce human rights - nothing more - nothing less.

Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: MobileDigit on September 05, 2005, 02:33:09 AM
Why not just let the bourgeoisie stay on their propery?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 05, 2005, 11:14:21 PM

Everyone won't follow natural law on their own... the key, I think, is to attain a 3rd party (republic) that will enforce human rights - nothing more - nothing less.


Well, I think natural law "just happens".  There will always be times of violence (as there are now) but times of peace as well.  It's just that I know the violence would be more contained and localized under anarchy. 
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on September 06, 2005, 02:14:57 AM

Everyone won't follow natural law on their own... the key, I think, is to attain a 3rd party (republic) that will enforce human rights - nothing more - nothing less.


Well, I think natural law "just happens".  There will always be times of violence (as there are now) but times of peace as well.  It's just that I know the violence would be more contained and localized under anarchy. 

you know?  c'mon... that's a stretch.

Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on September 06, 2005, 03:58:21 AM
It's just that I know the violence would be more contained and localized under anarchy. 
You need organization, structure, and discipline to contain any threat.  Anarchy offers none of these.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Tommy on September 06, 2005, 08:20:04 AM

Well, I think natural law "just happens".  There will always be times of violence (as there are now) but times of peace as well.  It's just that I know the violence would be more contained and localized under anarchy. 

you know?  c'mon... that's a stretch.



Well, I know that what we have seen throughout history doesn't work so I wouldn't have a problem with trying anarchy.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on September 06, 2005, 08:21:31 AM
It's just that I know the violence would be more contained and localized under anarchy. 
You need organization, structure, and discipline to contain any threat.  Anarchy offers none of these.

Okay Hier Brokor....  :roll: :roll: :roll:

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on September 06, 2005, 08:24:40 AM
Ick.  Now we have a troll.

Grow up, Gus.  It's only a forum, not your personal vandetta playground.  Type something useful for a change perhaps?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on September 06, 2005, 08:31:52 AM
Ick.  Now we have a troll.

Grow up, Gus.  It's only a forum, not your personal vandetta playground.  Type something useful for a change perhaps?

Like finishing up my Ansi C assignment? I already did that. Ya see, unlike you, I have a brain to reason by, and you...have your stinky little ass....

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on September 06, 2005, 08:44:16 AM
Tell me what the 4th amendment to the constitution says without google-ing it.

DIDN'T THINK SO.


My point is, and always has been, that you are wasted talent, a loser, and dependent upon your society.  You even believe that you were wrongfully made a woman in a man's body for shits sake!  It doesn't get any worse than that!!!

But, who cares?  Keep your illusions.  (go ahead, google it, you know you want to)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on September 06, 2005, 08:49:29 AM
4th Amendment is about Warrants and Quartering of soldiers. Dumbass.

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Driven on September 06, 2005, 01:16:11 PM
It's just that I know the violence would be more contained and localized under anarchy. 
You need organization, structure, and discipline to contain any threat.  Anarchy offers none of these.

That's what you have been told Brokor by the government.  Who's the good little atomaton now?  I think a person like yourself would be perfectly capable of defending himself and loved ones from people that would do you harm.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on September 06, 2005, 08:00:24 PM
It's just that I know the violence would be more contained and localized under anarchy. 
You need organization, structure, and discipline to contain any threat.  Anarchy offers none of these.

That's what you have been told Brokor by the government.  Who's the good little atomaton now?  I think a person like yourself would be perfectly capable of defending himself and loved ones from people that would do you harm.

assuming it's just another assailant or two... but a gang, or even army - obviously one man can't defend against that sort of offense.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 06, 2005, 09:06:05 PM
It's just that I know the violence would be more contained and localized under anarchy. 
You need organization, structure, and discipline to contain any threat.  Anarchy offers none of these.

That's what you have been told Brokor by the government.  Who's the good little atomaton now?  I think a person like yourself would be perfectly capable of defending himself and loved ones from people that would do you harm.

assuming it's just another assailant or two... but a gang, or even army - obviously one man can't defend against that sort of offense.

Of course the whole idea in anarchy is there would be no large gangs and certainly no army as the orgaization and structure you spoke of earlier wouldn't exist.

You would be free to try to organize as large a gang as you would like.  Of course, someone in your chain of command may decide they can do a better job than you...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on September 06, 2005, 09:27:59 PM

Of course the whole idea in anarchy is there would be no large gangs and certainly no army as the orgaization and structure you spoke of earlier wouldn't exist.
yes, well even if over here in North America we decided to follow anarchy - other countries would seize that oppurtunity (ie China or N. Korea) and it'd be that much more of an incentive for them and their armies to invade.
Quote
You would be free to try to organize as large a gang as you would like.  Of course, someone in your chain of command may decide they can do a better job than you...


I agree... but as I said, war mongers would love the idea of attacking a dis-organized, smaller faction than themselves (ie- the number of small militias that would exist under anarchy).

Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 06, 2005, 10:13:06 PM

I agree... but as I said, war mongers would love the idea of attacking a dis-organized, smaller faction than themselves (ie- the number of small militias that would exist under anarchy).


This is a good point and since we don't have any example to use that really fits the situation, I would offer Afganistan.  They don't have a large army.  A much more powerful country is trying to make them cowtow to them (as the Russians did-and failed).  Although they don't have true anarchy, it's pretty close. 

I really don't know how it would play out.  Perhaps we would be conquered as many have in the past.  Perhaps the "renegades" of the anarchist society would make the conquers suffer too unbearably to continue.  Iraq is close to anarchy and the powerful US is having quite a time getting them to act like they belong to us.  We sure wouldn't be able to force them to follow the US flag.

Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: bonerjoe on September 06, 2005, 10:17:03 PM
Be quiet already.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on September 06, 2005, 10:18:19 PM

I agree... but as I said, war mongers would love the idea of attacking a dis-organized, smaller faction than themselves (ie- the number of small militias that would exist under anarchy).


This is a good point and since we don't have any example to use that really fits the situation, I would offer Afganistan. They don't have a large army. A much more powerful country is trying to make them cowtow to them (as the Russians did-and failed). Although they don't have true anarchy, it's pretty close.

I really don't know how it would play out. Perhaps we would be conquered as many have in the past. Perhaps the "renegades" of the anarchist society would make the conquers suffer too unbearably to continue. Iraq is close to anarchy and the powerful US is having quite a time getting them to act like they belong to us. We sure wouldn't be able to force them to follow the US flag.



yeah... whew... Iraq.  Who knows what to call that... I think it displays both an anarchist and statist-based army...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Driven on September 07, 2005, 12:29:00 AM
If only we could get the government to the point where the politicians where argueing about wether we should have a really small limited government or anarchy.  I would take it!
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on September 07, 2005, 07:24:32 AM

Of course the whole idea in anarchy is there would be no large gangs and certainly no army as the orgaization and structure you spoke of earlier wouldn't exist.
yes, well even if over here in North America we decided to follow anarchy - other countries would seize that oppurtunity (ie China or N. Korea) and it'd be that much more of an incentive for them and their armies to invade.
Quote
You would be free to try to organize as large a gang as you would like. Of course, someone in your chain of command may decide they can do a better job than you...


I agree... but as I said, war mongers would love the idea of attacking a dis-organized, smaller faction than themselves (ie- the number of small militias that would exist under anarchy).


EXACTLY.  AS I HAVE ALREADY SAID A HUNDRED TIMES OVER.

BUT THE ANARCHISTS DO NOT UNDERSTAND THIS SIMPLE REALITY.[/size]

And they never will.  This is why they will fail.  This is why we will all fall.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: bonerjoe on September 07, 2005, 11:00:29 AM
Provacateur!
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 07, 2005, 11:14:52 AM
Understand?  Huh??
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: MobileDigit on September 07, 2005, 03:24:00 PM
Brokor, you are incorrect, because an anarcho-capitalist militia would be much more efficient.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on September 07, 2005, 03:28:37 PM
Brokor, you are incorrect, because an anarcho-capitalist militia would be much more efficient.

and smaller.... b/c as stated, most commie nations would keep their armies as big - and then take advantage (ie- invade) any country/area that has an anarchist system.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: MobileDigit on September 07, 2005, 03:52:42 PM
This is fallacious thinking though. If you assume people would just be standing around waiting to be taken over you are sorely mistaken, they will quickly form what is needed to protect, instead of agress.

http://www.mises.org/story/1356
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 07, 2005, 05:36:43 PM
This is fallacious thinking though. If you assume people would just be standing around waiting to be taken over you are sorely mistaken, they will quickly form what is needed to protect, instead of agress.

http://www.mises.org/story/1356

I like this link.  I recommend all to read it even though it is rather long.

Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on September 07, 2005, 08:28:54 PM
If only we could get the government to the point where the politicians where argueing about wether we should have a really small limited government or anarchy.  I would take it!

agreed.

...assuming of course the transition doesn't stay in limbo forever... and knowing gov't - it most likely would....
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: bonerjoe on September 07, 2005, 09:33:37 PM
This thread is grey.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Tommy on September 08, 2005, 12:06:24 AM
This thread is grey.

Weave a grey pinstripe suit?

Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on September 08, 2005, 03:03:53 AM
This is fallacious thinking though. If you assume people would just be standing around waiting to be taken over you are sorely mistaken, they will quickly form what is needed to protect, instead of agress.
How?  Explain to me, in your own words, how people will just "magically" stop being anarchists and just work together to protect and defend a nation which has no identity or stance.  Explain to me how the multitudes, who are each after their own petty interests will suddenly and unmistakably rebel a force that is highly trained, mobile, and numbers on the hundreds of thousands. How, if you, and anarcho-capitalist or whatever you call yourself 'nation' has no army, will you expect to overtake an enemy?

A trained military force, such as the N Korean army can overtake your "magical battalion" any day, I guaran-goddamn-tee it.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 08, 2005, 08:00:16 AM
This is fallacious thinking though. If you assume people would just be standing around waiting to be taken over you are sorely mistaken, they will quickly form what is needed to protect, instead of agress.
How?  Explain to me, in your own words, how people will just "magically" stop being anarchists and just work together to protect and defend a nation which has no identity or stance.  Explain to me how the multitudes, who are each after their own petty interests will suddenly and unmistakably rebel a force that is highly trained, mobile, and numbers on the hundreds of thousands. How, if you, and anarcho-capitalist or whatever you call yourself 'nation' has no army, will you expect to overtake an enemy?

A trained military force, such as the N Korean army can overtake your "magical battalion" any day, I guaran-goddamn-tee it.

Did you read the link??  It pretty much covered it but I guess we could post the entire article if you wish.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on September 08, 2005, 08:47:07 AM
CA, oddly, we're in the same camp on this part of the anarchy debate. Where the hell does one assume that armies are all powerful in the first place, and that having a government to organize armies by default assumes victory? It doesn't and Brokor knows this, but it comes down to a psychological need to see a standing army to 'feel safe.' I wonder if Brokor can ask the people in New Orleans if they 'feel safe' with a bloated standing army...

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on September 08, 2005, 02:21:53 PM
This is fallacious thinking though. If you assume people would just be standing around waiting to be taken over you are sorely mistaken, they will quickly form what is needed to protect, instead of agress.
How?  Explain to me, in your own words, how people will just "magically" stop being anarchists and just work together to protect and defend a nation which has no identity or stance.  Explain to me how the multitudes, who are each after their own petty interests will suddenly and unmistakably rebel a force that is highly trained, mobile, and numbers on the hundreds of thousands. How, if you, and anarcho-capitalist or whatever you call yourself 'nation' has no army, will you expect to overtake an enemy?

A trained military force, such as the N Korean army can overtake your "magical battalion" any day, I guaran-goddamn-tee it.

Did you read the link?? It pretty much covered it but I guess we could post the entire article if you wish.

Actually, I read it briefly, and it is nothing different than what I have already read before.  It is 100% pure unadulterated bullshit.  The article, as do all the others, resorts to "theories" and "ideas" to replace the corrupt and bewildered "democracy" which is in place in most of the "free world" today.  What is not mentioned, even though the article so brilliantly starts off with a portion of the Declaration of Independence, is that the United States was started as a republic, it had no massive standing armies, but a militia, and this country never again experienced such freedom and wealth before the international bankers came over and infiltrated our economy.
The author of the article is quick to mention the atrocities of 9-11, and how bums with "box cutters" created the catastrophe, but I feel that our work here in these forums can at least keep that bullshit theory out of the equation.  We know that the out of control government, with key players inside, orchestrated 9-11, and that the current form of government is not one which is supportive of the republic and a better way of life for freedom and liberty.
All I am saying, and all I have ever said is, anarchy will not work, it has no organization and structure, nor discipline and order.  You can say all that you want about the current government to try and justify your rationale, but I do not support the current government, I support the old one.  I support a republic -the type of society and government which you were not taught about in schools.  And one more thing about anarchy.  You anarchists feel that your theories will save you from every evil and hardship, but you don't have the slightest clue.  Everything this guy mentions in his article is opinion, not fact.  It is a guessing game, not applied and tested principles.  You should really read the article again to gain some understanding before you accept it as truth and fact. 
You are being used to divide our nation, ignore our heritage and founding principles, our traditional authority, and you are going to be used to create civil unrest, resist a controlling police state, be unable to sustain a force great enough to conquer your enemy, and you will be beaten, imprisoned, tortured, and kept as slaves for a system that has been created to control you.  Because you cannot see that only a republic that is made BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE, and is comprised OF THE PEOPLE, and it can protect and defend liberty on a personal level.
Waste of time.  What the hell am I doing preaching to a bunch of anarchists?  You people have given up hope long ago, and are only running away scared, looking for your idea of the best way out.  What you do not know is, your philosophies are tainted.  You will fail every time because you have no direction and you won't even be able to lead yourselves.  Too many indians, not enough chiefs.  And you will be destroyed because of it.  But you won't even make it that far.  Again, your purpose is to gain acceptance by as many as possible, and to throw as many people off the trail of the real oppressors long enough to allow them to have a strangle hold.  So go on, continue to blame this government.  Blame your fellow pawns.  You have no idea what you are doing.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Tommy on September 08, 2005, 11:45:50 PM
Brokor, I'm sorry you see anarchists as the enemy because we are not (well, at least not the ones I know).  I for one would fight alongside you to restore the republic if you think it can be done.  Once restored, I would squawk if thie republic tried to force me to do something I didn't want to do (as governments do so well).  I make agreements one at a time and as long as they are entered into knowingly and willingly, I count them valid.  If I agree to help with the republic, I will do so.  If the republic later tries to screw me, then the bargain is off.  Throughout my life, I don't recall ever making an agreement with this fiction USA to do anything.  I certainly don't want any so-called protection from them as their version of "protection" may kill me.

Anarchy is my ideal but I also realize that it is unlikely to ever occur except in small pockets so I would settle for second best.  I do not believe what we have now qualifies.

And a point made at the beginning of this thread is that we all really live in our own little anarchy anyway.  All of us only follow the laws and rules that we agree with and we ignore the rest (at least if the man isn't watching).  Each of us has a different set of rules that agree with those prescribed by those men who claim to be our "leaders".  Each of us have different ones that we think are completely unreasonable.  Those who believe that M.J. laws are unfounded will violate them whenever they choose only taking care for the man.  I'll bet there are some that you violate whenever you feel you are safe doing so.


Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on September 09, 2005, 03:38:50 AM
There is a difference between being a willing accomplice and an unknowing participant.

 Most people are too ignorant to even know how a republic functions, and so they accept these theories, these drawing board, cardboard cutouts designed to make people feel all warm and happy inside.  As they hope and wish for their ideal dream state to exist, they real enemy sneaks up and bites them in the ass.  Anarchists DON'T GIVE A SHIT what happens, because they want complete destruction, they wish for chaos and disorder, just so they can reign in their "free market anarcho-capitalism", which really is nothing short of complete despotism and an extreme form of mobocracy (democracy), where the large majority makes the rules for everybody else.  Don't like it?  TOO BAD, WE HAVE MORE GUNS!  Want to be protected?  TOO BAD, FIND HELP YOURSELF!  Got robbed? Beaten? Children murdered?  HIRE THE BEST INVESTIGATORS FROM OUR LIST OF CONMEN...er, INDEPENDENT AGENTS.

Anarchy will never, ever work.  No matter how much you people blame others or no matter how many times you repeat the same unsubstantiated garbage....
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on September 09, 2005, 07:54:33 AM
Geee, Brokor, then why are malls so chaotic yet produce an effective economy? Clearly, you never studied Chaos Theory or you would know, all things are chaos[structured but not predictible]. Here's a little bit of math/physics problem for you: solve the Nth body problem. If you can't solve it then you might figure out why Anarchists are well...anarchists.

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 09, 2005, 08:26:08 AM
There is a difference between being a willing accomplice and an unknowing participant.

 Most people are too ignorant to even know how a republic functions, and so they accept these theories, these drawing board, cardboard cutouts designed to make people feel all warm and happy inside.  As they hope and wish for their ideal dream state to exist, they real enemy sneaks up and bites them in the ass.  Anarchists DON'T GIVE A SHIT what happens, because they want complete destruction, they wish for chaos and disorder, just so they can reign in their "free market anarcho-capitalism", which really is nothing short of complete despotism and an extreme form of mobocracy (democracy), where the large majority makes the rules for everybody else.  Don't like it?  TOO BAD, WE HAVE MORE GUNS!  Want to be protected?  TOO BAD, FIND HELP YOURSELF!  Got robbed? Beaten? Children murdered?  HIRE THE BEST INVESTIGATORS FROM OUR LIST OF CONMEN...er, INDEPENDENT AGENTS.

Anarchy will never, ever work.  No matter how much you people blame others or no matter how many times you repeat the same unsubstantiated garbage....

I really don't think most anarchists want chaos and disorder.  They just want to be free.  Indeed, after Adam and Eve were removed from the garden, wouldn't you say they lived in a state of anarchy?  There was no government and no enforcers.  As the population  grew, people gathered together into groups and farmed or worked with their hands.  They traded crafts for food and visa-versa.  I'm sure some committed murder and were in turn killed by others.  The first "big sin" recorded, I think, was by "governemt" in the building of the tower.   At least it was a big enough sin to get God to react.  God destryed their "governmet" and sent them all packing again in "anarchy".
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on September 09, 2005, 10:33:25 AM
CA, you can't explain it to Brokor, he has his mind made up. I may not agree with your coupling of a religion to anarchy, but I do agree that anarchy does exist even in the most depostic regions of our planet. It reminds me of a quote from Stars Wars(the first one), "The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers." :) Brokor probably likens himself to Napoleon or some other military twit, thinking he can by force of arms make people happy. I'm just waiting for Brokor to form the Brokorist National Party so I can be the first thrown into the gas chambers he will make...Then, maybe, the species will learn its lesson on power and force.

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on September 09, 2005, 04:36:55 PM
Geee, Brokor, then why are malls so chaotic yet produce an effective economy? Clearly, you never studied Chaos Theory or you would know, all things are chaos[structured but not predictible]. Here's a little bit of math/physics problem for you: solve the Nth body problem. If you can't solve it then you might figure out why Anarchists are well...anarchists.

-- Bridget
Any person on the internet can act like they are intelligent, because they have Google at their disposal.  Gus, you are one of those people.  Yes, I have studied chaos theory.  And no, you are not correct.  In fact, you are a mentally ill fag.  You are emotionally unstable, and I would be willing to bet that you have tried suicide at least once in your life.

Malls?  Are you serious?  You are a shitbag, I swear. :lol:
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on September 09, 2005, 05:07:44 PM
Yes. Malls, stockmarkets, bazaars, and potlucks are all CHAOTIC in that statistically there is no one way of nothing how they will start and where it will end. That's why folks such as Mises and Rand have posited theories that very similar to Chaos Theory in regard to human behavior and have come the closest to understanding it. And yes, I am right about Chaos Theory, you just don't want to debate it because you're younger than me[via your picture] and thus naive on the issues[yes I am playing the agism fallacy, but in this case it applies perfectly to Brokor's immaturity].

So again, where do republics order civil social structures? I'll give you a clue, they don't, dumbass.

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on September 09, 2005, 05:21:31 PM
Yes. Malls, stockmarkets, bazaars, and potlucks are all CHAOTIC in that statistically there is no one way of nothing how they will start and where it will end. That's why folks such as Mises and Rand have posited theories that very similar to Chaos Theory in regard to human behavior and have come the closest to understanding it. And yes, I am right about Chaos Theory, you just don't want to debate it because you're younger than me[via your picture] and thus naive on the issues[yes I am playing the agism fallacy, but in this case it applies perfectly to Brokor's immaturity].

So again, where do republics order civil social structures? I'll give you a clue, they don't, dumbass.

-- Bridget
31 years old.  And you know nothing.

Obviously you refuse to acknowledge the existence of a monetary system and economy, both of which are not chaotic, but are organized structures.  And these malls, stockmarkets, bazaars, and potlucks all depend upon an orderly system of weights and balances to operate.  You may see chaos, but that does not mean it exists.

And you still have no clue about what a republic is...
Quote from: gay boy
So again, where do republics order civil social structures? I'll give you a clue, they don't, dumbass.
A republic does not need to "order" or command anything, because each individual is responsible for his or her own actions.  In a republic, authority is derived through election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles, and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.  A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on September 09, 2005, 05:27:19 PM
31 years old.  And you know nothing.
Sorry, I'm 25, dumbass. 7/14/1980, do the math!


Quote
Obviously you refuse to acknowledge the existence of a monetary system and economy, both of which are not chaotic, but are organized structures.
Hardly, such markets change over time due to the variable expansion of governments. AND such markets would be variable even if the currencies were privately held[Mises pointed out that the variability WOULD BE LOWER but NOT GONE]. You seem to not understand also that organization does not infer order. Order means the WHOLE of a SYSTEM IS DETERMINED. Ergo, no system is ordered since there is a larger system for which it apart of, leading directly to Nature[The collection of all things].   And neither do any other social system depend on order, they depend on variability aka chaos.

Quote
You may see chaos, but that does not mean it exists.
Tell that to the astrophysicists that still boggle over how even super-gas giants orbit erratically in binary star systems. And oh lets not forget WEATHER SYSTEMS, DUHHHHHHH DUHHHHHHHHHHHh. BROKOR GETS PWNED AGAIN!!!



Quote
A republic does not need to "order" or command anything, because each individual is responsible for his or her own actions.
If one is self-owning then there cannot be a republic. A republic asserts force against individuals through laws that are designated by the body politic. So, basically, again you are a facist. You see the nation as higher in 'authority' than the sovereign. You basically, just LOST AGAIN. Moron!

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on September 09, 2005, 05:29:53 PM
31 years old. And you know nothing.
Sorry, I'm 25, dumbass. 7/14/1980, do the math!

And yet, somehow, reality eludes you yet again.  I was referring to my own age.  Why must you act like a child?


And your last post made absolutely no sense.

Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on September 09, 2005, 05:32:46 PM
Then refute it asshole. You never ever refute a single iota of what I have stated from start to finish in ever other thread. I suggest you start refuting with valid argumentation NOW. Or I might just call FTL and maybe talk about the idiocy of your FACIST STATISM.

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on September 09, 2005, 05:37:57 PM
Then refute it asshole. You never ever refute a single iota of what I have stated from start to finish in ever other thread. I suggest you start refuting with valid argumentation NOW. Or I might just call FTL and maybe talk about the idiocy of your FACIST STATISM.

-- Bridget
Well, Gus.  For starters, if it were truly a chaotic world, and your opinion of a chaotic market really did exist, then you would be able to pay whatever price for any item you wished for.  For instance, you could go into Starbucks, pay the attendant 10 cents for their $6.00 capuccino, walk out, and on your way to your car you would get tackled by mall security (another ordered entity) and arrested by police.  Not only can you pay with substance for substance, but you will also be bartering, which takes two or more parties to react with one another in an orderly fashion in order to come to an arrangement and complete the purchase.

Now, tell me.  Why does your mind work in such a fucked up way that you cannot see this?  Again, why do you believe that you are a woman, and are yet still carrying around the body of a man?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on September 09, 2005, 05:41:49 PM
then you would be able to pay whatever price for any item you wished for.
You can at most places if you talk to the manager. Oh wait, you never had a job in the retail industry let alone the real world. Also, chaos doesn't mean what you think it means, fuckface. It means UNDETERMINED PATH, e.g. projected path has more than one possible outcome. It's like having an equation that can give two different results for the same cartesian coordinates. Guess what? That's EXACTLY HOW THE MARKETS WORK. DUMBASS. STUDY ECONOMICS, READ WALL STREET JOURNAL. YOU WILL FIND ECONOMISTS STATING THERE IS A VARIABILITY IN THE MARKETS. DUHHHHHHHHHH DUHHHHHHHHHHHH DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Does your queerbait mind not operate on the abstract level of critical thinking?

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on September 09, 2005, 05:47:27 PM
Quote from: Gay Boy
It means UNDETERMINED PATH, e.g. projected path has more than one possible outcome.
So, when you finally decide on a price for your coffee or car, or tampons, will you then pay the price that is decided upon?

Or will you just decide that the price must remain undertermined and then simply not pay for it at all? 


Are you feeling ok, Gus?
Do you need to talk about your feelings?
Do I make you feel threatened in any way?
Do you sometimes feel out of place, angry, and alone?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on September 09, 2005, 05:50:08 PM
That doesn't make it orderly... You don't get chaos... *sighs and references Wikipedia*

Quote
In mathematics and physics, chaos theory deals with the behavior of certain nonlinear dynamical systems that (under certain conditions) exhibit the phenomenon known as chaos, most famously characterised by sensitivity to initial conditions (see butterfly effect). As a result of this sensitivity, the observed behavior of physical systems that exhibit chaos appears to be random, even though the model of the system is 'deterministic' in the sense that it is well defined and contains no random parameters. Examples of such systems include the atmosphere, the solar system, plate tectonics, turbulent fluids, economies, and population growth.

You have been PWNED.

Quote
The three-body problem is much more complicated; its solution can be chaotic. In general, the three-body problem cannot be solved analytically (i.e. in terms of a closed form solution of known constants and elementary functions), although approximate solutions can be calculated by numerical methods or perturbation methods.

OH SNAP! Damn, I just am too good for a little pussy man like you. I suggest you go back to revoluntionaryleft.com or whatever, cause they are more your speed; slower than frozen shit.

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on September 09, 2005, 06:02:36 PM
Uh.  You must have missed my last post.  I believe it went something like: "Gus, you make no sense whatsoever."


And I have been here for quite a long time, as I did not come here from "Revolutionaryleft.com", I only visited that forum for a few days, and was banned because the people there cannot tolerate truth and reality.  Gus. Uh, one more thing.... you still cannot prove that the mall is chaotic and has zero order and organization.  Part of your definition from above: *(under certain conditions)*

It means that it is not 100% fact as you claim, that there are exceptions, and that your ideas are not concrete.  It means, Gus, that you cannot assume that everything is chaotic, and therefore how only you perceive it, and it means that you really do have to obey the laws of physics and law, unless you plan on spending time in jail.  Yes, you really do have to pay for your coffee, and yes, the price is right.  bitch. :lol:
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on September 09, 2005, 06:06:58 PM
Ummm yes I can declare it chaotic. read the quote... I will post it again...

Quote
In mathematics and physics, chaos theory deals with the behavior of certain nonlinear dynamical systems that (under certain conditions) exhibit the phenomenon known as chaos, most famously characterised by sensitivity to initial conditions (see butterfly effect). As a result of this sensitivity, the observed behavior of physical systems that exhibit chaos appears to be random, even though the model of the system is 'deterministic' in the sense that it is well defined and contains no random parameters.

Brokor, you lost.... admit defeat or REFUTE THE EVIDENCE. STOP INSULTING AND START ARGUING THE POINTS.

-- Bridget

P.S. Looky Here at the books about Chaos Theory applied to economics...

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0444705007/qid=1126303847/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/103-2345805-5444650?v=glance&s=books

Quote
This book will be of immense value to mathematical economists, economic theorists and to many mathematicians; it is to be strongly recommended. The Economic Journal The large number of topics treated in the text and the precision and clarity of the exposition make it probable that this book will be referred to as a standard reference in economic dynamics in the years to come. Mathematical Reviews H.-W. Lorenz ....a superb book that I highly recommend to theoretical and applied economists alike............it will become a classic reference tool for anybody using continuous-time, dynamical methods in economics. Journal of Political Economy M. Boldrin

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0471585246/qid=1126303847/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-2345805-5444650?v=glance&s=books

Quote
A leading pioneer in the field offers practical applications of this innovative science. Peters describes complex concepts in an easy-to-follow manner for the non-mathematician. He uses fractals, rescaled range analysis and nonlinear dynamical models to explain behavior and understand price movements. These are specific tools employed by chaos scientists to map and measure physical and now, economic phenomena.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0691042497/qid=1126303847/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/103-2345805-5444650?v=glance&s=books

Quote
In recent years economists have begun to use the techniques of non-linear dynamics to show that some apparently erratic and turbulent economic phenomena reflect subtle underlying patterns. How do cyclic and chaotic dynamics arise in economic models of equilibrium? How can empirical methods be used to detect nonlinearities and cyclic and chaotic structures in economic models? In examining these questions, this book brings together the most significant work that has been done to date in economics-based chaos theory. Selected here particularly for the economist who is not a specialist in chaos theory, the essays, some previously unpublished and others not widely available, describe a new tool for understanding business cycles, stabilization policy, and forecasting. The contributors to the volume are William J. Baumol, Jess Benhabib, Michele Boldrin, William A. Brock, Richard H. Day, Raymond J. Deneckere, Allan Drazen, Jean-Michel Grandmont, Kenneth L. Judd, Bruno Jullien, Guy Laroque, Blake LeBaron, Bruce McNevin, Luigi Montrucchio, Salih Nefti, Kazuo Nishimura, James B. Ramsey, Pietro Reichlin, Philip Rothman, Chera L. Sayers, Jos A. Scheinkman, Wayne Shafer, William Whitesell, Edward N. Wolff, and Michael Woodford.

Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on September 09, 2005, 06:09:45 PM
I thought I just did that.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on September 09, 2005, 06:12:51 PM
I thought I just did that.

No, I countered every point you made. You evaded most of what I stated. Read those books I posted.

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Tommy on September 09, 2005, 11:40:37 PM
Ummm yes I can declare it chaotic. read the quote... I will post it again...

Quote
In mathematics and physics, chaos theory deals with the behavior of certain nonlinear dynamical systems that (under certain conditions) exhibit the phenomenon known as chaos, most famously characterised by sensitivity to initial conditions (see butterfly effect). As a result of this sensitivity, the observed behavior of physical systems that exhibit chaos appears to be random, even though the model of the system is 'deterministic' in the sense that it is well defined and contains no random parameters.


Excuse me but this says "certain nonlinear systems" and "under certain conditions"...  Doesn't seem to apply to all.

Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on September 09, 2005, 11:53:20 PM
Sorry, it does apply, there's been studies on how social connections follow the same coefficients found in Chaos Theory. Ditto on the markets and overall economic development.

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Tommy on September 09, 2005, 11:57:00 PM
Sorry, it does apply, there's been studies on how social connections follow the same coefficients found in Chaos Theory. Ditto on the markets and overall economic development.

-- Bridget

That settles it then.  Studies !  Who would have known??
 :shock:
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on September 10, 2005, 12:09:01 AM
Well there's always been studies on Chaos Theory since Lorenz' simulations in the 1960s. It just shows out two things. First, when systems get complex enough they behave in ways that are not strictly in the category of determinism on any level. Second, such systems may seem regular, but what is really occuring is that there is irregularities within a bounded limit[Calculus term].

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on September 10, 2005, 05:48:06 AM
And then reality sets in and fucks shit up.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 10, 2005, 08:36:12 AM
Chaos schmaos.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7712202734&fromMakeTrack=true

"In fact, though, chaos has no more to offer to the planners than it offers to the free market. In analyzing a particular phenomenon under steady conditions, Mandelbrot's methods may well produce a description that closely matches the observed phenomena. But these methods can provide no information about the phenomena of human action which affect an economy in vital ways. A new invention, the emergence of a new political movement, changing economic habits resulting from changing philosophies of fife, and similar phenomena are not simply random fluctuations, or even new inputs to a mechanistic system; the analysis of unconscious systems has only limited applicability to the realm of human choice. The modeler can only devise formulas after the fact to fit the data, with no guarantees that these formulas will describe the future."

The point is this is again just "theory" and probably missaplied to this topic anyway.  Show me "Chaos Law" and maybe we have something to discuss.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on September 10, 2005, 10:58:37 AM
Theory is a valid explanation of known phenomena, get over it, CA, your Christian retardation doesn't effect science. Lets not forget that evil theory of gravity, we shouldn't able to stick to larger masses, but we do...Wow...

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on September 10, 2005, 06:12:00 PM
Yet the theory of gravity can be proven.  By a third grade schoolkid, nontheless.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on September 10, 2005, 07:18:38 PM
Yet the theory of gravity can be proven.  By a third grade schoolkid, nontheless.

Actually, no. They prove the existence of gravity but not the actual theory which have specific clauses such as gravity lensing, spacetime metric distortion[called frame draggin], and so forth. Those specific clauses are what make up the theory of gravity. Those are testible as is Chaos Theory.

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: l_ron_hubbard on September 10, 2005, 08:35:55 PM
you wish you knew what you were talking about
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Elron Hibberd on September 10, 2005, 09:26:55 PM
I know all.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Russ84 on September 10, 2005, 09:28:27 PM
I know all.

Still lost huh?
Your lost, troll. Your home is there ---> http://www.trollkingdom.net/forum/
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 10, 2005, 11:24:57 PM
Yet the theory of gravity can be proven.  By a third grade schoolkid, nontheless.

Actually, no. They prove the existence of gravity but not the actual theory which have specific clauses such as gravity lensing, spacetime metric distortion[called frame draggin], and so forth. Those specific clauses are what make up the theory of gravity. Those are testible as is Chaos Theory.



The existance of gravity cannot be denied (well, I guess it could) but the theory of lensing, spacetime M D etc. are still THEORIES...  When will you understand what the difference is between FACT and THEORY.  Perhaps you might try looking them up...

Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: BKO on September 11, 2005, 12:32:43 AM
oh no!  That would be terrible!  :lol:

They must use big, fancy words and detailed, intricate hypothesis in order to appear to have the upper hand in a discussion.  Google is the best friend to a LOSER who cannot think rationally.  In my opinion, if you cannot teach something to a young child, then you are going about it the wrong way.  Mr. Attis and others on these forums often times try to confuse the subject matter by copying and pasting large, complex definitions for things that need no such defining.

All these matters can be explained in common dialect, in a simple, clear manner.  If one cannot hold a conversation in plain english such as described, then they are only attempting to pretend like they are intelligent, and refuse to accept the truth of the matter.

Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Tommy on September 13, 2005, 10:48:22 AM
oh no!  That would be terrible!  :lol:

They must use big, fancy words and detailed, intricate hypothesis in order to appear to have the upper hand in a discussion.  Google is the best friend to a LOSER who cannot think rationally.  In my opinion, if you cannot teach something to a young child, then you are going about it the wrong way.  Mr. Attis and others on these forums often times try to confuse the subject matter by copying and pasting large, complex definitions for things that need no such defining.

All these matters can be explained in common dialect, in a simple, clear manner.  If one cannot hold a conversation in plain english such as described, then they are only attempting to pretend like they are intelligent, and refuse to accept the truth of the matter.


Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 14, 2005, 08:07:02 PM

Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not.


Nice quote.  It's from the bible right?  Do I have to look it up or will you tell me where it is?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Cortaigne on September 14, 2005, 09:05:19 PM
The existance of gravity cannot be denied (well, I guess it could) but the theory of lensing, spacetime M D etc. are still THEORIES...  When will you understand what the difference is between FACT and THEORY.  Perhaps you might try looking them up...

I really, REALLY wish this stupid fucking thread would just die, but you really hit a nerve with that post.

A true theory is not just something some dude came up with when he smoked some shit the other night.  When you have an idea to explain something, but it's untested and therefore unproven, that is a HYPOTHESIS.  It only becomes a theory after it's been tested, and even then, it only qualifies if it meets certain criteria, such as being falsifiable (can possibly be proven wrong somehow).  A theory, in the scientific sense, is EVERY BIT AS MUCH A FACT AS ANY OTHER FACT, as indeed, any "fact" is "just a theory" -- an idea at one point which has demonstrated accuracy.  This is not to say ANY facts are set in stone -- the whole point of the scientific process is that what we know can and should be revised if necessary as we acquire new information -- but when an idea goes from being just a hypothesis to being a tested theory, that's the absolute best description of reality we have.  The phrase "just a theory" preys on the ignorance of the general population, who use the term "theory" when what they're talking about is a hypothesis, and it is NOT the same as the theory of gravitation, or of evolution, or that the Earth is (almost) round.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 15, 2005, 12:22:46 AM
The existance of gravity cannot be denied (well, I guess it could) but the theory of lensing, spacetime M D etc. are still THEORIES...  When will you understand what the difference is between FACT and THEORY.  Perhaps you might try looking them up...

I really, REALLY wish this stupid fucking thread would just die, but you really hit a nerve with that post.

A true theory is not just something some dude came up with when he smoked some shit the other night.  When you have an idea to explain something, but it's untested and therefore unproven, that is a HYPOTHESIS.  It only becomes a theory after it's been tested, and even then, it only qualifies if it meets certain criteria, such as being falsifiable (can possibly be proven wrong somehow).  A theory, in the scientific sense, is EVERY BIT AS MUCH A FACT AS ANY OTHER FACT, as indeed, any "fact" is "just a theory" -- an idea at one point which has demonstrated accuracy.  This is not to say ANY facts are set in stone -- the whole point of the scientific process is that what we know can and should be revised if necessary as we acquire new information -- but when an idea goes from being just a hypothesis to being a tested theory, that's the absolute best description of reality we have.  The phrase "just a theory" preys on the ignorance of the general population, who use the term "theory" when what they're talking about is a hypothesis, and it is NOT the same as the theory of gravitation, or of evolution, or that the Earth is (almost) round.

So you are proposing the "theory" of evolution is on the same level as the "theory" that the earth is almost round??  Excuse me, but we have measurable observations of the earth's dimensions and we cannot "measure" any change in species.  Sorry, but you try to magnify the definition of "theory" beyond reality.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: bonerjoe on September 15, 2005, 12:25:23 AM
How do you kill a thread?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on September 15, 2005, 12:25:55 AM
With a large package of C4.

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: bonerjoe on September 15, 2005, 12:26:40 AM
I was thinking granny porn.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on September 15, 2005, 12:38:55 AM
I was thinking granny porn.

what else is new
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: bonerjoe on September 15, 2005, 12:42:06 AM
Canux sux.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 15, 2005, 12:42:52 AM
Actually, you let it die by not posting to it.  At 500 plus now, I believe it may have "evolved" into it's own lifeform which may someday threaten all life on the planet.  Imagine, all the trees, animals, even the plankton completely consumed by a huge discussion topic that covers the entire planet...  True Beauty... :D
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: MobileDigit on September 15, 2005, 01:24:35 AM
So you are proposing the "theory" of evolution is on the same level as the "theory" that the earth is almost round??

Yes.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 15, 2005, 01:34:08 AM
So you are proposing the "theory" of evolution is on the same level as the "theory" that the earth is almost round??

Yes.

O.K. then... just wanted to clear that up. :P
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: eukreign on September 15, 2005, 02:37:40 PM
So what do Christians think that non-believers are thinking?

I mean, how do you explain our lack of acceptance of the Christian religion?

Do you really believe that you are better than us because you believe in Christ?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 15, 2005, 08:50:54 PM

So what do Christians think that non-believers are thinking?


I can't speak for others, I think that non-believers are thinking about the same things as believers for the most part.  I am concerned for family, loved ones, friends, and the course of current events.

Quote

I mean, how do you explain our lack of acceptance of the Christian religion?


I think that all will someday acknowledge Him, when confronted by Him.  I do not know if some will be destroyed, or if this is another parable explaining the remorse felt by many.

Quote

Do you really believe that you are better than us because you believe in Christ?


Never said that...  It's like me asking you when you stopped beating your wife (child, mother, etc.)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: eukreign on September 15, 2005, 09:34:33 PM
Never said that...  It's like me asking you when you stopped beating your wife (child, mother, etc.)

But you just stated that someday we will all acknowledge "Him". That means that you believe that he exists beyond a reasonable doubt and everyone else who doesn't believe is ignorant, that one day god may destroy anyone who doesn't believe in him!

You are almost sounding cynical and egotistical.

This is why I will never have respect for Christians who look down on anyone who doesn't think the same things they do. And why I very stronly believe that Christianity is a very destructive religion.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on September 15, 2005, 09:36:03 PM
If there is a Creator, then she(yes a SHE) has a sense of humor to create men, especially since their balls hang out and not stay in as to protect a valuable reproductive organ. :shock: Then again, I'm weird...

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: eukreign on September 15, 2005, 10:29:53 PM
http://img55.imageshack.us/img55/8402/grandmasparty0jl.jpg

Is that the creator?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(Thank bonerjoe for the burning)
Post by: BKO on September 15, 2005, 11:11:39 PM
If there is a Creator, then she(yes a SHE) has a sense of humor to create men, especially since their balls hang out and not stay in as to protect a valuable reproductive organ. :shock: Then again, I'm weird...

-- Bridget
No, you are insane. 

If there is a god, it's a dude. *smacks the bitch down* see?  Men rule by force...the ONLY way to do it. :)  And uh...the testicles stay out, and go back in so they may be at the correct temperature for the sperm. Now stop trolling and go be a good little transvestite gay man.

 
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(Thank bonerjoe for the burn
Post by: ladyattis on September 15, 2005, 11:15:22 PM
Dude! Seriously, what male god would put the most sensative and most important part of your reproductive capability where everyone can get at it? FUCK, even dolphins have their peckers conveniently retractable into their bodies! Sorry, but a chick would only do that to you, dude. :) 'Cause women are the truly dominent life forms on the planet. ^^;

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(Thank bonerjoe for the burn
Post by: ladyattis on September 15, 2005, 11:17:02 PM
boner...you are evil!!!!!

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(Thank bonerjoe for the burn
Post by: BKO on September 15, 2005, 11:18:29 PM
Quote from: Mr Attis
'Cause women are the truly dominent life forms on the planet. ^^;

Eeek.  Yeah.  You've convinced me.

NOT. :lol:
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(Thank bonerjoe for the burning)
Post by: BKO on September 15, 2005, 11:23:49 PM
Thanks for the edit, Lindsey.

No, really.  It was appreciated.

NOT.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(Thank bonerjoe for the burn
Post by: Bishop on September 15, 2005, 11:32:32 PM
Ok, where the hell was that NSFW in the title...that might have been useful.  :shock:
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(Thank bonerjoe for the burn
Post by: Bishop on September 15, 2005, 11:48:13 PM
Yeah..... um.... when your mom finishes with ya, send her on over  :lol:

I suppose i should assume any thread with the "bonerjoe" in the title isn't safe for work...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(Thank bonerjoe for the burning)
Post by: bonerjoe on September 15, 2005, 11:54:07 PM
I've been making threads NSFW since 1995.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: bigboom on September 16, 2005, 12:11:24 AM
wow 36 pages. :-)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 16, 2005, 08:52:01 AM
Never said that...  It's like me asking you when you stopped beating your wife (child, mother, etc.)

But you just stated that someday we will all acknowledge "Him". That means that you believe that he exists beyond a reasonable doubt and everyone else who doesn't believe is ignorant, that one day god may destroy anyone who doesn't believe in him!

You are almost sounding cynical and egotistical.

This is why I will never have respect for Christians who look down on anyone who doesn't think the same things they do. And why I very stronly believe that Christianity is a very destructive religion.

Yes, and I believe that there is a possiblilty that all will eventually be made right with God.  It's hardly a well-excepted belief, but I believe in a merciful, loving God and have a hard time with the concept of eternal damnation.  I do believe there may be some serious punishment for the ones who go out of their way to bash God, but eternity is a hard concept and perhaps "forever" is an synonym for "long time".  Certainly Christianity is not destructive, but men can twist anything to cause destruction. 
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(Thank bonerjoe for the burn
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 16, 2005, 08:58:20 AM
I've been making threads NSFW since 1995.

Oh, it is safe for work, all you have to do with Firefox is click on "no images"...

I win - nah, nah nah nah nah !
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: bonerjoe on September 16, 2005, 10:16:58 AM
Firefox blows, so you automatically lose.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ladyattis on September 16, 2005, 10:24:51 AM
Firefox is not as bad as Opera or Netscape 8. >_<

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: bonerjoe on September 16, 2005, 10:25:45 AM
IE pwns them all.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ladyattis on September 16, 2005, 10:27:37 AM
IE pwns them all.

Nah, it's ActiveX and integrated application calls make it hax0rable... Lynx pwns all your IE.

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: bonerjoe on September 16, 2005, 10:54:05 AM
It would if the internet wasn't built around IE and Microsoft. Sorry, joo loose!

Really, I would use Firefox/Mozilla if it actually WORKED RIGHT 100% of the time. But so many websites are incompatible, that it's just easier to use IE.

Now, I would _pay_ for a version of Safari for Windows.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ladyattis on September 16, 2005, 11:09:25 AM
Nah, I like Konquer for Bloze. I think there's a win32 port of it now, I'll have to check.

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 16, 2005, 02:58:21 PM
(http://gort.ucsd.edu/mw/xiiitop.gif)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: eukreign on September 16, 2005, 03:03:53 PM
http://gort.ucsd.edu/mw/xiiitop.gif

Is that some kind of Christian porno?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Russ84 on September 16, 2005, 05:12:26 PM
http://gort.ucsd.edu/mw/xiiitop.gif

Is that some kind of Christian porno?

(http://www.pinkpostclub.com/latex-babe/pics/latex-babe-silvia-saint-13.jpg)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: Puke on September 16, 2005, 05:47:40 PM
I'm a believer!  :D
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ladyattis on September 16, 2005, 05:50:35 PM
That reminds me a blog meme quiz I did... And it came out to where after I die I have sex with Jesus' bitches aka Nuns... I don't know if I find that appealing or just scarey...

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: bonerjoe on September 16, 2005, 06:48:25 PM
And they're real too!
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 17, 2005, 12:21:40 AM
(http://www.fci.crossnet.se/wallpapers/loveisthemessagewp.jpg)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 17, 2005, 12:45:03 AM
(http://www.fci.crossnet.se/images/noonecanignore.jpg)

Hey, I like posting these images.  Have many more links...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: Russ84 on September 17, 2005, 01:14:08 AM
Jesus is angry!   :x

(http://hometown.aol.com/chico1969/images/me-exc4.jpg)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: bonerjoe on September 17, 2005, 01:40:49 AM
Jesus Quintana: You said it, man. Nobody fucks with the Jesus.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: Russ84 on September 17, 2005, 01:51:57 AM
Jesus Quintana: What's this day of rest shit? What's this bullshit? I don't fuckin' care! It don't matter to Jesus. But you're not foolin' me, man. You might fool the fucks in the league office, but you don't fool Jesus. This bush league psyche-out stuff. Laughable, man - ha ha! I would have fucked you in the ass Saturday. I fuck you in the ass next Wednesday instead. Wooo! You got a date Wednesday, baby!

(http://www.miserablelie.com/turturro/pictures/lebowski/Icon11.jpg)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 17, 2005, 08:48:52 AM
(http://www.fci.crossnet.se/images/eternallife.gif)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ladyattis on September 17, 2005, 09:04:50 AM
(http://members.cox.net/ladyattis/mypics/schopenchauer.jpg)

Quote from: Thomas Jefferson
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.

Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 17, 2005, 09:53:17 AM
(http://www.fci.crossnet.se/images/battlealreadywon.jpg)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ladyattis on September 17, 2005, 11:55:39 AM
(http://members.cox.net/ladyattis/mypics/Ingersoll.jpg)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ladyattis on September 17, 2005, 11:58:08 AM
Quote from: Ayn Rand
"Do you believe in God, Andrei? No. Neither do I. But that's a favorite question of mine. An upside-down question, you know. What do you mean? Well, if I asked people whether they believed in life, they'd never understand what I meant. It's a bad question. It can mean so much that it really means nothing. So I ask them if they believe in God. And if they say they do -- then, I know they don't believe in life. Why? Because, you see, God -- whatever anyone chooses to call God -- is one's highest conception of the highest possible. And whoever places his highest conception above his own possibility thinks very little of himself and his life. It's a rare gift, you know, to feel reverence for your own life and to want the best, the greatest, the highest possible, here, now, for your very own." Source: We the Living
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: eukreign on September 17, 2005, 12:18:34 PM
(http://www.shanmonster.com/jesus/proof/x_nun.jpg)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: eukreign on September 17, 2005, 12:25:29 PM
(http://www.jesuslovesporn.net/images/jesuslovespornthismuch.jpg)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: eukreign on September 17, 2005, 12:26:27 PM
(http://www.jesuslovesporn.net/images/jesuslovesporn_newheader_2.jpg)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ladyattis on September 17, 2005, 12:27:21 PM
Hehehe, jesus is a whore.

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: bonerjoe on September 17, 2005, 12:28:27 PM
^^^^^^^^ Whore.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ladyattis on September 17, 2005, 12:29:33 PM
Only on Sundays with the cute catholic jocks. ^^;

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: eukreign on September 17, 2005, 12:32:32 PM
(http://www.firekite.com/store/misc/pics/forum9/Jesus%20thread%20sucks.gif)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ladyattis on September 17, 2005, 12:33:03 PM
APWN3D!

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: eukreign on September 17, 2005, 12:37:18 PM
(http://www.jesusisaliberal.org/sitebuilder/images/jesus_liberal_tshirt_front-345x318.jpg) (http://www.jesusisaliberal.org/)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: eukreign on September 17, 2005, 12:38:29 PM
(http://www.atprva.com/images/uploads/god_is_broke.jpg)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: eukreign on September 17, 2005, 12:43:11 PM
(http://www.datejesus.com/multimedia/angel/angel5.jpg)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: eukreign on September 17, 2005, 12:43:59 PM
(http://www.datejesus.com/multimedia/misc/homeless.jpg)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: eukreign on September 17, 2005, 12:45:13 PM
(http://www.datejesus.com/multimedia/nun/nun5.jpg)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: eukreign on September 17, 2005, 12:53:36 PM
The "real" photograph of Jebus:

(http://www.enduringvision.com/archives/oldman.jpg)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: eukreign on September 17, 2005, 01:04:11 PM
(http://tn8.deviantart.com/300W/fs6.deviantart.com/i/2005/101/7/3/Jesus_Juice_by_Hitlersbrain.jpg)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: eukreign on September 17, 2005, 01:05:50 PM
(http://www.supernovajuice.com/journal/archives/2004/09/jesus.jpg)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: eukreign on September 17, 2005, 01:09:37 PM
(http://www.goats.com/store/images/sticker_dick.gif)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: eukreign on September 17, 2005, 01:11:29 PM
(http://www.thamike.com/fn_images/bush_jesus.jpg)
Political Role-Model & Close Personal
Friend Jesus Christ Counsels Star Student
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: eukreign on September 17, 2005, 01:12:20 PM
(http://eukreign.net/jesus-christ_loves-healthy_testicles.jpg)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: carahert on September 17, 2005, 01:18:40 PM
Christian?

Another Label used by morons to cast blame for your own personal fucked up problems and an excuse to blame a Boogieman or an entire group of people who donÂ’t hold your point of view.

What in the hell to you think being or what a Christian is? 

Is it?
A Baptist?
A Catholic?
A Methodist?
A Mormon?

Is it a state of mind or a way of life?

Or is it your way to label a whole segment of people who believe what you do not?

Well?

Here is my thought. A Christian is a person who lives a Christ like life. ThatÂ’s it. No other explanation needed.

So, those of you who wish to call yourselves a Christian step-up. IÂ’d like to hear how you have never cast judgment upon those around you. Or how you live everyday walking in the footsteps of Christ, helping people who are hungry, helpless and in need.

Those who wish to vilify and curse Christians or label those who wish to lead a moral and clean life with those who claim to be Christians, step-up. I would like to hear how you consider a person who does not live a Christ like life a Christian. Or how you come to the conclusion that someone is a “Christian” and how being a Christian is some kind of bad thing?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: eukreign on September 17, 2005, 01:22:25 PM
how you come to the conclusion that someone is a “Christian” and how being a Christian is some kind of bad thing?

I dono, just a hunch, but maybe because they go like this: "OMG! You are not Christian? What's wrong with you? Do you know that YOU WILL GO TO HELL!?!? You are crazy! You have to believe in Jesus Christ! He is our only savior! Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer..."
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: Lindsey on September 17, 2005, 01:31:51 PM
I fucked Jesus in the wrist hole.   :P

Goddamn, I've always wanted to say that.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: carahert on September 17, 2005, 01:33:28 PM
I fucked Jesus in the wrist hole.   :P

Goddamn, I've always wanted to say that.

Thats just twisted  8)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: carahert on September 17, 2005, 01:39:09 PM
how you come to the conclusion that someone is a “Christian” and how being a Christian is some kind of bad thing?

I dono, just a hunch, but maybe because they go like this: "OMG! You are not Christian? What's wrong with you? Do you know that YOU WILL GO TO HELL!?!? You are crazy! You have to believe in Jesus Christ! He is our only savior! Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer..."

So thats it then? Because someone say's your going to hell because you don't believe in Jesus Christ, that makes them Christian? Nah..
Those are the Fanatic nut jobs who could not or would not live a Christ like life. Most likely people like that are bigtime closet prono-pirates who masterbate like there is no tomorrow and then confess their guilt and then think that they are saved. Never give a moron who would make a claim "Do you know that YOU WILL GO TO HELL!?!? You are crazy! You have to believe in Jesus Christ!" the respect of being Christian.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: Lindsey on September 17, 2005, 01:42:11 PM
I fucked Jesus in the wrist hole.   :P

Goddamn, I've always wanted to say that.

Thats just twisted  8)

Which is exactly what makes it great!   :D
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: eukreign on September 17, 2005, 01:43:58 PM
So thats it then? Because someone say's your going to hell because you don't believe in Jesus Christ, that makes them Christian? Nah..
Those are the Fanatic nut jobs who could not or would not live a Christ like life. Most likely people like that are bigtime closet prono-pirates who masterbate like there is no tomorrow and then confess their guilt and then think that they are saved. Never give a moron who would make a claim "Do you know that YOU WILL GO TO HELL!?!? You are crazy! You have to believe in Jesus Christ!" the respect of being Christian.

But that's all you hear! If you ever accidentally stumble on a Christian TV channel or radio station within a minute you are almost guaranteed to hear someone saying that we will all go to hell if we do no love Jesus Christ.

If someone truely lives the life of Jesus Christ then I respect that and think it's noble, but 99.9% of Christians are the nut jobs who masterbate to Jesus porn.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: carahert on September 17, 2005, 01:49:57 PM
But that's all you hear! If you ever accidentally stumble on a Christian TV channel or radio station within a minute you are almost guaranteed to hear someone saying that we will all go to hell if we do no love Jesus Christ.

If someone truely lives the life of Jesus Christ then I respect that and think it's noble, but 99.9% of Christians are the nut jobs who masterbate to Jesus porn.

No doubt about that. But I would suggest that that 99.9% are not Christian, and don't deserve being called Christian. More like Douche bag, money grabbing, child molesting, lying hypocrites who live off of the gullible sheep.

Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: Lindsey on September 17, 2005, 01:50:22 PM
It's true.  The Jesus TV and radio stations are awful.  My stepdad only listens to Jesus radio...and one morning, it said that Jews were bad people because they didn't believe in Jesus Christ or something, and that purple is a satanic color and that if you do not love and accept Jesus Christ as your savior, you are doomed.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: carahert on September 17, 2005, 02:00:09 PM
It's true.  The Jesus TV and radio stations are awful.  My stepdad only listens to Jesus radio...and one morning, it said that Jews were bad people because they didn't believe in Jesus Christ or something, and that purple is a satanic color and that if you do not love and accept Jesus Christ as your savior, you are doomed.

Ha ha ha.. No kidding? ThatÂ’s freaking crazy. Check this out.

My Mother is a Protestant.
My Father is A Catholic.
My Wife is Jewish.
And I was baptized a Mormon.

And today my shirt is PURPLE!

Guess what I am.

---

---

---

---

Keep Going

---

---

---

---


A FREAKING RED BLOODED AMERICAN!! Woo Hoo.

I am DOOMED! Doomed..  Like Gurrr from Invader ZIM.

Doomed, doomed, doomed..
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: Lindsey on September 17, 2005, 02:04:49 PM
Yeah I know.  I think I was probably 15 when I heard that, and he was taking me to school.  I almost opened the car door and jumped out...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 17, 2005, 09:18:51 PM
Everyone loses when they try to blame God for what men have done or are doing.  Logic dictates that one can only be blamed for what they have done themselves.  If I rob a bank in the name of Manwich (fire Manwich) is it logical to get mad at Manwich?  (Well, maybe we should make an exception in Manwich's case...)


(http://www.fci.crossnet.se/wallpapers/neverthirstwp.jpg)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: bonerjoe on September 17, 2005, 10:17:44 PM
But you can't take the grail beyond the great seal!
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ladyattis on September 17, 2005, 10:18:47 PM
applause for Indy Jones movie reference!

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: Russ84 on September 18, 2005, 02:39:17 AM
This pic is a bit big...

http://www.counterorder.com/special_graphics/outoforder_freydis.jpg
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: Puke on September 18, 2005, 10:51:45 AM
 :lol:
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 18, 2005, 10:12:20 PM
(http://www.fci.crossnet.se/wallpapers/aowp.jpg)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: bonerjoe on September 18, 2005, 10:50:58 PM
And you let priests rape little boys! Fucking bastard.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: Russ84 on September 18, 2005, 10:56:49 PM
And you let priests rape little boys! Fucking bastard.

Watch out... You might get the good ole' "Free Will" run-around.  :roll:
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: bonerjoe on September 18, 2005, 10:58:19 PM
So if pre-technological indiginous tribal members rape little boys, and don't know about Jesus, are they off the hook?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ladyattis on September 18, 2005, 10:58:23 PM
Free Willy????

(http://www.rsbgalleries.com/gallery_01/0001/thumbs/tn_03.jpg)

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: bonerjoe on September 18, 2005, 10:59:00 PM
WTF?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 18, 2005, 10:59:30 PM
(http://www.higherpraise.com/clipart/creation/create03.htm)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ladyattis on September 18, 2005, 10:59:48 PM
WTF?

HAHA! I GOT YOU!!!

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: Russ84 on September 18, 2005, 11:00:43 PM
Oh, you kids...  :lol:
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 18, 2005, 11:01:57 PM
(http://www.higherpraise.com/clipart/creation/create03.htm)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: Russ84 on September 18, 2005, 11:05:26 PM
Pssst. Gene, your trying to put an html page into image tags.

I believe this is the image that you were looking for.
(http://www.higherpraise.com/clipart/creation/Creation%20of%20Adam.jpg)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 18, 2005, 11:08:30 PM
Pssst. Gene, your trying to put an html page into image tags.

I believe this is the image that you were looking for.
(http://www.higherpraise.com/clipart/creation/Creation%20of%20Adam.jpg)

You are correct, thanks.  Gotta watch those pesky extensions...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: Russ84 on September 18, 2005, 11:09:31 PM
You are correct, thanks.  Gotta watch those pesky extensions...

No problem.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: bonerjoe on September 18, 2005, 11:10:41 PM
God's wrist is limper than Rip Taylor's.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 18, 2005, 11:25:42 PM
(http://www.higherpraise.com/clipart/jesuschrist/savedelivheals.gif)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ladyattis on September 18, 2005, 11:32:39 PM
CA really wants Jesus Juice.  :lol: :lol: :lol:

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 18, 2005, 11:57:07 PM
(http://www.higherpraise.com/clipart/ceremonies/Take%20Me%20to%20the%20River.jpg)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: bonerjoe on September 19, 2005, 03:14:36 AM
Look at them drunks!
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: FTL_Ian on September 19, 2005, 01:28:55 PM
I have to applaud the CA for putting up with you guys.  His patience rivals that of Jesus himself.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 19, 2005, 04:08:08 PM
I have to applaud the CA for putting up with you guys.  His patience rivals that of Jesus himself.

Just trying to keep the thread alive - WOW over 600 posts and climbing...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: Russ84 on September 19, 2005, 08:15:32 PM
 :lol:
(http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b186/Russ84/130_People.jpg)
(http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b186/Russ84/129_People.jpg)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: Lindsey on September 19, 2005, 08:38:39 PM
I have to applaud the CA for putting up with you guys.  His patience rivals that of Jesus himself.

Just trying to keep the thread alive - WOW over 600 posts and climbing...

Isn't it a sin to beat a dead horse, or something?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ladyattis on September 19, 2005, 09:09:38 PM
I actually like CA cause he has a sense of humor unlike some people *coughs* Brokor *coughs* and actually contribute in a very good manner even on the phone on the show.

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 19, 2005, 09:12:22 PM
Ah, Ah, Ah, Ah Stayin Alive - Stayin Alive ..

Ah, Ah, Ah, Ah Stayin Aliiiiivivvvveeee  (CA does boggie accross the floor - )
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ladyattis on September 19, 2005, 09:13:00 PM
CA put down the polyester and back away!!!

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 19, 2005, 11:31:50 PM
:lol:


I know burning man when I see it.  Spent 10 years in Reno and I just got off the phone with a friend of mine who just spent a week there.  Although I never went, I wanted to years ago.  It was so "anarchistic".  However, they now have "rules" there that I don't like, like a prohibition on firearm usage.  In the early days (before permits) they used to have target practice and lots of "gun fun".  Sorry, the nudity only goes so far, and the Nevada sun will burn you!!
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: bonerjoe on September 19, 2005, 11:33:56 PM
See! Anarchy just leads to stupid rules imposed by a few...then a corrupt government!

Minarchism foreva.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: Russ84 on September 19, 2005, 11:40:27 PM
Yup, that is from Burning Man indeed.

http://marc.merlins.org/perso/bm/2005/

I always wanted to go there. And yeah, that does suck about those rules.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: bonerjoe on September 19, 2005, 11:42:59 PM
It's just a big, stinky, hot, 24/7 sex orgy with sand in your cank.

I much prefer the local air-conditioned trysts where the condoms don't melt on your dick.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: MobileDigit on September 19, 2005, 11:56:23 PM
See! Anarchy just leads to stupid rules imposed by a few...then a corrupt government!
Burning man was never anarchy, it was minarchy, but has since grown.

Minarchism foreva.
Like how it was before the War between the States compared to now?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: bonerjoe on September 20, 2005, 12:04:49 AM
Burning man was never anarchy, it was minarchy, but has since grown.

I dunno, I was just pulling it out of my ass.
Has the FedGov told them what they can stick in what yet?

Quote
Like how it was before the War between the States compared to now?

A system that permits the ownership of people against their will is certainly not a libertarian minarchy.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: MobileDigit on September 20, 2005, 12:37:28 AM
Has the FedGov told them what they can stick in what yet?
They (Burning Man) persecute people who put up videos and stuff of Burning Man, if they haven't sanctioned them.


A system that permits the ownership of people against their will is certainly not a libertarian minarchy.
The highly centralized empire that came from "Saving the Union"  is not a libertarian minarchy either.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: bonerjoe on September 20, 2005, 12:42:49 AM
Who said it was?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: MobileDigit on September 20, 2005, 12:47:43 AM
The fact remains that slavery cannot compete with the free market.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: BKO on September 20, 2005, 03:44:57 AM
The fact remains that slavery cannot compete with the free market.
You always overdramatize things in order to try and make your perceptions appear more credible.  And Burning Man, as far as I know is kind of being retarded with how they treated SKTFM.TV with all the free publicity and all, but hey.  WTF do I know?

In any case, anarchy, or (miniarchy), or whatever the FUCK you want to call it now and define the variances as, is nothing more than the absence of order, structure, and discipline.  All are key ingredients to being an everlasting society, and none have ever stood for long with these three principles.  Granted, the republic our nation was founded as turned to utter SHIT, but that was only because of secretive infiltration and usurpation combined with the steady erosion of the very foundations of our principles...leading us toward the possibility for the very type of society you wish for so very much.  The step taken after the republic was to become a "democracy" and a "constitutional dictatorship", where the majority rules the situation (mob rules), and then the "leader" makes all the decisions from then onward.  A slight variation then occured where a fascist dictatorship started to srping forward. This further decreases the amount of control from the citizenry, or general populace, and converts all "authority" to the government itself.  This will ultimately lead (as it has always done in history) to an uprising and total alteration of leadership, and will most likely welcome a communist (socialist) form of society.  The path can also lead to your anarchist dream, or nightmare depending upon how one sits on the issue.



Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: MobileDigit on September 20, 2005, 04:02:42 AM
You always overdramatize things in order to try and make your perceptions appear more credible.
The irony of you saying 'always' is great!  :P

And Burning Man, as far as I know is kind of being retarded with how they treated SKTFM.TV with all the free publicity and all, but hey.  WTF do I know?
They have an image. They protect it using the state.

In any case, anarchy, or (miniarchy), or whatever the FUCK you want to call it now and define the variances as, is nothing more than the absence of order, structure, and discipline.
Maybe you should learn before you speak out of your ass Brokor. Anarchy simply means lack of a ruler, it has nothing to do with order, structure, and disipline disappearing. You are thinking of chaos, aka, "government" failure.

All are key ingredients to being an everlasting society, and none have ever stood for long with these three principles.
Sure, but anarchy is not necessarily missing them.

Granted, the republic our nation was founded as turned to utter SHIT, but that was only because of secretive infiltration and usurpation combined with the steady erosion of the very foundations of our principles...
Actually it was caused by the War between the States, and the idea that the Federal "Government" created the States.

leading us toward the possibility for the very type of society you wish for so very much.
You are talking about minarchy, minarchy(a "limited government") leads to those things, anarchy does not.

The path can also lead to your anarchist dream, or nightmare depending upon how one sits on the issue.
Actually it can't, unless the "government" is dismantled.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: BKO on September 20, 2005, 05:28:08 AM
In any case, anarchy, or (miniarchy), or whatever the FUCK you want to call it now and define the variances as, is nothing more than the absence of order, structure, and discipline.
Anarchy simply means lack of a ruler, it has nothing to do with order, structure, and disipline disappearing. You are thinking of chaos, aka, "government" failure.
You have just reiterated what I have just said.  And I am not thinking of "chaos", I am referring to anarchy.  However, with anarchy comes a certain and even undetermined degree of chaos.

All are key ingredients to being an everlasting society, and none have ever stood for long with these three principles.
Sure, but anarchy is not necessarily missing them.
Yes, it is.  Anarchy has no order.  It has no set principles.  It has no foundation besides being anti-establishment, and that alone edicts intolerance for discipline and organization.

Granted, the republic our nation was founded as turned to utter SHIT, but that was only because of secretive infiltration and usurpation combined with the steady erosion of the very foundations of our principles...
Actually it was caused by the War between the States, and the idea that the Federal "Government" created the States.
NO, it was caused by the privately owned European banks.

leading us toward the possibility for the very type of society you wish for so very much.
You are talking about minarchy, minarchy(a "limited government") leads to those things, anarchy does not.
I am saying that there is a possibilty for an anarchist society to spring forth from a revolution that could destroy any hope of saving our republic, provided more and more people continue to be spawned from the tree of ignorance (institutions of higher education).

The path can also lead to your anarchist dream, or nightmare depending upon how one sits on the issue.
Actually it can't, unless the "government" is dismantled.
Yes, that was my POINT. :lol:
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 20, 2005, 08:13:08 AM
The fact remains that slavery cannot compete with the free market.
You always overdramatize things in order to try and make your perceptions appear more credible.  And Burning Man, as far as I know is kind of being retarded with how they treated SKTFM.TV with all the free publicity and all, but hey.  WTF do I know?

In any case, anarchy, or (miniarchy), or whatever the FUCK you want to call it now and define the variances as, is nothing more than the absence of order, structure, and discipline.  All are key ingredients to being an everlasting society, and none have ever stood for long with these three principles.  Granted, the republic our nation was founded as turned to utter SHIT, but that was only because of secretive infiltration and usurpation combined with the steady erosion of the very foundations of our principles...leading us toward the possibility for the very type of society you wish for so very much.  The step taken after the republic was to become a "democracy" and a "constitutional dictatorship", where the majority rules the situation (mob rules), and then the "leader" makes all the decisions from then onward.  A slight variation then occured where a fascist dictatorship started to srping forward. This further decreases the amount of control from the citizenry, or general populace, and converts all "authority" to the government itself.  This will ultimately lead (as it has always done in history) to an uprising and total alteration of leadership, and will most likely welcome a communist (socialist) form of society.  The path can also lead to your anarchist dream, or nightmare depending upon how one sits on the issue.


Sounds like the Star Wars episodes, doesn't it?  Amazing how millions of people can have the timeline of their destruction laid out in front of them by a movie maker and they still march down the path...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ladyattis on September 20, 2005, 08:16:37 AM
The fact remains that slavery cannot compete with the free market.
You always overdramatize things in order to try and make your perceptions appear more credible.  And Burning Man, as far as I know is kind of being retarded with how they treated SKTFM.TV with all the free publicity and all, but hey.  WTF do I know?

In any case, anarchy, or (miniarchy), or whatever the FUCK you want to call it now and define the variances as, is nothing more than the absence of order, structure, and discipline.  All are key ingredients to being an everlasting society, and none have ever stood for long with these three principles.  Granted, the republic our nation was founded as turned to utter SHIT, but that was only because of secretive infiltration and usurpation combined with the steady erosion of the very foundations of our principles...leading us toward the possibility for the very type of society you wish for so very much.  The step taken after the republic was to become a "democracy" and a "constitutional dictatorship", where the majority rules the situation (mob rules), and then the "leader" makes all the decisions from then onward.  A slight variation then occured where a fascist dictatorship started to srping forward. This further decreases the amount of control from the citizenry, or general populace, and converts all "authority" to the government itself.  This will ultimately lead (as it has always done in history) to an uprising and total alteration of leadership, and will most likely welcome a communist (socialist) form of society.  The path can also lead to your anarchist dream, or nightmare depending upon how one sits on the issue.


Sounds like the Star Wars episodes, doesn't it?  Amazing how millions of people can have the timeline of their destruction laid out in front of them by a movie maker and they still march down the path...


Now you know why I feel like John William's Imperial March is playing in my head anytime I read this goofball's posts. ROFL, but I still see him as Dark Helmet. ^^;

Quote
[Playing with his dolls]
Dark Helmet: [In Dark Helmet voice] And now Princess Vespa, I have you in my clutches, to have my wicked way with you, the way I want to.
[In Vespa voice]
Dark Helmet: No, no, go away, I hate you! And yet... I find you strangely attractive.
[In D.H. voice]
Dark Helmet: Of course you do! Druish princesses are often attracted to money and power, and I have both, and you *know* it!
[In V. voice]
Dark Helmet: No, no, leave me alone!
[In D.H. voice]
Dark Helmet: No, kiss me!
[V]
Dark Helmet: No! Stop!
[D.H]
Dark Helmet: Yes, yes!
[V]
Dark Helmet: Oh, oh, oh! Ohhhh, your helmet is so big!


-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: Grey on September 20, 2005, 03:15:24 PM
I actually like CA cause he has a sense of humor unlike some people *coughs* Brokor *coughs* and actually contribute in a very good manner even on the phone on the show.

-- Bridget

ah-hem

 :wink:
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: Grey on September 20, 2005, 03:22:24 PM
So if pre-technological indiginous tribal members rape little boys, and don't know about Jesus, are they off the hook?

not sure on the rape thing... but yes, if you are completely ignorant to Jesus, you shouldn't (and couldn't, by definition) worry about hell...

unlike gov't, ignorance of the law (Xianity) is an excuse...

but no, that doesn't mean once you've heard you can push it off and deny/choose not to believe it... and no, I'm not gonna answer "well, am I condemned? I don't like God, but I'm a good person" comment/questions.  I don't do that... anyone who claims to resemble anything close to a Xian, shouldn't either...

Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ladyattis on September 20, 2005, 09:08:13 PM
Ummm Jesus never came for the gentiles. He came for the Jews. ^^;

-- Bridget is a happy lil'gnostic, rawr!
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 20, 2005, 09:35:49 PM
Ummm Jesus never came for the gentiles. He came for the Jews.


Yes, but when the Jews rejected him, the gift was given to the gentiles and all the world...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ladyattis on September 20, 2005, 09:45:04 PM
Well, I took the gift back to God-mart and asked for something with less mysticism and more materialism. I got Objectivism. YAY!!!

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: bonerjoe on September 20, 2005, 09:47:38 PM
So, the Jews are going to hell?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ladyattis on September 20, 2005, 09:49:44 PM
So, the Jews are going to hell?

Nah, God needs lawyers and accountants. I mean how many people do you have calling for the evil deed of X in your name? God has to have some iron clad contracts and that's where the Jews come in. :-D

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 20, 2005, 11:12:10 PM
So, the Jews are going to hell?

Nah, God needs lawyers and accountants. I mean how many people do you have calling for the evil deed of X in your name? God has to have some iron clad contracts and that's where the Jews come in. :-D


Look at you and your stereotyping...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ladyattis on September 20, 2005, 11:13:45 PM
So, the Jews are going to hell?

Nah, God needs lawyers and accountants. I mean how many people do you have calling for the evil deed of X in your name? God has to have some iron clad contracts and that's where the Jews come in. :-D


Look at you and your stereotyping...

Hey, it's true. Every jew I know either has a business or is schooled in some trade. There's even a group of Hassidic jews here in Kansas that have a kosher hotdog factory. :)

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 21, 2005, 11:36:45 AM

Hey, it's true. Every jew I know either has a business or is schooled in some trade. There's even a group of Hassidic jews here in Kansas that have a kosher hotdog factory. :)


I suppose you have a dog named "Toto"?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ladyattis on September 21, 2005, 11:47:44 AM

Hey, it's true. Every jew I know either has a business or is schooled in some trade. There's even a group of Hassidic jews here in Kansas that have a kosher hotdog factory. :)


I suppose you have a dog named "Toto"?


Nah, mine's a dachshund named Oscar the Weiner Dog.

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: bonerjoe on September 21, 2005, 12:14:32 PM
Tranny bestiality.....interesting.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: eukreign on September 21, 2005, 01:07:24 PM
Tranny bestiality.....interesting.

Only you could find that interesting boner.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: bonerjoe on September 21, 2005, 01:36:49 PM
I'm open to new ideas.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 21, 2005, 02:48:31 PM
I'm open to new ideas.

Nothing new about any form of sexual pre-ver-sion... It's all been done since the beginning of recorded history.  Try as you may to think of something new, it's only new to you...


Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: MobileDigit on September 21, 2005, 02:54:06 PM
What is sin?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ladyattis on September 21, 2005, 03:00:53 PM
Actually I was serious about a dachshund named Oscar, but this animal sex thing... where the fuck did you get that?

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: bonerjoe on September 21, 2005, 03:43:48 PM
Trannys are deranged, so they must have sex with animals?!
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ladyattis on September 21, 2005, 03:44:57 PM
Trannys are deranged, so they must have sex with animals?!

Nope.

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: bonerjoe on September 21, 2005, 03:46:11 PM
Stop denying it! Where's Broker?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ladyattis on September 21, 2005, 03:47:38 PM
Stop denying it! Where's Broker?

He's in his Hitler-Le-Maid outfit and helping Satan pick out a pineapple...

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: bonerjoe on September 21, 2005, 03:49:30 PM
Comon, it's almost 4 PM...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: Tommy on September 22, 2005, 01:28:03 AM
What does any of this have to do with Christianity or Anarchy? 

P.S.  I like the new flag.  (No, I didn't say fag).
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: BKO on September 22, 2005, 02:05:27 AM
lol :lol:
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 24, 2005, 12:58:21 AM
Hey, come on, my favorite thread was down near the bottom of the 2nd page.  Isn't anyone interested it hearing me address the virtues of Christian Anarchy??

Anyway, here's a link to an article on how the ADL sees people like me who believe that The People are supposed to be soverign...

http://www.adl.org/learn/Ext_US/SCM.asp
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: carahert on September 24, 2005, 02:01:55 AM
Hey, come on, my favorite thread was down near the bottom of the 2nd page.  Isn't anyone interested it hearing me address the virtues of Christian Anarchy??

Anyway, here's a link to an article on how the ADL sees people like me who believe that The People are supposed to be soverign...

http://www.adl.org/learn/Ext_US/SCM.asp



ADL; Ass-Hole Dill-Weed Limp-Dicks

I feel you.

AND TO HELL WITH THE DNR! Let me dig out some letters I have written to the DNR the money grubbing useless morons who invade private property to generate revenue by handing out tickets for growing a garden. Yeah GROWING A GARDEN CAN GET YOU FINED! They call it a feed plot, then try to jack your ass up for money.

The ADL had better wake up to the fact that the Sovereign Citizen Movement is alive and well here in the Great State of Militiagan.

Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: BKO on September 24, 2005, 04:52:27 AM
Like I always say:  You can get more with a kind word and a Smith and Wesson than you can with just a kind word. ;)


Every person who has no felonies and isn't a piece of shit consumer zombie should own guns and make government obey the People.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 24, 2005, 09:00:19 AM
Like I always say:  You can get more with a kind word and a Smith and Wesson than you can with just a kind word. ;)


Every person who has no felonies and isn't a piece of shit consumer zombie should own guns and make government obey the People.

Where is the authority to take away guns from "felons"?

Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: BKO on September 25, 2005, 03:50:51 AM
I don't know.  Probably the law that says you can't have guns in jail.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 25, 2005, 08:20:13 AM
I don't know.  Probably the law that says you can't have guns in jail.

Again, Broker, exactly who has "AUTHORITY" to write any law??  I did not give them authority over me.  My Creator has legitimate authority over me and He could delegate that authority to others, but I see no evidence that He has.  When they put you in jail, they use FORCE to take your arms from you.  Force is not authority.  Men can violate your rights but they can not take them from you.  Even in jail, you have a right to have a weapon, but the problem is getting one and not being caught with it as they would punish you for having it.  This concept is even recognized by prisoners as they are frequently caught making makeshift weapons for protection or for assault.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: BKO on September 25, 2005, 09:23:22 AM
Anarchists have no grasp on reality, instead they pick at words and try to make sense out of a world which is senseless.  Order brings peace, and whatever means brings that peace is fine with me until it infringes upon my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.  Anarchy is nothing except as child's dream.  It has no order, no sense of structure, and zero future for itself.  Anarchy is a means to an end, it is not the solution itself.  Anarchy is the catalyst which brings about destruction, it has no longevity.

Again, stop trying to pick at words.  I made a simple statement.  If you do not like it -tough.  You put up with the criminals with guns.  I intend on supporting a death sentence for the worst ones, and handling the rest on my own if they ever come upon my property.

Now, be a good little anarchist and run along and play with your legos.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: MobileDigit on September 25, 2005, 11:58:33 AM
Prove anarchy is nothing but a child's dream.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: l_ron_hubbard on September 25, 2005, 12:06:39 PM
Anarchists have no grasp on reality, instead they pick at words and try to make sense out of a world which is senseless.  Order brings peace, and whatever means brings that peace is fine with me until it infringes upon my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.  Anarchy is nothing except as child's dream.  It has no order, no sense of structure, and zero future for itself.  Anarchy is a means to an end, it is not the solution itself.  Anarchy is the catalyst which brings about destruction, it has no longevity.
You don't seem to care if you infringe on another's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness and that is the main problem i have with your philosophy. 
Anarchy is simply the absense of an authority besides the authority which resides within oursevles, the authority of reason.  Anarchy doesn't mean chaos, though it certainly can be one consequence.  personally, i think people are basically sensible and work in a peaceful manner to the extent they can and without some governing body or authority making decision for them, they will act responsibly.  One example of how this plays itself out are kids who grow up on farms.  They tend to do thing at a younger age such as drive tractors and different responsibilities that are otherwise not given to someone so young because they don't know any better yet (supposedly).  If you give people the chance, they tend to want to prove themselves worthy of the repsonsibilities that life confronts them with.  I don't know anyone who wants to be a failure.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: MobileDigit on September 25, 2005, 12:12:54 PM
A.K.A. self-interest.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: l_ron_hubbard on September 25, 2005, 12:36:21 PM
oh yea, another thing.  take christianity and shove it up your ass.  logic only please.  :twisted:
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ladyattis on September 25, 2005, 12:41:17 PM
Anarchy is simply the absense of an authority besides the authority which resides within oursevles, the authority of reason.

There ya go Brokor, read it and weep.

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: l_ron_hubbard on September 25, 2005, 01:37:53 PM
wow, never thought i'd get such strong recognition from you... :shock:
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: bonerjoe on September 25, 2005, 01:38:41 PM
She wants you to have her babies.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 25, 2005, 09:39:52 PM
oh yea, another thing.  take christianity and shove it up your ass.  logic only please.  :twisted:

Now, now.  I don't answer to you or anyone else (except my wife) so you can take your opinion and do the same.  Unless you have become my "massa" I will ignore your comments and do as I please, thank you.  Besides, I find Christianity to be very logical.  If you don't, that's your right.  I find man to monkey, however, to be very illogical...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: l_ron_hubbard on September 25, 2005, 09:41:53 PM
does that mean you actually believe the worl is not million of years old and thus completely obliterating the science of geology?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 25, 2005, 10:02:49 PM
does that mean you actually believe the worl is not million of years old and thus completely obliterating the science of geology?

Yes.  Do you really want to get into a discussion on the age of the earth?  If you do a search, you will find my previous posts on the subject and we can go from there...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: bonerjoe on September 25, 2005, 10:03:15 PM
Oh no.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: Puke on September 25, 2005, 10:03:56 PM
This thread has gone on long enough.  :x
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: l_ron_hubbard on September 25, 2005, 10:09:46 PM
here is my rant on this topic:
http://www.killaz.wojjie.net/phpnuke78/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=48#48

And i'll just agree with puke and therefore refuse to discuss in this thread.
(http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/products/a127/a127.gif)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 25, 2005, 10:33:54 PM
O.K. I win...   Nah nah, nah nah nah !!!
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: BKO on September 26, 2005, 03:29:01 AM
Anarchy is simply the absense of an authority besides the authority which resides within oursevles, the authority of reason.

There ya go Brokor, read it and weep.

-- Bridget
And when applied as a standard of living for over 6 billion people, we have a massive fuckery and complete chaos. 

And like I have said at least a hundred times before- we need to restore our republic and kill our true enemy; the global elitist bankers.  After that time, if you morons would like to try and initiate total anarchy as a standard of living, I will not even carry a banner in support of your tasks, I will help you burn down the government buildings.  Just leave the idiocy out of the equation until our enemy is dead, ok? 
And this should at least make you stop and think, because there has never been an anarchist society, never will be, and it has zero chance at sustainability and longevity, so please save your brainwashing rhetoric for a person with nothing to lose.  Some people in this country still have something to fight for.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ladyattis on September 26, 2005, 08:04:18 AM
Anarchy is simply the absense of an authority besides the authority which resides within oursevles, the authority of reason.

There ya go Brokor, read it and weep.

-- Bridget
And when applied as a standard of living for over 6 billion people, we have a massive fuckery and complete chaos.
Dude, most people don't live by Reason on this planet, that's why PEOPLE ARE DYING. You got folks thinking voodoo shamans can give them invulerability potions. You have tinfoils saying water doped with silver will cure cancer. You got doctors performing heart bypass surgeries that are now being considered unnecessary. All these problems stem from a lack of use of the old rational faculties.

As Ayn Rand said it best, free will is the choice to think or not. If you don't think then there are chaos. If you do think, then you make a society that can stand a thousand years without coercion or force.
 

Quote
And like I have said at least a hundred times before- we need to restore our republic and kill our true enemy; the global elitist bankers.  After that time, if you morons would like to try and initiate total anarchy as a standard of living, I will not even carry a banner in support of your tasks, I will help you burn down the government buildings.  Just leave the idiocy out of the equation until our enemy is dead, ok?
Show me the proof there is an enemy. Also, I must note that I am not an anarchist. I do support some form of government that is purely volitional, where no one entity is forced to be a party. That means I also support secession.

Again, show me evidence of this all power ancient conspiracy, cause Brokor, I use to study the very same videos you're watching now as a teenager from age 14 to age 18. I even did independent research on my own and found NOTHING. Not a single little piece of evidence, just hearsay and more BS. I will not rejoin this insanity. And I will not give you support either monitary or physical. And I will not condone your actions in any light since you will be as savage as your so-called enemies.


Quote
And this should at least make you stop and think, because there has never been an anarchist society, never will be, and it has zero chance at sustainability and longevity, so please save your brainwashing rhetoric for a person with nothing to lose.  Some people in this country still have something to fight for.
People fight for their values. Your government isn't a value because it's based on the sole vice of all men's souls: violence. You seek to support a government through force of arms against others for your own enjoyment. The fact that you have a history of violence[aka you joined the military] suggest you want a war. Every soldier wants a war. Why? Becuase it's validates their training rather than realizing that being alive for one's own sake validates their own existence.

So until you get the altruism out of your brainpan, you can count me out of your little Don Quixiote adventures. You can joust with the windmills on your own money and time. If you attempt to force your actions on others, remember, other people have guns and know how to use them as well.

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 26, 2005, 08:17:04 AM
Not very many soldiers, especially those who have been to war, want war...  Violence however, is going to happen at some point as violence is being perpetrated against the People.  Violence begets violence and the beast started this fight...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ladyattis on September 26, 2005, 08:27:54 AM
Not very many soldiers, especially those who have been to war, want war...  Violence however, is going to happen at some point as violence is being perpetrated against the People.  Violence begets violence and the beast started this fight...

Brokor hasn't seen violence. He's an incomplete soldier, CA. He wants his war like many 'trained' soliders.

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: bonerjoe on September 26, 2005, 08:44:12 AM
Sooooooo right.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: l_ron_hubbard on September 26, 2005, 10:29:10 AM
And like I have said at least a hundred times before- we need to restore our republic and kill our true enemy; the global elitist bankers.  After that time, if you morons would like to try and initiate total anarchy as a standard of living, I will not even carry a banner in support of your tasks, I will help you burn down the government buildings.  Just leave the idiocy out of the equation until our enemy is dead, ok? 
And this should at least make you stop and think, because there has never been an anarchist society, never will be, and it has zero chance at sustainability and longevity, so please save your brainwashing rhetoric for a person with nothing to lose.  Some people in this country still have something to fight for.
Well i have to agree with you there is an enemy, but i would call it the corporatocracy which subjugates governments to it's economic powers and combinations through things like the WTO.

Your claim there has never been an anarchist soceity is wrong.  Revolutionary Spain in the 1930's was an excellent example of Anarcho-syndicalism in the works, and man did it ever work well.  Communities were in direct control of their economies and way of life, i wish i could've been there to experience it... unfortunately, fascist take over by Franco with Hitler's and USA support destroyed the society.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: Puke on September 26, 2005, 11:04:48 AM
Not very many soldiers, especially those who have been to war, want war... 

Exactly.

Now let this monstrosity of a thread die!
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: eukreign on September 26, 2005, 11:14:21 AM
(http://www.firekite.com/store/misc/pics/forum9/Jesus%20thread%20sucks.gif)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 26, 2005, 11:35:34 AM
Complain if you like but the fact is this thread is the most popular thread in existance on this board.  It must have something going for it.  I even neglected it for quite a while but others continued to post here.  I think "IT'S ALIVE !!"
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: eukreign on September 26, 2005, 11:52:41 AM
Complain if you like but the fact is this thread is the most popular thread in existance on this board.  It must have something going for it.  I even neglected it for quite a while but others continued to post here.  I think "IT'S ALIVE !!"

There is absolutely nothing ALIVE about a dead horse. So stop beating it!
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: Puke on September 26, 2005, 12:03:28 PM
(http://imghost.eatshirt.com/puke/BookPile.jpg)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 26, 2005, 03:25:09 PM
If it's dead, why does it keep barking?? :lol:
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: l_ron_hubbard on September 26, 2005, 03:30:09 PM
it's moaning during it's slow painful death
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 26, 2005, 11:02:42 PM
Look !   Methinks a wink I see...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ladyattis on September 26, 2005, 11:36:17 PM
(http://www.ownedforums.com/pics/albums/Forum%20Funnies/die_punk.jpg) :shock: :shock: :shock:
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: bonerjoe on September 26, 2005, 11:42:51 PM
X'ed!
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 27, 2005, 08:04:35 AM
The only way to stop getting up dates on this thread is to delet everone of your posts.  That will be quite some work for some people others not so much.  I avoided this thread like the pleague until I realized how to stop up dates from cloging up my show new replys.  So I will be deleting this message after a couple of days.

Useful information that ...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 27, 2005, 09:36:50 AM
You know Christian Anarchist you could just save people the trouble and do a remove topic.  Do like the government and rename it and repost  but you didn't hear that from me wink wink knuge knuge.

What?  And destroy my legacy??  ARE YOU CRAZY MAN !!  (head swells to gigantic proportions)  THIS IS THE GREATEST THREAD IN ALL THE WORLD...  Ahem... excuse me... I'm alright now.  I was gone for awhile but I'm back now...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 27, 2005, 10:51:17 AM
Huh?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: Tommy on September 27, 2005, 11:31:46 AM
Hey CA, where did libertylover go?  The posts were there a while ago and now - gone.  It kinda messes up the thread when there are pieces missing.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: eukreign on September 27, 2005, 12:27:49 PM
I was considering doing the same, deleting all my posts in this thread, but that means my posts count will go down :-(  Lucky for you, Christian Anarchist, I'm too damn lazy...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: Puke on September 28, 2005, 01:59:31 AM
This thread needs to DIE!  :x
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 28, 2005, 08:17:47 AM
This thread needs to DIE!  :x

Well nobody posted here for the last day until you did ...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: Grey on September 28, 2005, 12:19:27 PM
that reminds me, I should go keep the "have alex jones on the show" thread alive... :D
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 28, 2005, 12:49:46 PM
Please guys, stop posting here.  If you get the posts over 700 we will be into page 48.  As you know, 48 is satan's secret number (after 666) and I really don't want my thread corrupted in that way.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: Grey on September 28, 2005, 12:51:48 PM

...now you wouldn't just be being facetious there, Gene?

or is there a story behind that?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 28, 2005, 12:56:29 PM
Stop! Stop it I say!   PLEASE !!
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: Grey on September 28, 2005, 12:59:27 PM
nneevvvver!!!

 :D
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: MobileDigit on September 28, 2005, 03:32:43 PM
As you know, 48 is satan's secret number (after 666) and I really don't want my thread corrupted in that way.

616 is the accurate number, not 666.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: eukreign on September 28, 2005, 03:44:38 PM
Just doing my part to help reach 48.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: MobileDigit on September 28, 2005, 03:51:01 PM
Down with statism!
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: eukreign on September 28, 2005, 03:57:42 PM
Down with wealth distribution!
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: bonerjoe on September 28, 2005, 04:07:51 PM
Re-distribution.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: eukreign on September 28, 2005, 04:22:22 PM
Next poster is Satan himself.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 28, 2005, 05:17:02 PM
Who me??  I don't think so...   AAAKKKK !!! This post made 48 !!!  Woe is me...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: bonerjoe on September 28, 2005, 08:24:37 PM
I like burritos.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: Russ84 on September 28, 2005, 08:53:59 PM
Can you feel the power of the cross?

(http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b186/Russ84/R-HealPost.jpg)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: bonerjoe on September 28, 2005, 09:46:46 PM
That's what I want to do to myself when I'm in church.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: Grey on September 28, 2005, 11:55:58 PM
That's what I want to do to myself when I'm in church.

I recommend you stop going to a church that worships teabaggin and fat chicks.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 29, 2005, 08:01:44 AM
Jesus STILL loves you guys...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: Russ84 on September 30, 2005, 09:20:01 PM
Jesus STILL loves you guys...

Moses loves you as well. http://www.bodybuilderstellensichvor.de/Moses%20Ajala/mosesajala.html


Hellloo ladies!  :P
(http://www.bodybuilderstellensichvor.de/Moses%20Ajala/Moses%20%20Ajala%2029.jpg)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: bonerjoe on September 30, 2005, 09:32:51 PM
Small johnson?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: Puke on September 30, 2005, 09:36:23 PM
It's a piece of bread stuffed in there.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: Russ84 on September 30, 2005, 09:41:03 PM
The question is... Does George Bush like him?   :? Hmmm...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 30, 2005, 10:08:36 PM
Thank you so much...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: Russ84 on September 30, 2005, 10:10:23 PM
Thank you so much...

By the way, funny call tonight.  :lol:
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: Puke on September 30, 2005, 10:18:10 PM
Bump.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 30, 2005, 11:15:40 PM
Thank you so much...

By the way, funny call tonight.  :lol:

Funny?  You call that funny?  I meant every word.  I've turned over a new leaf and learned the evil of my ways.  I was wrong about questioning authority.  I must comply with all the edicts of our earthly government.  After all, if it wasn't for them, we'd be living in absolute chaos.  They are the only things keeping us a little safe.  I really do feel they are doing a pretty good job.  After all, we haven't had any plans hijacked for 4 years now.  They are really doing a number on those nasty terrorists who want to take away everything we have and make slaves of us.  I really wouldn't like that at all.  I will help them in any way to strengthen the US presence in the world.  In fact, I think that many of you on this board are bordering on treason.  It is my duty to report any suspects to them.  Would you mind posting your name and address for me?  I really think it's best if you cooperate...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: eukreign on October 01, 2005, 10:01:11 AM
I was wrong about questioning authority.

Hey dumbass, why does it still say "Question Authority" under your avatar?

Also, does this mean you will finally stop preaching your Jebus crap on these forums and go away?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: bonerjoe on October 01, 2005, 10:54:41 AM
Sarcasm detection is a blessed gift.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on October 01, 2005, 03:58:13 PM
I was wrong about questioning authority.

Hey dumbass, why does it still say "Question Authority" under your avatar?

Also, does this mean you will finally stop preaching your Jebus crap on these forums and go away?

Gotcha...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on October 21, 2005, 05:00:07 PM
Well, it looks like your new policy resulted in the deletion of BJ's nasty pictures in this thread so I guess you could remove the NSFW in the title.  Also, it knocked down the total number of posts !!  :(

Afterall, I have a record to maintain here...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on November 29, 2005, 09:19:39 PM
Howcome the NSFW hasn't been taken off this thread title?  Pretty please with sugar on top??
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ladyattis on November 29, 2005, 09:23:45 PM
<arnie-voice>Fuck you, asshole.</arnie-voice>

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on November 29, 2005, 10:41:35 PM
I should have known the loud-mouthed know-it-all confused idiot would butt in where he wasn't needed (which is everywhere)...

I'm forever grateful that Ian in his youthful wisdom decided to add the much appreciated "ignore" button.  Life is much more peaceful this way.  Hey Ian, any chance you can patent such a device for real-life situations???

It would still be nice to have the NSFW removed from this topic...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: bonerjoe on November 29, 2005, 11:54:03 PM
Chinks suck. And so do Xians.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on November 30, 2005, 01:08:46 AM
And another who should be on the ignore list as there is nothing that comes out of his mouth worth listening to.  A true dog turned to his own vomit...

I really would like the NSFW removed from the title ...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: bonerjoe on November 30, 2005, 10:14:32 AM
Is that the best Jesus face you can muster?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: Tommy on December 01, 2005, 11:46:00 AM
This joe seems like one sad individual.  Can't make any comment of any importance.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on December 03, 2005, 11:27:51 AM
Moderator please remove the NSFW in this subject.  The new policy seems to have cleaned it up.

Thanks
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on December 07, 2005, 08:33:54 PM
Requesting again to have the NSFW removed from this thread.  Can some moderator please respond?

Thanks
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: bonerjoe on December 07, 2005, 08:49:59 PM
Maybe if he thought it was the only sensible answer...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on December 07, 2005, 09:31:02 PM
Thanks for not posting your usual useless offensive stuff (I know I just opened myself up to your usual useless offensive stuff didn't I?)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: bonerjoe on December 07, 2005, 09:44:32 PM
Nobody can ignore me!
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
Post by: TN_FSP on December 08, 2005, 01:03:33 AM
Moderator please remove the NSFW in this subject.  The new policy seems to have cleaned it up.

Thanks

You need to PM Lindsey.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on March 02, 2006, 12:40:52 AM
O.K. time to revive my favorite thread.  It is timely as with my new "Christian Anarchist" church, I will be able to add more regarding my beliefs and what will be the doctrine of this new church.

For all you who are new to this board, please review the first few posts in this thread for review of the topic. 

In addition to what has been posted there, I would be teaching non-violence with the exception of self-defense, love toward all mankind as all are God's children (even the prodigal ones like Ian).  Of course there is the universal salvation message and an active denial of any "government" authority.  If any want to pick any of these to discuss, I will follow through tomorrow.

Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on March 05, 2006, 04:13:10 PM
Of intrest is a conversation with an old (68 yrs) guy I had a talk with today.  He has no internet exposure and yet even he thinks - a. the government is not to be trusted, and b. that maybe there weren't 19 hyjackers who flew planes into buildings.  In fact, he thinks the government may even be the one behind it.  All this and he gets none of his ideas from the internet...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on March 08, 2006, 04:28:17 PM
I've put together some links for discussion on the topics of Universal Salvation and Christian Anarchy for your consideration...

http://www.gospelfortoday.org/
http://www.jesusradicals.com/library/ellul/anarchy/anarchy.pdf
http://www.kingdomnow.org/w-inyou02.html

Shows that I am not the only Christian who feels the way I do regarding the state and God's gift to mankind...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Werzmiester on March 08, 2006, 10:35:08 PM
I've put together some links for discussion on the topics of Universal Salvation and Christian Anarchy for your consideration...

http://www.gospelfortoday.org/
http://www.jesusradicals.com/library/ellul/anarchy/anarchy.pdf
http://www.kingdomnow.org/w-inyou02.html

Shows that I am not the only Christian who feels the way I do regarding the state and God's gift to mankind...

Religion is just another way to put us into groups and turn us against each other and take the focus off of liberty and our rights! "A" group attack "B" group and so on..It's a god damn conspiracy :D..Dont you know the biggest conspiracy is the bible! People bitch about how bad man is but then we go by what man wrote. :shock:. Fucking hypocrites all of ya!! So Lindsey please delete this entire thread thanks sweetcheeks!
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on March 09, 2006, 08:14:29 AM
So Lindsey please delete this entire thread thanks sweetcheeks!

Hey, how about we just delete the entire board?  Maybe we should delete the entire internet?  Maybe we should sew everyone's mouth shut so they can't speak?  How about we just put certain people we don't want to hear into "camps"??

The "violence" you speak of is emenating from you, not me.

P.S. your tagline is that you want to talk to the "freetalkers".  Apparently that means only the "freetalkers" which are "freely" talking about the subjects you approve of...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: charlieo on March 09, 2006, 07:20:53 PM
I applaud you, CA. Despite being an adamant atheist, I am impressed by the consistency and strength of your arguments.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on March 09, 2006, 10:06:55 PM
Thank you.  I try to combine logic and faith.  Some people would say these are mutually exclusive, but I feel they can be "one".  I see the majesty of our universe and I look to Him who created it.  I see the complexity of the honey bee and the pollenization of plants and many other complex interactions in nature and I see the hand of the Creator.  It seems very logical to me...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Werzmiester on March 09, 2006, 11:23:20 PM
So Lindsey please delete this entire thread thanks sweetcheeks!

Hey, how about we just delete the entire board?  Maybe we should delete the entire internet?  Maybe we should sew everyone's mouth shut so they can't speak?  How about we just put certain people we don't want to hear into "camps"??

The "violence" you speak of is emenating from you, not me.

P.S. your tagline is that you want to talk to the "freetalkers".  Apparently that means only the "freetalkers" which are "freely" talking about the subjects you approve of...

Sure why not!  All of the above sound fine to me!
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on March 10, 2006, 11:48:42 PM
So Lindsey please delete this entire thread thanks sweetcheeks!

Hey, how about we just delete the entire board?  Maybe we should delete the entire internet?  Maybe we should sew everyone's mouth shut so they can't speak?  How about we just put certain people we don't want to hear into "camps"??

The "violence" you speak of is emenating from you, not me.

P.S. your tagline is that you want to talk to the "freetalkers".  Apparently that means only the "freetalkers" which are "freely" talking about the subjects you approve of...

Sure why not!  All of the above sound fine to me!

You could volunteer to be the first account deleted...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Werzmiester on March 14, 2006, 03:32:40 PM
So Lindsey please delete this entire thread thanks sweetcheeks!

Hey, how about we just delete the entire board?  Maybe we should delete the entire internet?  Maybe we should sew everyone's mouth shut so they can't speak?  How about we just put certain people we don't want to hear into "camps"??

The "violence" you speak of is emenating from you, not me.

P.S. your tagline is that you want to talk to the "freetalkers".  Apparently that means only the "freetalkers" which are "freely" talking about the subjects you approve of...

Sure why not!  All of the above sound fine to me!

You could volunteer to be the first account deleted...

You the man!
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Werzmiester on March 15, 2006, 02:15:51 AM
Just giving you a hard time man! Sorry I'll stop!
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on March 16, 2006, 07:47:15 PM
Just giving you a hard time man! Sorry I'll stop!
[/quote

That's Ok.  I'm a big boy - I can take it.  You should scan back through this thread to see whati've survived so far.  By the way, have I mentioned that this thread stands as the most actively posted thread on this board??
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: CivilianJones on March 16, 2006, 09:29:14 PM
Darn, I left my "The God Who Wasn't There" dvd in Oregon (charlieo, you should borrow it from my brother and watch the extra interviews- there are some really interesting things.  You didn't watch the extended interviews, did you? I don't know if they included those in the internet peer-to-peer version :P ).  Though I guess that this isn't really a christian versus atheist issue. Well, sort of.

I've only read the first page and the last page (page 50), and I'm fine with anarchy, but I don't think that Christian Anarchy is the only "sensible" answer.  (And the name of the title, "Christian anarchy is the only sensible answer" gives the impression that you would force everyone to convert to christianity.)

I'm sort of confused what you're trying to say- but essentially you're for anarchy (yay), but you think the only way that anarchy can make sense is with a Christian point-of-view.  As a Christian anarchist, what would you do about a community of atheist anarchists?  I suppose you would just say "Those atheists anarchists make no sense, and aren't sensible!"  As long as you just say that, that's fine.  But there are other theories that would give anarchism sensibility.

For Example, the Flying Spaghetti Monster Anarchism makes more sense than Christian Anarchy! (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=5699.msg95131#msg95131)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: charlieo on March 17, 2006, 03:01:09 AM
I agree, I don't know if Christian Anarchy > Anarchy, but I do know Anarchy is good.

I recommend "The God Who Wasn't There" for everybody, it's very enlightening. I watched the P2P version, but apparently my neighbor now has the DVD version!  :D

I just linked your topic to this one CJ/Peter, I saw a few similarities
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: CivilianJones on March 17, 2006, 08:16:59 PM
haha, yes, a few similarities.  Really more coincedental than anything :P  My bro might not know where the DVD is (it's in a black cd case, that might be near my comp desk or on my chest of drawers... just bother my bro about it, mi casa es su casa).

The best part of the extended interviews is when "the Infidel Guy" talks about how our universe was maximized for black hole production, and life just happened to be created as a side effect of having those universal physical constants.  (These constants are things like the power of gravity, strong/weak nuclear force, etc).  So really, if there is a God, he made the universe to make black holes, and that would make him neutral and apathetic about the human condition.  If asked by reporters, I would imagine a response like "Life??  Fuck, I just made this universe for black holes.  I love golfing."
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on March 18, 2006, 01:05:54 AM
I've only read the first page and the last page (page 50), and I'm fine with anarchy, but I don't think that Christian Anarchy is the only "sensible" answer.  (And the name of the title, "Christian anarchy is the only sensible answer" gives the impression that you would force everyone to convert to christianity.)

I'm sort of confused what you're trying to say- but essentially you're for anarchy (yay), but you think the only way that anarchy can make sense is with a Christian point-of-view.  As a Christian anarchist, what would you do about a community of atheist anarchists?  I suppose you would just say "Those atheists anarchists make no sense, and aren't sensible!"  As long as you just say that, that's fine.  But there are other theories that would give anarchism sensibility.


No, I wouldn't force anyone to believe in God.  I would try to convince all that the most logical position is to believe in the one who created all that we see.  The illogical position is that this creation just became out of nothingness one fine day because the void got tired of being void (or whatever the current "scientific" thinking is as to "why" the nothingness became somethingness).  Of course you then have to deal with the obligatory question of "who created God?"  but I deal with that by presuming that God as an eternal being exists outside of the constraints of time (one of His creations) and therefore even the definintion "eternal" means nothing to a being who exists outside of that realm.  It's a difficult concept but one that puts it in perspective.  I call this the law of creation.  "That which is created is subject to it's creator".  Never can a "creator" be subject to it's "creation". 
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: CivilianJones on March 18, 2006, 01:33:37 AM
Well, if you're going to argue creation with me, I have no problem believing that a God or higher power made this universe.  The creation was so long ago, and our details are fuzzy about it back then.  I don't see any particularly compelling evidence either way (but as you pointed out, who did create God or this higher power?  A good question, if you're trying to work with the a-higher-power-created-us" theory.)

However, just because a higher power created this universe doesn't mean that the higer power cares about us at all.  What makes us think that this higher power would care about us?  What are it's motives for making a universe?  What is the evidence that the higher power wants to tamper with us?  Humans (all of you meatbags! :P) are obsessed with this idea that God is so focused on humans, and that their God created them in their image, etc etc.  And that's just foolish and egoists when they think that.  They're full of themselves, really.

And, it's interesting to look at the physical constants of this universe- this universe's physical constants were maximized for creating black hole.  So really, if we think about it, God created this universe for black holes, and for looking at black holes- something to do with black holes (and a universe with the constants to create black holes happens to create life every now and then).  If God cares about anything in this universe, it's black holes- God would be NEUTRAL to humans.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on March 18, 2006, 01:45:37 AM
I'm assuming you are rather young and so it would explain your dependence on science's interpretation of the relationship between the universe and black holes.  It really means nothing as science will, no doubt, change it's understanding of black holes in the future to possiblly repudiate everything they now claim is true about black holes.  Doubt me?  Just look back on what science said 20 or 30 years ago.  Look at that Hawkings said about the big bang.  He was the one to propose the theory and quite some time later he led the pack to disclaim same.  You think science has the answers to the universe but come back in 20 or 30 years and tell me that science still promotes the same theories. 

As far as what you say about Christians having many human flaws and using their "religion" to control people, that's certainly true.  The fact that "people" who believe in the "real true creator" do things that are not good, has nothing to do with whether this "creator" exists nor does it have anything to do with the nature of this creator...

As an anarchist, I do not recognize any authority of any "church" over me any more than I recognize the "authority" of any fictional entity such as a "government".  I do recognize that our Creator, by nature of his position as our creator, has ALL authority over us, whether we individually recognize it or not...  Certainly He does not need for us to believe in Him in order for Him to exist.
Title: You're basically taking a shit on humanity and human greatness.
Post by: CivilianJones on March 18, 2006, 02:14:28 AM
Yes, I may be young (19) but don't just blame my youth.  I do understand that science moves on, and that that's the key to science.  Yeah, my "this universe has been maximized for black hole creation" factoid may be thrown out down the road, and assuming that the fact is thrown out the window scientifically, I'm fine with that.  The point about science is that despite the faults, we're moving closer to the truth. Nevertheless, the scientific theories we have right now are better than anything religion can field.

Quote
As far as what you say about Christians having many human flaws and using their "religion" to control people, that's certainly true.  The fact that "people" who believe in the "real true creator" do things that are not good, has nothing to do with whether this "creator" exists nor does it have anything to do with the nature of this creator...
Sure it does.  If people who believe in a creator-A are more often bigoted and violent than people who don't believe in that creator-A, then ones has to assume that either: The type of Creator that Creator-A is attracts the bigoted and violent, and these bigoted and violent people must somehow identify with this creator.

Quote
As an anarchist, I do not recognize any authority of any "church" over me any more than I recognize the "authority" of any fictional entity such as a "government".  I do recognize that our Creator, by nature of his position as our creator, has ALL authority over us, whether we individually recognize it or not...  Certainly He does not need for us to believe in Him in order for Him to exist.
Then I ask you, what kind of authority does this creator have over us?  I suppose this is a "you go to St. Pete's gates and are judged as being good or evil" and whatnot?  What kind of juding does he do?

Because here's the deal.  If God lets you into heaven on the conditions that you are good and believe in him (and will put you in purgatory or hell if you are evil or a disbeliever) than THAT is a god I don't want to believe in.  The basis of believing in him is not a valid way to judge people.  If God truly wanted us to believe in him, he wouldn't make the incentive for us to do so be at the end of our life, when we can't tell anyone else about it or change our actions- he would make those incentives be DURING our life, hopefully in the early part of our life.  If god is all powerful and all knowning, it would be rediculously easy for him to cause miracles to make people believe in him.  The fact that he doesn't is good evidence that god is neutral towards us, or doesn't care whether we believe in him or not.

Now that we got that out of the way, let's look at the possiblity that God doesn't care whether we believe in him or not, just if we're good or evil.  I'm a good person, I believe I do good things and from the actions I've done I get good reactions from other people, and very rarely get bad reactions.  I'm a good person.  So I would go to heaven, no matter whether I believe in him or not.  And since believing in him ties in alot of crappy questions and unneccessary baggage to one's life, (and people who believe in a higher power are more prone to violence and bigotry when they join in their zealot packs or in solo actions) it's simplier and morally stronger to disbelieve in him.

And here's another thing.  If God's definition of "evil" includes things that are unreasonable, something like your color of skin, your sexual orientation, your eye color, how many prayers you do a day, what your background is, if you're a prostitute, etc then even if I'm a good person, you can fucking send me to hell, because I don't want to be in heaven with a God that's bigoted.

But, in the unlikeliness that your version of Christianity is impure of bigotry and violence, and that your version has a God that doesn't require you to believe in him to go to heaven, then why are you bothering us with all this "christian-anarchy is the only sensible answer" shit?  The objective should be to encourage people to be good, not to encourage people to believe in christianity, because leading people to christianity as a means of pointing them towards good has a chance of leading them into a life of bigotry and violence.  Every person you convince to live a "good" life, you have a 100% success rate, but for every person you convert to christianity you will get <100% people coming out "good" and tolerant and believing.

Oh, and also explaining anarchism to people to get them to support anarchy seems like it would be MUCH more successful than converting people to christianity so they can be anarchists.  And as far as bringing Christianity to anarchists so they aren't confused with their life... you must be stupid then.  There are plenty of ways (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=5699.0) to make anarchism to make sense without Christianity.
(and make sure you notice that "plenty of ways" is not just underlined, it's hyperlinked!)

CHRISTIANITY DOES NOT HAVE A MONOPOLY
ON MAKING SENSE FOR ANARCHISM!

If you don't acknowledge that, then you are severly underestimating human creativity, human flexiblity, human adaptability. 
You're basically taking a shit on humanity and human greatness.  I take it as an insult, because I am pro-human, not pro-"thing-I-have-never-seen-evidence-for".
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Puke on March 18, 2006, 02:31:44 AM
I hate this thread...

...so very much!
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on March 18, 2006, 05:11:40 PM
I hate this thread...

...so very much!

Simple solution - don't read it...

Oh, by the way, have I mentioned that this is the most active thread ever on this board??
Title: Re: You're basically taking a shit on humanity and human greatness.
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on March 18, 2006, 05:24:14 PM
Yes, I may be young (19) but don't just blame my youth.  I do understand that science moves on, and that that's the key to science.  Yeah, my "this universe has been maximized for black hole creation" factoid may be thrown out down the road, and assuming that the fact is thrown out the window scientifically, I'm fine with that.  The point about science is that despite the faults, we're moving closer to the truth. Nevertheless, the scientific theories we have right now are better than anything religion can field.

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it.

Quote
Quote
As far as what you say about Christians having many human flaws and using their "religion" to control people, that's certainly true.  The fact that "people" who believe in the "real true creator" do things that are not good, has nothing to do with whether this "creator" exists nor does it have anything to do with the nature of this creator...
Sure it does.  If people who...

No, it doesn't.  You seem to have missed the point.  IF YOU ARE WRONG and God DOES exist, He is not defined nor restricted by what us puny humans think about Him.  What "people" DO in the name of God doesn't make any difference.  "People" do not define God, God defines people.  If "people" do terrible things in God's name, you can't blame God for it.

Quote

Quote
As an anarchist, I do not recognize any authority of any "church" over me any more than I recognize the "authority" of any fictional entity such as a "government".  I do recognize that our Creator, by nature of his position as our creator, has ALL authority over us, whether we individually recognize it or not...  Certainly He does not need for us to believe in Him in order for Him to exist.
Then I ask you, what kind of authority does this creator have over us?  I suppose this is a "you go to St. Pete's gates and are judged as being good or evil" and whatnot?  What kind of juding does he do?

Look, all of your concerns have been addressed in this post already.  In short, anarchy is the reality.  Even here in the good old fiction USA, we live under anarchy.  The "people" who believe in this fiction USA do not follow laws other than what suits them.  THAT is anarchy...  I have explained that my politics are anarchist.  My belief in God defines how I try to live my life.  The political "reality" of anarchy combined with a faith in God makes for the most sensible answer to life.

Quote

CHRISTIANITY DOES NOT HAVE A MONOPOLY
ON MAKING SENSE FOR ANARCHISM!

If you don't acknowledge that, then you are severly underestimating human creativity, human flexiblity, human adaptability. 
You're basically taking a shit on humanity and human greatness.  I take it as an insult, because I am pro-human, not pro-"thing-I-have-never-seen-evidence-for".

In anarchy, all are to live as they see fit...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on March 18, 2006, 11:17:53 PM
Hey Puke, I really like that thing you are using for your avatar.  Do you have a link to a larger version??
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on March 23, 2006, 11:27:38 PM
O.K.  I need to address something I heard on today's show which I have talked about in the past, but it needs to be stressed.  Ian and Manwich were talking about how the "government" did things (like kill people).  Everyone HAS to understand that "government" can not DO anything.  It is a fiction.  There are PEOPLE who do things in the name of this fictious "government" because they BELIEVE in the fiction.  The same is true of "the Church".  People are always going on about how "the Church" has killed people or started wars.  Again, it's PEOPLE who BELIEVE in "the Church" who do the killing.  "The Church" is a fiction.  PEOPLE are always the root problem.  After WWII, certain PEOPLE were convicted of "war crimes" because they BELIEVED in the fiction Nazi regime and thought that they had some magical AUTHORITY to kill people.  They found out that they were ultimately the only ones responsible for their actions.

Recap - PEOPLE = real, GOVERNMENT = fiction...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on March 24, 2006, 12:27:43 AM
God = Fiction, therefore CA is a fuckwit nutter!

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: CivilianJones on March 24, 2006, 10:15:39 AM
This thread is fiction...
I've just witnessed who Christian Anarchist keeps this thread going- whenever the discussion stops, he waits a week and then posts something in it again.  What sillyness.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on March 24, 2006, 01:41:42 PM
Actually, the "fiction" is based in "law".  If you check a "law" book, you will find an entry under "legal fiction".  All corporations, countries, states, trusts, etc. fall in this category.  Even non-encorporated entities such as a neigborhood "club" or other non-formal entity is in this class. 

Yes, I do try to keep this thread going because I believe the message is important.

P.S.  If you don't like this thread, you're welcome to leave... but thanks anyway for keeping the posts coming!
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on March 24, 2006, 05:46:49 PM
funny, I still see that man attis is as bitter and pathetic as ever.... w/ her childish and thoughtlessly lame peanut gallery remarks.

ah he still cracks me up though.  :D
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on March 24, 2006, 11:49:17 PM
funny, I still see that man attis is as bitter and pathetic as ever.... w/ her childish and thoughtlessly lame peanut gallery remarks.

ah he still cracks me up though.  :D

Good thing  I have him on ignore.  Don't have to listen to the constant drivel and snivel...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on March 25, 2006, 01:53:42 AM
heh yeah, I took him off a couple months back just to see if he was still as angry and bitter as ever.

(and that would be a resounding yes to both)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on March 25, 2006, 03:18:55 AM
funny, I still see that man attis is as bitter and pathetic as ever.... w/ her childish and thoughtlessly lame peanut gallery remarks.

ah he still cracks me up though.  :D

Umm, atleast I'm not the retarded transphobe as you are. Oh wait, you think everyone ought to be Catholic or die! I bet you love that line from Monty Python... "NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!" Atleast, I know that I am living for today and not some fairy land called Heaven. :lol:

Perhaps you can prove to me the existence of GAWD without faith or presuppositionalism.

-- Bridget wins again...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Bill Brasky on March 25, 2006, 04:19:46 AM
I like that line.

I also like the line about "Theres a mister Grim, and he's come about the reaping ?" 

"Do let him in." 

Hysterical.  Almost as funny as the twin peaks of Killimonjaro.  But, not nearly as funny as ignoring someones comments.  Allow me to illustrate my opinion in the form of a sockpuppet Shakespearian play. 

Sockpuppet #1:  "I like to talk, could we be friends ?"
Sockpuppet #2:  "Sure! "
Sockpuppet #3:  "Cowards die many times before their deaths. The valiant never taste of death but once."
Sockpuppet #1:  "What the fuck's your problem?"
Sockpuppet #2:  "This asshole is going on ignore!"
Sockpuppet #3:  "This above all: to thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man."
Sockpuppet #1:  "Shut up!  Shut up!  I cant hear you! LALALALA!"  (somehow, the sockpuppet has its fingers in its ears)
Sockpuppet #2:  "Maybe if I sucked your dick, it would distract you from hearing these things you dislike."
Sockpuppet #1:  "No, that won't work, but go ahead anyway.  I will simply click this button, and modify the information I find to be offensive."
Sockpuppet #2:  "To be wise and love exceeds man's might."
Sockpuppet #3:  "In time we hate that which we often fear"
Sockpuppet #1:  "Could you please shut the fuck up, I'm busy here."
Sockpuppet #3:  "Parting is such sweet sorrow." 
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on March 25, 2006, 09:43:26 AM
Didn't see the line...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Bill Brasky on March 25, 2006, 08:46:20 PM
See what happens when you ignore ?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on March 26, 2006, 09:24:44 AM
See what happens when you ignore ?

Believe me, it's worth it...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Caveman on March 26, 2006, 11:54:18 PM
I don't beleive god exists but as that realization slwoly manifested itself I saw that God had to be a Libertarian because basically he allows us to do whatever we want. However I then came to the realization that God has no authority over us even if he did exist.

Why? Because he does not create us, we are products from an act of sex (hopefully consensual  :P) thats it, there is no creation.

Furthermore God basically throws us onto the planet and says hey good luck figure everything out on your own. God leaves us orphaned and alone without any sense of direction. If you were left at an orphanage and lived tere your whole life but then suddenly your parents come and say hey you need to follow our rules now would you accept? Of course not, even if they were your parents they voided their parental rights by leaving you.

Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on March 27, 2006, 12:58:19 AM
I don't beleive god exists but as that realization slwoly manifested itself I saw that God had to be a Libertarian because basically he allows us to do whatever we want. However I then came to the realization that God has no authority over us even if he did exist.

Why? Because he does not create us, we are products from an act of sex (hopefully consensual  :P) thats it, there is no creation.

Furthermore God basically throws us onto the planet and says hey good luck figure everything out on your own. God leaves us orphaned and alone without any sense of direction. If you were left at an orphanage and lived tere your whole life but then suddenly your parents come and say hey you need to follow our rules now would you accept? Of course not, even if they were your parents they voided their parental rights by leaving you.


Hey, I used to live in Fairbanks.  Loved it there.

Anyway, the conception of life is a miracle that is not to be taken lightly.  God created the first beings and we are their children.  God created the universe we call home.  The universe is what convinces me there is a God, not what I hear from others.  The creation is testimony enough of the Creator.  These are clues to His existance and it is those clues that are to entice us to think about where it all came from.  He provides us with a fertile planet to live on.  Plenty of resourses and oportunities to experiment with and discover.  There are endless possibilities for your life.  You take the building blocks and make the best structure that you can.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Caveman on March 27, 2006, 03:11:43 AM

Hey, I used to live in Fairbanks.  Loved it there.


I live in Anchorage  8) much better place than Fairbanks which is only really nice in the summer. The winter is nasty there  :x

Anyway, the conception of life is a miracle that is not to be taken lightly. God created the first beings and we are their children. God created the universe we call home. The universe is what convinces me there is a God, not what I hear from others. The creation is testimony enough of the Creator. These are clues to His existance and it is those clues that are to entice us to think about where it all came from. He provides us with a fertile planet to live on. Plenty of resourses and oportunities to experiment with and discover. There are endless possibilities for your life. You take the building blocks and make the best structure that you can.

Ive heard the argument before that OHH look at this beautiful creation THERE MUST BE A GOD. Yeah to me its not very impressing I guess im just weird or something but how is this a proof of god when there are other alternatives that are just as likely.

If you don't listen to others opinions then whats that bible your toting?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on March 27, 2006, 10:01:08 AM
I rather like the winters in Fairbanks.  I find it amazing (cold) and beautiful (white).  I like the fact that they don't sand the roads but rather leave them with some packed snow which makes for fun driving.  Being able to drive down the river in your car is pretty cool.  Having a snowmobile in your yard and riding it into town to get groceries is unique.

As to the Bible that I use, I take much of it with a grain of salt.  My primary belief is based on what my heart tells me and the "testimony" I see in the creation.  I use the Bible as a historic document that is "inspired" by God but not "written" by Him.  There are many translations and all have some problems, I think.  To get the real meaning of what the writers had to say you would have to find an original language version that had not been tampered with (doesn't exist) and then learn that language as if it were your birth language.  I don't know of any way to do this...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: robbyweber82 on March 28, 2006, 09:33:18 AM
amish anarchy! Cuz unlike christians they still put others first.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on March 28, 2006, 09:42:09 AM
Aren't they professed "Christians"?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Caveman on March 28, 2006, 10:49:51 AM
I rather like the winters in Fairbanks.  I find it amazing (cold) and beautiful (white).  I like the fact that they don't sand the roads but rather leave them with some packed snow which makes for fun driving.  Being able to drive down the river in your car is pretty cool.  Having a snowmobile in your yard and riding it into town to get groceries is unique.

As to the Bible that I use, I take much of it with a grain of salt.  My primary belief is based on what my heart tells me and the "testimony" I see in the creation.  I use the Bible as a historic document that is "inspired" by God but not "written" by Him.  There are many translations and all have some problems, I think.  To get the real meaning of what the writers had to say you would have to find an original language version that had not been tampered with (doesn't exist) and then learn that language as if it were your birth language.  I don't know of any way to do this...


?what? If you don't truly believe the bible is the inspired word of God then hwo can you call yourself a christian. Without the bible there is no Jesus.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Evil Muppet on March 28, 2006, 11:27:21 AM
I was up in Ketchican a two years ago working on one of those roads to nowhere.  It was February and the weather was nicer there than in Iowa.  Go figure.  When I heard about that bridge from the town to the airport it blew my mind.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on March 28, 2006, 12:18:53 PM

?what? If you don't truly believe the bible is the inspired word of God then hwo can you call yourself a christian. Without the bible there is no Jesus.


I believe that the bible is "inspired", but believe it is to be acknowledged for what it is.  A collection of writings written in other languages, perhaps changed in the course of history and certainly there's things "lost in translation". 

Besides, there's no requirement to believe in "The Bible" to be a Christian or else those Christians in the first century could not claim to be Christians as there was no "New Testiment" bible back then.  There was the "Old Testiment" in the Hebrew language however...

Belief in Christ as saviour is all that I believe is required to be a "Christian"...  Feel free to differ with me...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Caveman on March 28, 2006, 07:19:54 PM
It just seems odd because without the bible you wouldn't know about Jesus. So to reject the bible seems to me to be rejecting Jesus.

And yes things are nice up here during the summer Alaska has wonderful weather.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on March 28, 2006, 11:13:22 PM
It just seems odd because without the bible you wouldn't know about Jesus. So to reject the bible seems to me to be rejecting Jesus.

And yes things are nice up here during the summer Alaska has wonderful weather.

It seems odd, but there are other sources of info.  There's the historical record of "historians" who have mentioned Jesus.  There's oral tradition which is not used as much these days but some were recorded centuries ago.  I also believe in trusting your heart.  I do believe that our spirit tunes in to God.  Things just "click" better when heading the right direction.  Kinda like a spiritual "radar"...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: eukreign on March 29, 2006, 05:32:49 PM
God-dar  :shock:
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on March 29, 2006, 09:48:49 PM
Welcome back...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: eukreign on March 29, 2006, 09:55:25 PM
Welcome back...

I was never gone.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 02, 2006, 05:33:02 PM
I found this article which puts the argument for "Universal Salvation" on the table.  This is what I believe and thought I would post it here for discussion.  Any takers ??

http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Bibleproofs2.html
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Ekul on April 02, 2006, 06:13:43 PM


As to the Bible that I use, I take much of it with a grain of salt.  My primary belief is based on what my heart tells me and the "testimony" I see in the creation.  I use the Bible as a historic document that is "inspired" by God but not "written" by Him.  There are many translations and all have some problems, I think.  To get the real meaning of what the writers had to say you would have to find an original language version that had not been tampered with (doesn't exist) and then learn that language as if it were your birth language.  I don't know of any way to do this...


Frankly, I don't see how you can be selective about what you believe in the Bible.  It's either a take it or leave it thing.  A man dying on the cross, travelling to hell, rising from the dead three days later, and then pushing aside a  five ton stone is no less preposterous than the universe being created in 6 days.  In fact, if one thing is an outright fallacy in the book on which you base your entire life's philosophy, how can you be so sure that the rest isn't eqaully flawed? 

Also, I would love to believe that I will never grow old;  It makes my heart, or "spirit",  feel warm and fuzzy to believe that,  yet I know that this is obviously false, therefore discouncounting your spiritual-radar theory.   


Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: rabidfurby on April 02, 2006, 07:07:51 PM
I found this article which puts the argument for "Universal Salvation" on the table.  This is what I believe and thought I would post it here for discussion.  Any takers ??

http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Bibleproofs2.html

Honestly, I don't see the purpose in trying to use reason to persuade Christians about universal salvation - or anything else for that matter. Christianity, as well as all other religions, are purely based on faith. So why try to use reason, when any faith-based beliefs override reason?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 03, 2006, 12:03:31 AM


As to the Bible that I use, I take much of it with a grain of salt.  My primary belief is based on what my heart tells me and the "testimony" I see in the creation.  I use the Bible as a historic document that is "inspired" by God but not "written" by Him.  There are many translations and all have some problems, I think.  To get the real meaning of what the writers had to say you would have to find an original language version that had not been tampered with (doesn't exist) and then learn that language as if it were your birth language.  I don't know of any way to do this...


Frankly, I don't see how you can be selective about what you believe in the Bible.  It's either a take it or leave it thing.  A man dying on the cross, travelling to hell, rising from the dead three days later, and then pushing aside a  five ton stone is no less preposterous than the universe being created in 6 days.  In fact, if one thing is an outright fallacy in the book on which you base your entire life's philosophy, how can you be so sure that the rest isn't eqaully flawed? 

Also, I would love to believe that I will never grow old;  It makes my heart, or "spirit",  feel warm and fuzzy to believe that,  yet I know that this is obviously false, therefore discouncounting your spiritual-radar theory.   


Absoultely everyone is selective about what they believe about everything.  Some see lights in the sky and conclude that there are aliens.  They back it up by doing research that tends to support their conclusion.  They disbelieve any results that would show them wrong.  The same can be said about evolution, paranormal, big bang, cuibicism, and religion.  Some believe in a fiction called "government" with enough zeal that they donate their children to die on foreign soil and run colored cloth up a pole in their front yard and sing songs in priase of same...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Bill Brasky on April 03, 2006, 12:10:29 AM
Please don't lump evolution, the big bang, and paranormal into those other crazies.  There are legitimate scientists trying to prove those theories. 
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Tommy on April 03, 2006, 03:30:23 PM
Please don't lump evolution, the big bang, and paranormal into those other crazies.  There are legitimate scientists trying to prove those theories. 

They way i see it, the biggest "crazies" are the ones trying to "prove" evolution when they know there is no way to "prove" something that is supposed to occur over eons.  Those trying to "prove" paranormal existance are not quite as "crazy".
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 03, 2006, 04:26:26 PM
Please don't lump evolution, the big bang, and paranormal into those other crazies.  There are legitimate scientists trying to prove those theories. 

The "Big Bang" was originally proposed by Steven Hawkings.  After he had nearly all of the scientific community following that view, he changed his mind and proposed that there never was a "Big Bang".
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: rabidfurby on April 03, 2006, 05:23:41 PM
Please don't lump evolution, the big bang, and paranormal into those other crazies.  There are legitimate scientists trying to prove those theories. 

The "Big Bang" was originally proposed by Steven Hawkings.  After he had nearly all of the scientific community following that view, he changed his mind and proposed that there never was a "Big Bang".

This falls under the same category of "Darwin recanted evolution and/or converted to Christianity on his deathbed." (which even Christians recognize as untrue (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/darwin_recant.asp)). Even if it was true, though, why would it matter? Scientific ideas stand on their own. If Isaac Newton went crazy from lead poisoning and went around telling everyone he just made the theory of gravity up, it would not affect whether or not that theory is useful for modeling the universe one bit.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 03, 2006, 07:12:47 PM
Please don't lump evolution, the big bang, and paranormal into those other crazies.  There are legitimate scientists trying to prove those theories. 

The "Big Bang" was originally proposed by Steven Hawkings.  After he had nearly all of the scientific community following that view, he changed his mind and proposed that there never was a "Big Bang".

This falls under the same category of "Darwin recanted evolution and/or converted to Christianity on his deathbed." (which even Christians recognize as untrue (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/darwin_recant.asp)). Even if it was true, though, why would it matter? Scientific ideas stand on their own. If Isaac Newton went crazy from lead poisoning and went around telling everyone he just made the theory of gravity up, it would not affect whether or not that theory is useful for modeling the universe one bit.

It is presented to show that top men in their field have opposing views on the interpretation of data (in this case, he opposed himself).  This is not meant to be any kind of dig against Hawkings as I have read his stuff and like it.  I think he is a true genius (unlike some on this board who just imagine themselves to be so).
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Ekul on April 04, 2006, 12:01:23 AM
Quote
Absoultely everyone is selective about what they believe about everything.  Some see lights in the sky and conclude that there are aliens.  They back it up by doing research that tends to support their conclusion.  They disbelieve any results that would show them wrong.  The same can be said about evolution, paranormal, big bang, cuibicism, and religion.  Some believe in a fiction called "government" with enough zeal that they donate their children to die on foreign soil and run colored cloth up a pole in their front yard and sing songs in priase of same...

There is a large distinction between blind faith in the paranormal and acknowledgement of a theory made credible by falsifiable, empirical evidence.  Whereas you derive your core views on the world from a book filled with unverifiable stories that often violate common sense and basic observation, and which explicitly forbids you from questioning its legitimacy, I base mine on theories created using from objective observations  which I can test for myself.  Aside from the false sense of security and stability that one gets from religion, much like the feeling one gets when they when believe that a nonexistant government is protecting them, I see no advantage or benefit of holding a religious belief. 

I will admit that scientists can sometimes be unscrupulous and biased,  though the scientific community is usually quick to thwart these hoaxes even when it results in drastic cuts in funding, such as in the case of the Hwang Woo-Suk stem cell controversy. 

Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Flatty on April 04, 2006, 08:20:53 AM
So....Muslim anarchy is being demonstrated throughout the world
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 04, 2006, 10:23:20 AM

I base mine on theories created using from objective observations  which I can test for myself.


Well I've worked with the "scientific community" and I wonder just how many of these "objective observations" you have "tested" for yourself??  The work we did was in the observation of plasma generated by the largest "Z-pinch" machine operated by any university in the US (fiction) as well as magnetic field generation.  Lots of scientist working on the same data and guess what?  They had disagreements as to what they were observing.  The data was in itself variable between experiments so only an approximation could be used.  There is always discrepancy in results so the "theories" derived from data can be only a few percentage points from requiring a completely different conclusion. 

Now I don't try to pass myself off as some genius scientist because I'm not.  I was a grunt building the hardware and setting up diagnostics.  My "observations" are this:  Scientists, although well meaning in most cases, are people who (sometimes) stretch the truth, (sometimes) falsify data (it happened were I worked), and sometimes just misinterpret the data.  More often than not, they are puzzled by the data as it wasn't what they expected (therefore not according to their "theory").  Granted this is part of the "learning" curve, but they never stop "learning" and they constantly "revise" what they claim is the "truth".  Now after having a close relationship to some of these guys who are really smart guys (and I mean that), I have come to the conclusion that my faith is better placed in God...

Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 04, 2006, 07:26:47 PM
Lets see... this topic was started 236 days ago and presently there have been 795 posts and 5002 views for what has to be the most popular topic on this board.  That's 3.36 posts per day and 21.19 views per day. 

I have to say that I'm pleased to see that there is so much interest in this topic.  I hope the discussion has benefited some (although I know it has irked others - too bad).  I don't claim to have all wisdom or vision, but I do like sharing my views with this group.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 06, 2006, 01:15:14 PM
From http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Bibleproofs2.html#CF

GOD'S LOVE UNLIMITED.

He desires to save all.

For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3: 16. But God commends his love towards us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us Rom 5: 8. But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, has quickened us together with Christ, (by grace you are saved.) Eph. 2: 4,5. The Lord is good to all and his tender mercies are over all his works. Ps. 145: 9.

It matters not which view we take. No theory of the loss of a single soul can be adopted that does not drag to ruin one or more or the attributes of God. Does he not desire the welfare of that soul? Then he is deficient in goodness. Can he not plan its welfare? Then he is not infinitely wise. Can he not execute the plan he desires? His power is limited. To be infinite in all his attributes he must be so good as to desire, so wise as to plan, and so powerful as to execute the good of all. The God of Calvinism is strong but bad; the God of Arminianism is good but weak. The Christian God has the faults of neither and the merits of both.

If, therefore, we say that God will not and cannot, or can but will not, or will but cannot, save every human soul, we limit him in some direction, but if he will and can, then the result contemplated by the Universalist faith must be accomplished.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 10, 2006, 09:38:41 AM
Jesus the ultimate medicine.

God saw that His beloved creation man had been "infected" with a sickness.  This sickness was fatal and caused great misery.  Of course, this sickness is "sin".  There was only one way for God to help his beloved and that was to take this sickness on himself so that His beloved could be whole again.  Jesus was God in human form sent into this world (dimension) for that purpose.  He took all man's sins upon himself and shed his blood to gain victory over those sins.  He did not take some sins, He took them all.  All is forgiven.  The price has been paid.  The Medicine has defeated the sickness.  "For God so loved the world, He gave His only begotten son, that whosoever believeth on Him shall be saved". 

Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Tommy on April 13, 2006, 07:59:20 AM
I guess you could see it that way.  I never thought of it like that, but it could be the medicine for everyone.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on April 13, 2006, 10:19:57 AM
I still hate this thread.

WWFZD? ^__^

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 13, 2006, 11:35:32 AM
I'm sure Mr. Attis had nothing important or nice to say so please, keep up the posts anyway as it helps to keep this thread alive.  Perhaps a few insults and some vulgarity.  That will help me to continue to teach all the others who read this thread the TRUTH.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Rillion on April 13, 2006, 11:38:22 AM
Quote
That will help me to continue to teach all the others who read this thread the TRUTH.

It's a good principle to keep in mind throughout life that whenever somebody says they have "the TRUTH" and want to teach it to you, to be wary and keep a safe distance. 
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 13, 2006, 11:46:28 AM
805 posts 5102 views !!!  Wow, thanks guys...  This thread is setting new records every day.  It will go down in all history as the most viewed and posted thread in the entire universe.  It will fashion the way future generations think and act.  There will be huge monuments to this thread and people will come from all parts of the globe to admire the accomplishment.

And all you guys can say you were there and helped...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 13, 2006, 11:57:39 AM
Oh yeah, that's what you say now but what about in the future when future generations are living with "Christian Anarchist" key rings, coffee cups, teddy bears and tee shirts?  Then you will be able to proudly say that you were there in the beginning.  You will be able to bounce your great-grandchildren on you knees (if your arthritis isn't too bad) and tell them with nostalgic tears in your eyes about the "good 'ol days".  You'll see.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 13, 2006, 11:59:21 AM
Keep those cards and letters comming in folks!!
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 13, 2006, 12:00:17 PM
Where's the snappy comeback?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on April 13, 2006, 11:34:45 PM
haha. Right on man.

Good work on a job well done.

Hilarious, rancemuhamitz there seems concerned for your sanity.  See? I knew that even deep down your opponents cared.

Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on April 13, 2006, 11:38:19 PM
Where's the snappy comeback?

Jesus Juice only 9.95 at GheyMart!

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on April 13, 2006, 11:44:34 PM
I think she may have actually apologized for all her misgivings there, CA. hmmm...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 14, 2006, 01:35:19 AM
I'll have to take your word for it...

I always knew these guys would turn away from the dark side...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: mbd on April 14, 2006, 01:45:26 AM
The only problem with all this is:

Singularity God impossible.

http://www.timecube.com (http://www.timecube.com)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 14, 2006, 01:51:36 AM
Uh, sorry, wrong "Gene"...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: mbd on April 14, 2006, 09:55:20 AM
Maybe I should start a thread that's all about me. Ever think of simplifying your handle to Anarchrist?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Grey on April 14, 2006, 12:52:09 PM
The only problem with all this is:

Singularity God impossible.

http://www.timecube.com (http://www.timecube.com)

hey, I just got my daily dose of strawman attacks... weeee  :D
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 15, 2006, 12:01:26 AM
Maybe I should start a thread that's all about me. Ever think of simplifying your handle to Anarchrist?

You can if you wish.  This thread, however, is not about me but rather about what I believe about God and our relationship to him.  I have not written about my vast knowledge regarding the physical world (I know everything except 10 things) nor my experience in the workforce (having successfully completed 12 phd's and been head of surgery at John Hopkin's) nor my stint in the Air Force as a test pilot for the X-15 and beyond.  Then there's my involvement in the bay of pigs invasion and subsequent CIA service.  And these just scratch the surface.  If you want me to talk about me, I can easily fill many more pages and break off into 1000 different directions...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: mbd on April 15, 2006, 01:37:50 AM
Wow. I'm glad you didn't write all of that. And I want you to know I'm not tryin' to start somethin', cause Jesus is just alright with me. Oh yeah. Jesus is just alright.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Frog on April 15, 2006, 01:57:19 AM
Doobie brothers ?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: mbd on April 15, 2006, 02:00:08 AM
Yeah, cause they ain't seen a brown-skinned man since they grandparents bought one.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Frog on April 15, 2006, 02:26:17 AM
Doobie Brothers, I donno.  They must have had a black dude playing an insturment in the studio at some point or another.   Were they white supremicist?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 15, 2006, 11:10:17 PM
I've never heard that they were...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: mbd on April 15, 2006, 11:50:27 PM
Sorry, I went off topic. Since we were talking about song lyrics, I thought I would quote some from Frog's favorite band.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 16, 2006, 10:24:38 AM
To every season (turn, turn, turn) there is a reason (turn, turn, turn)
and a time to every purpose, under heaven...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: mbd on April 16, 2006, 03:20:19 PM
Go cat go!
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 17, 2006, 12:33:25 AM
Ever heard "Dominique" by The Singing Nun??  It's a little known one-hit-wonder from the 60's (yeah, I'm old...) but I really like it - even though it's in French and I can't understand it.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: mbd on April 17, 2006, 09:30:21 AM
She molested me :-(
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on April 17, 2006, 10:27:20 AM
Point to where on the doll that Jesus touched you... :lol:

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 18, 2006, 12:00:59 AM
Ever heard "Dominique" by The Singing Nun??  It's a little known one-hit-wonder from the 60's (yeah, I'm old...) but I really like it - even though it's in French and I can't understand it.